He creates “back door escape hatches” in his articles so when he’s wrong he can escape through them either by saying.. “Oh no no no no.. that’s not what I meant.” Or he speaks 1/2 truths on events trying to make a point while trashing someone else.

He leads his readers down a certain path…. comes to a fork in the road and is somewhat pointed in the path to the left and assume that must be the path that he is to take but Krugman doesn’t tell the reader everything so the reader follows along the path to the left. (but the ultimate truth is actually to the right) At that point it’s dishonest to say that it wasn’t His fault if the reader comes to a certain conclusion.

Case in point: Readers of Krugman’s “Free to Die” article led those who read the article to falsely assume Ron Paul, presidential candidate, answered “yes” to the hypothetical question of the 30 year old man with no health insurance should be allowed to die.

Krugman DID NOT and I repeat DID NOT tell his readers that Ron Paul said “NO!” HE LEFT IT OUT!!!!

Instead, he said that Audience members screamed “YES!”

What resulted from that Free to Die article that Krugman wrote? I bet you can imagine.

yep! Social Network sites went viral with this story and everyone BELIEVED that Ron Paul said that he would let the 30 year that had no insurance die. That’s what republicans are all about right?

Oh, like Krugman, I failed to mention that the 30 year old with no insurance (which everyone assumed was poor and couldn’t afford it right?) Actually had a good job with good pay but the dummy decided on his own that he didn’t want to get insurance. he could afford it but simply chose not to get it. HIS choice right? It’s a bad choice but it was his. That’s why Ron Paul was trying to say. It’s his choice not to buy the insurance but it shouldn’t be up to the government and it’s a false premise that the guy would die because there are hospitals that do help people who can’t afford to pay.

So Ron Paul’s actual answer was that NO, he would NOT let the 30 year old person die and he actually means this because he is an actual medical DR. who never turned anyone away when they couldn’t pay.

Here is a fantastic article that disects Paul Krugman’s Free to Die article and how he misleads readers to come to his conclusion while leaving out facts. It’s great. (much better job than I could ever do).

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/17/paul-krugman-vs-ron-paul-and-friedrich-hayek/

“Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened.”

In response, someone wrote on his blog:

“Let’s assume your retroactive explanation is accurate. Isn’t this an admission that the bubble was a creation of government ACTION, and not of government INACTION, and so “deregulation” isn’t to blame?”

But that’s only if you make the assumption that markets should never be regulated. Like anything else in life, regulation can be done badly and worsen the situation. For example, no one denies that errors in regulation made the Gulf Oil Spill more likely. They rewarded and punished the wrong behaviors. But this is no argument that regulation couldn’t have prevented the spill.

The best examples I know of for this are the two notorious nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It seems the best explanation of why the first was less serious was that the American nuclear industry was regulated while the Soviet one wasn’t, or barely.

The problem with Krugman’s mental model is that it does not take into account the after-effects of the stimulus. That was the case then; as it is the case now.

“The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan NEEDS TO CREATE A HOUSING BUBBLE to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”