Paul Krugman Declares Personal Bankruptcy

Mar 06, 2013

paul-krugman-currenttv-497x345Economist and columnist Paul Krugman declared personal bankruptcy today following a failed attempt to spend his way out of debt.

In a Chapter 13 filing to the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, lawyers for Krugman listed $7,346,000 in debts versus $33,000 in assets.

The majority of his debts are related to mortgage financing on a $8.7 million apartment in lower Manhattan, but the list also includes $621,537 in credit card debt and $33,642 in store financing at famed jeweler Tiffanys and Co.

The filing says that Krugman got into credit card trouble in 2004 after racking up $84,000 in a single month on his American Express black card in pursuit of rare Portuguese wines and 19th century English cloth

Rather than tighten his belt and pay the sums back, the pseudo-Keynesian economist decided to "stimulate" his way to a personal recovery by investing in expenses he hoped would one day boost his income.

Cockroaches and Creditors

Between 2004 and 2007 Krugman splurged on expensive cars, clothes, and travel in hopes that the new lifestyle would convince his bosses at the New York Times to give him a giant raise.

"They say always dress for the job you want," Krugman explains. "So I thought maybe if I showed up in $70,000 Alexander Amosu suits they would give me ownership of part of the company. If I had only been granted a sliver of the New York Times Co., I could have paid everything back."

Even after he realized an equity stake was not going to happen, Krugman continued to spend wildly hoping his bling and media appearances would increase demand for his personal brand and lift his book sales.

His biggest mistake came in 2007, when at the height of the financial bubble he decided to invest in high-end real estate in New York City. His multi-million dollar apartment lost 40 percent of its value just months after its purchase, and has been underwater ever since.

"You'd think a Nobel Prize winning economist could recognize a housing bubble," says Herman Minsky, a retired television executive who purchased Krugman's home at a huge discount. "But hey, I'm not complaining."

Conscience of a Fraud 

Krugman, a renowned trade economist, joined the New York Times as a columnist in 2000. Since the start of the financial crisis he as used the platform to argue vociferously for what he terms Keynesian deficit spending.

However, Keynes did not advocate using debt financing to stimulate the economy. Rather, he argued that government should save in the good times and spend in the bad.

Through his lawyer, Bertil Ohlin, Krugman explains that despite his travails with spending and debt in his personal finances, he stands by his pseudo-Keynesian policies.

"I still defend my analysis that on the macroeconomic level sovereign debt crises can be fixed by increasing government borrowing to lift aggregate demand. I admit, however, that on the microeconomic level this strategy has failed spectacularly."

  • I love it.
    ….Misery loves company…Thanks for joining the club of duped belivers.
    I was getting lonely down here (bouncing off the bottom after loosing it all)

  • @realDenisMenace

    Amusing but makes the classic mistake of comparing gov’t finances to those of a family. When a family takes on too much debt, it needs to cut spending and either repay or come to an agreement with creditors (or get made homeless). To reduce Gov’t debt one needs to grow GDP to increase tax receipts.

  • DailyCurrant

    The government can increase tax receipts though structural reform rather than spending.

  • tu_ne_cede_malis

    DenisMenace is dead wrong. The US will try to inflate its way out of this problem. So when a family takes on too much debt, it has to cut spending to repay or negotiate with creditors. But when a government takes on too much debt, it screws its creditors, holders of dollars, and its own citizens by stealing their purchasing power.

  • Abir Mandal

    Or the government can stop spending. Blows your mind, doesnt it, libtard?

  • Government spending does not increase GDP. When was the last time government spending helped get us out of debt? It never did. In order to increase tax receipts and growth, you cut taxes. You can’t increase the amount of pie you have just by rearranging the slices. That’s ridiculous.

  • garygramscom

    HA HA HA HA And the left listens to this nitwit….

  • bioengineer

    Satire is only funny if it’s rooted in truth. Unless Krugman is truly in massive debt this is stupid. In reality I’m sure it’s the opposite, he has probably been one of the looters who has profited immensely from the bailouts and spending.

