The Long Haul
A few days ago, I seeded a Krugman piece because - for once - I didn't agree with him.
Of course, no one Commented on the substance of Krugman's piece, because NT members almost never actually read before Commenting. (It's really pretty easy to identify the few who do actually do read the seeds: they make Comments that refer to something in the seed, rather than just in the title, which is what most NT members only read.)
The Vandals came, of course.
Inevitably, one of them recalled that Krugman had lost it on Trump's election night, announcing economic disaster for the country. I responded that yes, everyone knew that... and that anyone who paid attention also knew that Krugman retracted just a few days later, admitting that he had let his emotions override his intellect. I wrote that this is a large part of why I appreciate Krugman: his willingness to publicly recognize error, to publicly analyze why he went wrong, and to publicly explain how he would try to not make the same mistake again.
I was asked to prove what I said. I responded that I wouldn't do others' research. So of course... rather than actually do the research, these people said I did not have any proof.
Lemme see... what might be a good way to find a retraction from Paul Krugman? After hours of intense thought, I decided to google "krugman retraction". The tenth result reads:
Opinion | Trump Dreams of Economic Disaster
Jan 11, 2024 — But I retracted that call just three days after the election .
I opened that link to this:
Now, everyone who makes economic predictions gets some of them wrong. I personally predicted a recession if Trump won in 2016, partly because markets seemed to believe that a Trump victory would be bad for the economy. But I retracted that call just three days after the election, acknowledging that I had briefly succumbed to motivated reasoning.
You will note the words " retracted that call " underlined in blue. Guess what's at the other end of that link. 
This "research" took me perhaps one minute. Perhaps less.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
November 11, 2016 10:39 am November 11, 2016 10:39 am
As I said in today's column, nobody who thought Trump would be a disaster should change his or her mind because he won the election. He will, in fact, be a disaster on every front. And I think he will eventually drag the Republican Party into the abyss along with his own reputation; the question is whether he drags the rest of the country, and the world, down with him.
But it's important not to expect this to happen right away. There's a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right). So I am retracting that call, right now. It's at least possible that bigger budget deficits will, if anything, strengthen the economy briefly. More detail in Monday's column, I suspect.
On other fronts, too, don't expect immediate vindication. America has a vast stock of reputational capital, built up over generations; even Trump will take some time to squander it.
The true awfulness of Trump will become apparent over time. Bad things will happen, and he will be clueless about how to respond; if you want a parallel, think about how Katrina revealed the hollowness of the Bush administration, and multiply by a hundred. And his promises to bring back the good old days will eventually be revealed as the lies they are.
But it probably won't happen in a year. So the effort to reclaim American decency is going to have to have staying power; we need to build the case, organize, create the framework. And, of course, never forget who is right.
It's going to be a long time in the wilderness, and it's going to be awful. If I sound calm and philosophical, I'm not — like everyone who cares, I'm frazzled, sleepless, depressed. But we need to be stalwart.
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
I'm expecting lots of apologies....
Ole "transitory inflation" Krugman apologizing for being wrong about that too?
[deleted]
[Deleted]
There's a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse....but it probably won't happen in a year.
That never happened. Krugman was still wrong. No wars in Europe. Border was in much better shape. Israel wasn't involved in its worst war in 50 years. The economy chugged along so well Democrats bizarrely claimed Obama deserved credit for it years, until Covid hit. The US handled Covid better than just about any other similarly situated economy and remained in good shape until the Biden spend a palooza resulted in apparently permanent inflation and record breaking budget deficits.
Krugman admits when he's wrong. That merits respect.
Some people double down on their errors. That merits disdain.
Krugman is an asshat. No one really believed his retraction. He got hammered for his comment so he pussed out and retracted it.
Why would anyone apologize for asking you to backup a claim?
[deleted]
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with people asking you to support your claims with evidence. I bet it would have taken less time and energy to just post the link at the time than it did to get into an argument about it or post an entirely new seed. Could others have done the research? Sure, but why should they have to?
Having said all that, this is a thing that obviously could be easily verified, so challenging it seems silly.
Honestly I tried googling it and nothing came up, I didn’t question it, only asked for the proof.
Sorry, Bob, you'll get no apology from me simply because I didn't engage in gotcha commentary. And my one and only comment on the prior seed did address the content of the seed. I pointed out that Krugman was focusing attention on the wrong thing (Biden's age) while ignoring the elephant in the room (Kamala Harris as successor). Krugman engaged in his typical 'look squirrel' commentary to avoid the pressing issues of concern. Krugman's commentary is often far too cynical to be considered Pollyanna, too.
A Krugman retraction is actually worth just as much as his kneejerk outrage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Krugman's predictions for tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow rarely materialize although they do provide a sort of Scottish drama.