Yesterday I posted something I have seen in Google+ about some statement purpotedly done by Paul Krugman.
After I posted it, the Google+ account “dissapeared”, and here is the reason: somebody created a fake profile of Paul Krugman, to post the following:
“People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage”
Paul Krugman had to make a public statement that he has not said it and that this account is not his own. OK: it is clear that somebody wanted to make a joke then.
But the problem that I see is not that he did not say it. It is that
1) he didn’t say he does not agree with the statement.
2) it sounds so plausible that almost everybody believed it was his own.
Why? Because -among other nonsense- he has made the following foolish remarks:
“Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could even do some economic good… If people rush out to buy bottled water and canned goods, that will actually boost the economy…
…So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects.
First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I’ve already indicated, the destruction isn’t big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.
Second, the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures. For the last few weeks there has been a heated debate among liberals over whether to advocate the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. There were plausible economic arguments in favor of such a move, but it was questionable whether Congress could agree on how to spend the money in time to be of any use — and there was also the certainty that conservatives would refuse to accept any such move unless it were tied to another round of irresponsible long-term tax cuts. Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons.”
Paul Krugman for the New York Times, September 14, 2001
“… economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package…That package should include only measures that really will promote spending now, when the economy needs it”
Paul Krugman for the New York Times, October 7, 2001
“The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn’t fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged….
It was good news when California’s energy crisis evaporated, thanks to price controls and conservation…”
Paul Krugman for The New York Times, December 28, 2001
“…tales of a moribund Europe are greatly exaggerated…Europe continues to be a big-government sort of place. And that’s why it’s important to get the real story of the European economy out there.
According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity… But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe’s economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives.
Paul Krugman for The New York Times, January 11, 2008
“I blame Greenspan for ignoring warnings about subprime and housing, but I still think keeping the Fed funds rate at 1% for a long time was justified by the economy’s weakness, which lasted until late 2003 or even beyond. But it’s true that we had an orgy of over-borrowing in the housing market. So the question remains: does an effort to encourage even more borrowing make sense?
Paul Krugman for the New York Times, March 3, 2008
Since Paul Krugman has developed a sort of blogging mania, the amount of “certified” blonder and nonsense is endless. I say “certified” because he has specifically indicated that nothing that does not come from his own writings at the New York Times should be taken as his statement. But if you still have doubt here you have him on TV, talking about the great remedy for the economic crisis: a fake alien invasion!!!