Over the last five years, Paul Krugman has evolved in his perch at the New York Times from sober economist, to eloquent critic of the Iraq war. He has at times found brilliant ways to tie the economic costs of the war to the moral case against it, and for that, has earned the profound respect of the anti-war community.
He has, however, over the past few months, found new and creative ways to toss that respect out the window, with his relentless, mystifying attacks on the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama—who just happens to have been an opponent of the war Krugman despised from the very beginning.
Today, he actually attacked Obama for daring to tie our country's economic woes to the trillions of dollars we have wasted on this war of choice.
On the Democratic side, it’s somewhat disappointing that Barack Obama, whose campaign has understandably made a point of contrasting his early opposition to the Iraq war with Hillary Clinton’s initial support, has tried to score a twofer by suggesting that the war, in addition to all its other costs, is responsible for our economic troubles.
The war is indeed a grotesque waste of resources, which will place huge long-run burdens on the American public. But it’s just wrong to blame the war for our current economic mess: in the short run, wartime spending actually stimulates the economy. Remember, the lowest unemployment rate America has experienced over the last half-century came at the height of the Vietnam War.
What, at this point, will Krugman refrain from criticizing Obama on? If he had said "the war and the economic problems really aren't connected", does anyone doubt that Krugman would have written a column lamenting Obama's cluelessness on the obvious connection between the two?
And what self-respecting economist criticizes someone for tying Iraq to our woeful economy, by saying they're wrong, because it wasn't like that 40 years ago in Vietnam?
3/24/2008 9:07 PM
RSVP wrote:
WILL Still trying to find a way to write you directly. Can you access my e mail as shown on the comment page? Reply to this
3/24/2008 10:06 PM
Aaron wrote:
It's indeed mystifying. I never thought I'd hear Krugman recycle that old "war is good for the economy" saw. Yes, absolutely, spending billions of dollars on something that produces nothing of lasting value, rather than using that money to pay off the national debt, invest in infrastructure or public works or anti-poverty programs or urban development-- yeah, that helps the economy every time. Sure, he admits that it's a short-term benefit, but, that being the case, why even bring it up?
Krugman seems absolutely deranged when it comes to Obama, and it feels somehow personal. Reply to this
Leave a comment
Copyright . http://TODAYSLIES.COM. All rights reserved.
