> I've noticed there's a bizarre phenomenon surrounding Krugman where people just refuse to read what he says and instead put all kinds of nonsense into his mouth.
It's because he writes like a Nobel award winning economist. Meaning a dry writing style, and advanced concepts.
Most people hated economics in school (either because they don't understand it, or found it boring - it's basically math that most people see no practical outcomes for) or just strait up don't get it.
See, though, I don't think that's at all the case. Krugman isn't a dry writer at all, at least when it comes to his blog posts and political and economic commentary. To be sure, you find most of the more detail analyses on his blog (since the kind of posts he marks as "wonkish" would not be very popular in his column), but there's usually a lot of color to them and they're pretty accessible even to the layman. His blog (which leads you down a rabbit trail to other blogs written by all kinds of other economists) is what actually spurred my interest in economics. If anything, he gets in trouble for being too colorful.
I disagree with Krugman almost totally politically, but I find his blog worthwhile reading and it's just stunning to see how many people have no understanding whatsoever of what he says and believes. There's a whole cottage industry involved in setting up straw-krugmen and knocking them down.
Krugman is far from a dry writer. He just writes about a topic that too many people find dry and inscrutable, sadly.
Re:Paul Krugman: The austerity delusion
by douglasisshiny on Wednesday April 29, 2015 @02:35PM
(#9460622)
He often tries to communicate in layman's terms on his blog.
No, they haven't. No country has passed the kind of budget-busting stimulus packages Krugman has said was necessary. The closest any country came was the US, which passed a stimulus package less than half the size of his recommendations and that consisted largely of tax breaks instead of spending increases.
> Just because it’s a government instead of a household or a business does not making borrowing against your future when you have no capability to pay it back a good idea. This guy is the same type of person that thinks that companies carrying a lot of debt is a good idea
No, he isn't. Unless those companies owe debt in currencies they control.
I've noticed there's a bizarre phenomenon surrounding Krugman where people just refuse to read what he says and instead put all kinds of nonsense into his mouth. It happens to all public figures to some extent, but it just seems really next-level with Krugman (and these particular claims are pretty tame compared with the wild accusations you often see.)