  • This looks like a parody site

  • No2GOP

    And you fell for it! HA HA HA HA!!! Joke’s on you, doofus. Google “satire” so you can recognize it in the future.

  • He doesn’t even have kids that might have helped him get in debt, unless Precious Purrfect demands a diamond encrusted collar. What a putz.

  • Typewriterstreaming

    This is hilarious. Satire or not. Hilarious.

  • garygramscom

    Hey nitwit…. isn’t satire supposed to make you laugh?

  • No2GOP

    For us intelligent people, it usually does. For nitwits like you, probably not.

  • No2GOP

    You do realize this is a satirical site, don’t you?!

  • Maybe now people will stop listening to the hot air this guy calls economics

  • how do you know he’s a libtard, the conservaturds on the right like to spend just as much as the libtards on the left

  • No2GOP

    Look at Greece and the UK to see what happens when governments stop spending. Double, or triple, dip recession. Slow, to no, growth. Increased unemployment.
    Try again, idiot!!

  • yeah and we will spend to avoid recession(correction) till we cant print and borrow anymore and dollar collapses and that will be a whole new level of financial disaster never even conceived by most politicians

  • I’d check his assets in the Cayman Islands

  • This is a microcosm of the reality he advises our government in managing monetary policy. Maybe that’s why our nation is also going bankrupt.

  • angelsinca

    quote: “To reduce Gov’t debt one needs to grow GDP…”

    Not quite right and not quite that simple. There are many more factors and variables to consider. Comparing household and gov’t finances ARE comparable when you step away from the tangibles and focus on the more important aspects affected by heavy debt such as confidence, social responsibility, leadership, aprehension, etc.
    There’s ‘growing’ the GDP, and then there’s manipulating it to make it look better. Adding debt when you already have debt only creates more debt. The minor effect to the gdp from borrowing (in order to stimulate an ailing economy) soon evaporates when the interest on that money starts compounding. there’s much more that effects gdp but it’s really boring.

  • angelsinca

    ‘structural refom’ of what? what does that mean? Right now this economy needs more domestic product output. If the gov’t stops being the job creator and standard of living financier, and adding debt interest, the added receipts aren’t necessary.

  • rob

    Look at Estonia. They are recovering nicely. And unlike Greece and the UK, they really cut spending.

  • his policies only work when you get to either print your own money, or take it from your neighbors–in a manner that isn’t called criminal theft, even if it is.

  • angelsinca

    No2GOP-You need to look at much, much more than just one aspect to understand why neither austerity or spending is the sole solution to any hurting economy. Even within the EU, neighboring govt’s need entirely different economic solutions depending on their unique variables and needs, both socially and fiscally.

  • No2GOP

    I understand that, and wish the Republicans did, too. It’s a combination of wise spending cuts, closing certain tax loopholes, and some sacrifice by everyone, not just those in the bottom 90%.

  • notenoughtime

    Proves the mindset that far too many of us had – Krugman has no idea how to balance a budget or how economics and finance works.

  • angelsinca

    Looks like Joshua paid some attention in econ 101. But spending to reduce debt could work IF the prevailing conditions allow it. Right now, adding debt would be very bad.

  • angelsinca

    LOL-too bad the html doesn’t give an eye rolling gif

  • No2GOP

    Estonia? A country with a population of 1.5 million people – 20% of the population of New York City.
    Estonia? A country that’s been in existence for 20 years and already experienced a near-depression (18% shrinkage in economy) within that time frame.
    Estonia? Average monthly take home pay of less than $1k.
    Estonia? Unemployment over 11%.
    Estonia? Whose government (operative word there) invested heavily in education and infrastructure.
    It’s nice to see their economy improving even though it’s still not there. But, comparing their economy to the US is the epitome of “apples vs. oranges”.
    And, I see you’re implicitly agreeing that economies similar to the US, namely the UK, are poor examples of austerity. Thanks.

