October 8, 2008
How to hedge like an “economist”
I never went out of my way to read Krugman before, it being good enough to share in the disdain when one of his many gaffes, buffoonishes, lies, and incompetences were brought to my attention by someone else, but with my re-firing up of the RSS reader, and with the news of the day being all about economics, there he is, and I’ve noticed a pattern. Krugman likes to straddle the fence.
Here he is Sept. 28, considering the Paulson plan:
The Paulson plan, which is some combination of sheer giveaway and mystic faith that a slap in the market’s face will make everything OK, is a bad solution (and probably no solution at all.)
[...]
It’s a tough call, but as I’ve written, I’ll probably hold my nose and say OK — as long as it has broad Republican support.
Note the "economist" saying, "OK" to a huge economic endeavor, provided it’s legitimized by the proper people.
But note, too, he can say he was right either way. It’s "a bad solution (and probably no solution at all.)", if it fails, but also, hey, man, he said it would be, "OK" if it happens to work.
A little later the same day:
I don’t, in the end, have much more to say about the plan. It passes my test of no equity, no deal; that, plus the danger of financial panic if it doesn’t go through, makes it worth passing, though celebration is not in order.
He doesn’t like it, but it’s "worth passing". Zat right? Krugman, the "economist", doesn’t seem to have a clue.
And here he is today:
The coordinated rate cut was the right thing to do. But I don’t expect much from it [...]
No matter which way it blows, he was right!
No wonder the New York Times has steadily increasing revenue and earnings!
