Paul Krugman, Economist: RIP

Paul KrugmanI’m writing this on Saturday, so it is possible that Paul Krugman will finally write about Friday’s disastrous Jobs Report. But he wasn’t on top of it as other economists were — ones that still care about economics. No, his last column was about how horrible Trump is and ended with a potshot at Sanders supporters, “And if Democrats don’t rally the same way, he [Trump] just might make it to the White House.” And his blog posts have been almost nothing but attacks on Sanders and apologetics for Clinton. What about the economy, Krugman?

Paul Krugman knows that the single biggest determining factor in presidential elections is the economy. Clinton has a far greater threat in the form of our weak and declining economy than it does from Bernie Sanders supporters who say they won’t support Clinton in the general election. But where is Krugman on this issue? When I saw the Jobs Report, the first thing I thought was, “President Trump.” But I’m beginning to see Krugman like all those Labour Party leaders who would simply rather lose power than have it with Jeremy Corbyn. And that’s sad. I never would have thought that Paul Krugman could sink so low.

Paul Krugman used to know how important economics was to politics… But now it is just “Bash Bernie Day” every day.

My primary concern about the Jobs Report is that it means the economy is weak and workers are going to continue to suffer either without jobs or with jobs that pay poorly. But my secondary concern is that the economy is heading downward and that this is a huge benefit to Donald Trump in the general election. Everyone should be concerned about this. What is the maximum that the “Bernie or Bust” could cost Hillary Clinton: a million votes? I think that’s even ridiculously high. But a bad economy could cost her ten million votes.

I’ve said all along that Trump is a bad candidate. He may even be so bad that with the economics strongly in his favor, he would lose. But his only path to victory is that the economy takes a nose dive. But is Paul Krugman worried about this? Apparently not. And he’s not alone. I see a lot of other liberals continuing on with the idea that the only threat to Hillary Clinton is petulant Sanders supporters. Saturday morning, Steve M wrote, What if Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need Sanders Diehards? First, who ever said she did need Sanders diehards? Second, what if all the Sanders diehards wouldn’t be enough to save her because the economy is collapsing?

But at least Steve M has the advantage of never showing that he understands economics or its effect on politics. Paul Krugman used to know how important economics was to politics. He used to know that the economic trend was responsible for about half of the results of presidential elections. But now it is just “Bash Bernie Day” every day. And if ever there was a time to reach out to Sanders supporters it would be now. Because Hillary Clinton now has a far more formidable opponent than Donald Trump. Now she is up against a bad economy. The old Paul Krugman would have been interested in that fact.

This entry was posted in Politics by Frank Moraes. Bookmark the permalink.

About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

2 thoughts on “Paul Krugman, Economist: RIP

  1. Maybe it’s a bad idea to give some people Nobel prizes. Or, hell, it’s probably not a good thing to give them to anyone.

    • He finally got around to writing about it this morning. But he didn’t say anything about how it might affect the presidential race. And that’s bad, given that he’s been so concerned that Sanders is going to affect the presidential race.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.