  • angelsinca

    LOL-I wouldn’t peg the gop as the only clueless ones, No2gop. we should be most concerned about fearless leader’s attempt to fit the round peg of social justice into the square hole of the economy when we have this historic debt. we are in uncharted waters and really don’t have the luxury to experiment around. this is why we ought to fix the economy and get the debt under control before tackling massive social re-engineering. obama stepped onto the scene about 6 years too early (not that his social policies wouldn’t have been met w/fierce resitance in another timeline).

  • STQ

    Is it really satire ? Honestly , I can’t be sure.It isn’t very well written if it is parody.

  • Did he try breaking all the windows in his apartment?

  • Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back for your intellect. You sure didn’t inherit any sense of humor. And that’s the best joke of all …

  • Ya think?

  • Yep … having a currency that has devalued 95% since Breton Woods doesn’t give one many viable options. Spending like a drunken sailor would be the least of these desirables. But never fear, when we are no longer the world’s reserve currency everyone will get a lesson. Few living recall when we weren’t. And that helps create an artificial demand for our currency.

  • No2GOP

    From their “About Us” section:
    “The Daily Currant is an English language online satirical newspaper that covers global politics, business, technology, entertainment, science, health and media. It is accessible from over 190 countries worldwide – now including South Sudan.

    Our mission is to ridicule the timid ignorance which obstructs our progress, and promote intelligence – which presses forward.”

    Basically all one needs to know, regardless of how it’s structured.

  • ZedLok

    I should know better than to read these comments. Why do I even…

  • And there’s also using the same metrics for comparison. Over the past four decades, each administration has contorted our base figures by manipulating the definitions to suit their needs. http://www.shadowstats.com/ can help fill in a couple blanks there …

  • And most don’t realize that money is simply worth what everyone agrees it’s worth. Over the years, our country has crashed it’s currency more that once. It ain’t pretty. And simply saying “it hasn’t/won’t happen in my lifetime” solidifies one’s ignorance.

  • No2GOP

    Aw, gee, shucks Geary. I thought I had an intelligent sense of humor passed down through many generations. Thanks for being the board’s Einstein and setting me straight. Do you mind if I pat you on the back for helping me?

  • No2GOP

    You do know this is a satirical article, right??

    From The Daily Currant’s (currant is a fruit) “About Us” section:
    “The Daily Currant is an English language online satirical newspaper that covers global politics, business, technology, entertainment, science, health and media. It is accessible from over 190 countries worldwide – now including South Sudan.

    Our mission is to ridicule the timid ignorance which obstructs our progress, and promote intelligence – which presses forward.”

  • TheJeebus

    If he truly was in massive debt it wouldn’t be satire.

  • No2GOP

    “Structural reform” can be modification of the current (not currant) tax codes to remove loopholes and breaks that would, in turn, increase revenue.
    Example: make all churches and religions taxable entities by removing their tax-exempt status. The result would be an estimated $35-60Billion a year in tax revenue.
    Example: put the income tax for dividends and capital gains at the same level as “regular” income. This would increase tax revenue without additional government spending. And it makes the tax code more fair across the board.
    Lots of other examples, but just a couple that I think need to be implemented now.

  • TheJeebus

    He didn’t, but he was seen trying to signal alien planets to invade earth.

  • TheJeebus

    How’s that kool-aid tastin’?

  • Dana Joseph

    He should file “moral bankruptcy”

  • No2GOP

    Hopefully, you’re posting a satirical comment to a satirical piece. You’re posting sarcastically, right? Please, for your reputation, say yes.

  • Heroic Libtard Economist of the Communist Horde. Welcome to Reality Degenerate @ssHat.

  • Hilarious piece.

  • The only difference between him and our govt is that he didn’t have the ability to tax others to pay for his spending!

  • martin

    satirical news – but “real” newspaper from austria belive in it: http://www.format.at/articles/1310/933/354182/paul-krugman

  • Em_pty Skin

    This. He is a highly paid propagandist.

  • This is a fake story. This site posts made up stories.

