Paul Krugman Is Nearly Always Wrong

Paul Krugman, number-one opinion page editorialist for the New York Times and professor of (macro) economics at NYU, is really nothing more than a limousine liberal, champagne hatchet man for the Clinton’s.

He should be seen for what he is, the most vocal supporter of Hillary for President. He goes out of his way in offending Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, calling both of them “delusional”.

Krugman has himself become very accomplished at one thing, namely: name-calling.

Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize in economic science in 2008 for his earlier work on trade theory. He actually served in a junior position briefly on the Reagan Council of Economic Advisors — something he often hides. Nowadays, he is a leftist puppet that no longer uses economic science, preferring instead, inflammatory rhetoric.

Krugman has been decidedly wrong about the 1990s where very little shared prosperity was generated. He has been wrong about supply side feedbacks and about the benefits of globalization (unless you believe in the elevation of China’s development).

He selectively chooses statistics (liars figure) instead of admitting that there has in fact been no boom for ordinary people. The numbers show that wages were flat in the 1990s for the bottom 90 percent of the US population and the whole thing died in 2001 in the dotcom crash, wiping out the supposed investment boom. I know too well, as I lost my shirt.

Those numbers have stagnated ever since or declined.

That’s Dr. K’s model: pontificate as a learned bearded economist, when in truth you are nothing more than a shrill whore for the liberal establishment.

His solution for every problem is the same, raise taxes and have the federal government borrow yet more debt. Twenty trillion is not enough for Paul, the ultimate proponent for spending our hard earned money on wasteful boondogles and giveaways.

So condescending, Krugman has become a snide polemist that has given up on reason and economic argument. He is not an academic who uses objective factuality any longer but instead, is these days, a know it all—who knows very little.

Please recall however during the 2008 campaign, that the same Dr. Krugman hit on then candidate Barrack Obama, calling him a “hero of venom and a “cult of personality.” He has seriously been the Clinton’s bagman of ideas — forever.

Krugman is primarily interested in only one cult, his own. His overt biases make him both academically questionable and scientifically discredited. He gave a lecture in Oxford last year on the condition that no one could challenge his positions. Really this is academe? What kind of academy does Krugman need where everyone pays obeisance? However, at FreedomFest when he debated Steve Moore (from the Wall Street Journal, for a boatload of money), he lost.

Krugman is nothing more than an establishment ventriloquist in a cushy leather academic library chair paid for by some innocent donor who has been robbed. He has never run anything, served in a corporation or managed a profit & loss statement effecting real employees or been judged by the bottom line.

Yet this windbag is given a perch weekly in a notable newspaper to knock Trump because he lacks “management skills. “ How would he know?

For Krugman success in business does not equal economic success.

Admittedly, “partisan “ Krugman makes the constant statement that Democrats perform better without looking at the full set of statistics that disprove his slanted judgment. Calling people ignorant blowhards “ is not the same as disproving their arguments or denying real facts.

Why do people like Krugman run down accomplished entrepreneurs like Trump, among others, who use the market and their considerable skills to extol not only the virtues of democratic capitalism but who demonstrate its beneficial effects on everyone in the value chain — from vendors and employees to communities and charities? The reason in a single word, actually a deadly vice, is: envy.

Krugman states this proposition: CEOs don’t know anything about running a national economy, which is nothing like running a business. “ Running the economy demands a macroeconomist, the likes of Krugman. Only such Keynesian wisdom and econometric modeling can comprehend the contours of this tangled global system. And they have done so well after all.

To quote Krugman, “The truth is that the idea that Donald Trump, of all people, knows how to run the US economy is ludicrous.” Well, the only thing more ludicrous is that Krugman and his crony capitalist Goldman Sachs pony, Hillary Clinton would be more qualified.

Krugman claims, as his book and column suggest, that he is, “the conscience of liberalism.” It might be better stated that he is the prophet of more and more government intervention and the precise reason that the Left is failing. He and his ilk are, to steal a now familiar phrase, the culprits for why America is crippled.

In my humble opinion, Professor Krugman should be stripped of his Nobel Prize (which comes from dirty money resulting from the less than noble Nobel family funds gained through the manufacture of gunpowder—hardly a liberal icon).

But we should give him a new Prize—The Clinton Prize — for crony and criminal capitalism.

This haut arrogant intellectual of modest origins, whose family escaped the pogroms of Belarus in the last century, has grossly misled the modern American public for decades. He is disconnected from the everyman. He has failed to tell the truth about his dogma of globalism. A thin-skinned Panglossian, he is the very source of American demise.

It’s time the New York crowd stopped giving him credit and instead called him what he is: Wrong.

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is a professor at Oxford University and has been a CEO, corporate board member and held an ambassadorial level position. His memoir is, DAVOS, ASPEN & YALE: My Life Behind the Elite Curtain as a Global Sherpa, 2016.


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.