Yes, but don't chase him away.

Jon's hostile relationship with facts always generates interesting threads.

Yeah but his heart is generally in the right place save the occasional attempted 'purges' of those who he considers traitors to the party. Just shows he can be as wrong on principle as he, very questionably, accuses Krugman of being on the facts.

But of course he means well...

How dare any criticize that pissy asshole who has been bashing Obama for two fucking years.

And not backing up everything with extensive footnotes? Well welcome to a fucking blog! It's not a scientific journal.

Fuck Paul Krugman. Nobel Prize? So did Henry Kissinger. Now BOTH are darlings of the rightwing. Congrats.

Well, it is worth to observe that so far, our recession is much milder than in Argentina. Most fundamental difference is that our capital market is so vast that you cannot have general flight of capital from USA. Our currency plunged, but it dod not collapse, and our loans are in our dollars.

As far as Obama critique is concerned, Obama looked more progressive on foreign policy (and now, well, one can say that the difference was more in presentation than in actual policy) and less on healthcare program, about which Krugman cares very deeply.

I am hard pressed to recall any possible talking point that Republicans could lift from Krugman.

His most recent critique of the plan to buy "toxic assets" from banks looked, in the substance, very similar to endorsements of the same plan (say, by Brad DeLong).

I can understand where you are coming from, but I can't really agree with you. On one hand, Taplin should have linked to one of the many krugman op-eds from '08 that showed his disdain for Obama as a candidate and as a liberal, especially compared to HRC. On the other hand, I think his point about Argentina didn't require additional facts or links. It was a simple statement that Argentina's recession and our recession are both very severe and that Krugman got that one wrong. We should be able to infer that point based on what Taplin wrote.

Also, we must remember that this was a blog post. It was a statement of opinion that started a conversation. Isn't that the beauty of this medium? If we email or chat with a friend about these types of issues, do we always present all the underlying facts and links and treat it like it was a debate, or do we sometimes only have time to go straight to the point and treat it like a conversation/discussion.

The bigger issue here is that Krugman's word should not be treated as gospel. His commentary too often blurs the line from a rational argument to plain old visceral emotional reaction. I don't mean to say there is no substance, it's just that Krugman's style forces people who share his ideology to take him with a grain of salt. Sorry I don't have many links to prove this, but this is just my opinion and contribution to the thoughtful thread everyone is participating in.

Also, Taplin was right when he said Krugman was much more critical of Obama than HRC. It was partially policy differences but also partially because he didn't like Obama's style. Again, please forgive me for not linking to Krugman's specific columns that show this, but I felt that Krugman's arguments veered towards ad hominem attacks and petulance on too many occasions. But then, isn't that the right of someone who is an opinion columnist or a blogger?

I don't really blame Krugman because he's an opinion writer and that's how they do sometimes. I just disagree with him occasionally and I am not a big fan of his style because it takes away from his credible points. What I do criticize is the 'in Krugman we trust' mentality that seems to be pervasive in progressive circles lately. I think it's great that he won a Nobel Prize, but was it a nobel prize for study on money and banking? No. Has the guy ever won a Pulitzer? I don't think so. Is he a good judge of political realities? In my opinion, no. Has he ever run for office or passed legislation?

We have a big tent of progressive opinion and belief, but in general, we all agree on the major issues. Again, forgive me for not linking to any examples, but I've seen unhealthy arguments and disagreements between supporters of a progressive agenda in the blogosphere, cable news, in person, etc. We should have healthy debate and disagreement, but we shouldn't be nasty about it, because then we're too busy getting upset with each other, rather than working together to help get progressive change.

No. The "bigger issue" is Krugman's perceived distain towards Obama, because that's not even an issue in my thread.

Taplin warned Krugman not to look foolish for the third time in 12 months. Did he look foolish at all?

Is our recession as grave as that of Argentina? You claim that both were severe, but that's not eing disputed. Taplin implied that the American recession was more severe. Krugman did not predict ours would not be severe.

We get no links to expert analysis comparing both recessions.
We get no commentary whatsoever by Taplin on the Argentinian recession.

Whether Krugman is right or wrong is not the scope of this thread.

I am hereby ask Taplin to expand on two specific claims for which he provided no basis.

correction: i meant the bigger issue IS NOT Krugman's perceived disdain. There you go.

Where's Candide??? He hates that Paul Krugman...