Extremely amusing

But the Bush apologists hope that you won’t remember all that. And they also have a theory, which I’ve been hearing more and more — namely, that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future policies, and that’s what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.

For of course expectations never do change behaviour, do they Professor Krugman?

No, no, that the stimulus will increase aggregate demand purely by the commitment to the stimulus happening, even if it took a long time arriving, was never one of the arguments made in favour of the stimulus, was it?

Now, no, I don\’t believe that Obama caused the crash through expectations of what he would do. But for a Nobel Laureate to simply dismiss expectations as clearly and obviously insane as a reason for a change in the economic weather is far more ludicrous than the original allegation.

7 thoughts on “Extremely amusing”

  1. I rather think that blaming the crash on expectations of Obama is ludicrous, and doing anything other than dismissing expectations out of hand in this context would also be ludicrous.

    There nothing inconsistent in being sensible enough to know when to apply a theory, and when not to.

  2. Seriously Tim?

    Yes Krugman knows expectation can effect the future, but ludicrous expectations can be dismissed out of hand as causal factors in the greatest global recession post-war.

    He’s not even mocking the idea that expectations of future events can change current events. He’s mocking the idea that people had expectations that made it rational to tank the economy.

    I know you blog many times a day, but normally your standards are a little higher than this.

  3. Yes, pretty worn out old strawman Paul. I haven’t seen very many Bush apologists about, at least in terms of the economy.

    The dominant conservative theory for the economic collapse would be that statist policies dating back to the Carter CRA and exacerbated by the various POTUS and Congresses since then were the chief cause of the crash and that the ‘stimulus’ policies of Bush and, predominantly, Obama, together with the excesses of the Reid/Pelosi Congress were to blame for the worst effects.

  4. “Krugman?

    Ritchie with a Ph.D.”

    lol, he’s partisan so he must be stupid! mega lolz!!11!!11

    Go learn something:


    Tim adds: Yes, that essay is fascinating. For in it he shows that planned economies cannot in fact provide us with “green” economic growth. For a we know, there are two methods of getting ggrowth….we can increase the resources being used or we can use the resources we have more efficiently. As he points out in that essay, planned economies can only produce the more resources type of growth. They simply do not increase total factor productivity. Thus a truly green economy would be a market economy.

    An interesting point, don’t you think?

  5. The paranoid depth of septic partisanship makes the appearance of the hypothesis Krugman reports completely unsurprising.

    Define irony – hugely successful nation (HSN) is founded on liberal principles. Largest single voting bloc in HSN now literally in thrall to de Maistrian reaction in the form of Pope (or megachurch pastor), King (or President) and Hangman (or State Electrician). Doesn’t look for HSN, does it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *