Is Don Luskin Mentally Disturbed?

[Composed Thinker]

He appears to be stalking Paul Krugman:

FACE TO FACE WITH EVIL I did something tonight I wish I hadn't done. I met Paul Krugman.

I thought it would be fun. I thought I could throw a tough question at him, or get him to autograph a copy of The Great Unraveling for me before he realized who I was. But there was nothing fun about this experience. I have looked evil in the face. I've been in the same room with it. I don't know how else to describe my feelings now except to say that I feel unclean, and I'm having to fight being afraid.

Krugman spoke tonight as part of his seemingly endless tour touting his book, in an auditorium on the campus of the University of California at San Diego. He was introduced by some university potentate, who -- obviously not well versed in matters of sporting -- described Krugman's dual success in academic economics and punditry as making him "the only player to win the triple crown in both leagues." He went on to say how deeply divided opinion about Krugman is, how "some people say, 'God bless Paul Krugman!'" at which point the auditorium erupted in cheers and applause. When he got to what the other people say -- which wasn't by any means what the other people (like me) really say -- there was some murmuring; no applause. Who'd risk it there... you'd be lynched!

When Krugman strode up to the podium, more thunderous applause and cheering. Krugman latched onto the crowd's adoring energy, and gave a half-hour speech that was tight, crisp, funny, and persuasive. The nervous, stammering, shifty-eyed, tongue-tied nebbish that is Paul Krugman on television was gone, and in his place was someone who spoke with a voice as clear and confident as one of his New York Times columns. But also just like his Times columns, Krugman's speech was a non-stop barrage of lies, exaggerations, innuendos, and distortions. And the audience ate it up and asked for seconds.

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_05_chronArchive.asp#106551246625485929

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_05_chronArchive.asp#106551246625485929

And take a look at this nonsense:

The Type D Economist
Krugman melds motive and consequence into deception.

There's been a lot of chatter on the web, and I've received lots of e-mails from readers, concerning Arnold Kling's open letter to Paul Krugman <http://www.techcentralstation.com/100703B.html>, posted yesterday on Tech Central Station. I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth — it's great to see an economist take on Krugman in public. But truth be told, I think Kling's critique fails to come to grips with what's wrong with Paul Krugman.

For the moment, I'm afraid, I'll have to withhold Kling's membership in the Krugman Truth Squad.

Kling sets up a framework in which economic propositions can be argued in two different styles. What he calls "Type C" arguments are about the consequences of a particular policy (e.g., "tax cuts will stimulate the economy"). What he calls "Type M" arguments are the motives behind a particular policy (e.g., "tax cuts are just a sop to rich Republicans").

Kling believes that Krugman cheapens economic discourse by failing to make Type C arguments (which can be debated rationally, if not to a definitive conclusion) in favor predominantly of Type M arguments (which defy rational debate, and crowd out analysis of real policy dynamics).

But if it were that simple, Krugman wouldn't be America's most dangerous liberal pundit.

[J B]

1. Luskin's my old debating chew toy. He's intelligent, but whacked

He has an obsession with radical libertarian-oriented supply side economic theories that Krugman has no time for since he's whacked down the supply-side guru, former reporter Jude Wanniski, many times. Luskin for instance, will defend MS' market position as not a monopoly and, at any rate, not harmful whatsoever, even if its market strength was even more extreme, because only the government is threatening; private companies can rape us all up the rear, but that's ok, because we're inherently consenting to it.

Got it?

[Composed Thinker]

2. Wow. That was well said and pretty succinct.