  • Han Chueh

    Does the satirical comparison still work when considering the government’s revenue (aka Krugman’s salary in this article) is taxes? The GOP didn’t dress expensively in hopes to collect more taxes, did they?

  • Marsupilami

    the real newspaper thought it was hillarious…. and worth being translated…. because real life is hard enough…

  • I’ll just sit back and let Paul himself explain why this is utterly idiotic and just proves that the author completely misunderstands everything that Krugman says about economic policy….

    (And by the way, businesses and investors do in fact take on additional debt in order to grow financially, they do it all… the…. time…)

  • BeeKaaay

    This is how leftwingwackos work.

    Hurt others. Steal from others.

  • No2GOP

    You’re rambling. Wipe the spittle from the screen and get back to us when you realize, and understand, what constitutes satire. Geez…..

  • No2GOP

    It’s satire, Bubba. The article is not true.

    I see gullible people!

  • Even the Democrats agree that raising the capital gains rate to the same level as the income tax would hurt economic growth and increase unemployment. That is why they agreed to lower the capitalgains rate under the Clinton administration. You are assuming a static view of the macroeconomic model. even Krugman ain’t that dumb!

  • BeeKaaay

    And you did not notice I was being satirical as well.


  • No2GOP

    Wait, wait, wait!! (Banging fist on table) You can’t go editing your post after someone commented on it!! That’s just not right, I tell ya’!

    Well, at least you clarified that you can play the game. Hope for humanity returned. Whew!!

  • LOL…great comments. If the immeasurable damage the world has suffered because of his statist apologias wasn’t titanic, he’d be a clown…instead he is an accomplice to grave injustice.

  • He is worse than one of the losers…He has provided cover for the looting and has promoted it, on a grand scale.

  • angelsinca

    Ah those, the major game changers. They might each succeed (or fail) to create revenue, but I wouldn’t rely on tax reforrms to improve the economy. Stabilize the economy frist than tackle the reforms.

  • Hey…this is fun, but the smart people here who actually understand economics, i.e., that there are no quantitative economic laws, shouldn’t be arguing with each other. We are few and far between. Work together to spread the truth before the state becomes totalitarian due to our collective ignorance.

  • angelsinca

    yep. thanks

  • Rlag

    This is “The Onion” right?

  • idiot

  • kim

    What an idiot!

  • clickron

    Looks like Ron Paul won the argument.

  • You’re a dimwit if you believed this story. You’re a dimwit if you think austerity makes for a healthy economy or society for that matter.

  • you’re the nitwit who believed the story. buffoon.

  • Austerity? You’re a dimwit if you think that would help the economy. How’s the Palin dumb as nails things working at for you? 😉

  • thanks glenn beck, please come back with more bs fantasy tales

  • asevie

    Someone has been reading Hazlitt!

  • Aerwam

    Frédéric Bastiat

  • southernfriedlibrul

    Why, because a bunch of idiot conservatives don’t understand satire?

  • Kind of depressing that people think this satirical piece is factual.

  • You are all aware that this is a satire piece right?

  • Borges

    He really practices keynesianism. I feel sorry, he is a great economist, even though I don’t agree with his views. This may explain why he is so fierce defending expansionist policies, it is his psyche. he is huma after all.

  • icantstandobama

    Wow! Now I don’t feel so bad. At least I am not an idiot as far as I know! Or is this just yet another crappy SNL skit?? Come on, is that Will Ferrell in a guest role?

  • onceproudamerican

    So what does borrowing 46 cents of every dollar spent make for?

  • JaniceW

    Isn’t satire supposed to be funny? Though it would be funny if it were true, the story is just a lie, it’s not actually funny. Making up a lie can fool people, which is fine, but calling it satire is a bit of a stretch.

  • I discovered that after perusing their site, after I posted.
    However, our economy isn’t healthy and Krugman’s advice is still bad.

  • George, you are aware this is a satire correct?

  • Charlie

    This is all just because he invested in New York. If he bought a house on the moon, he could make so much money. Because of the lower gravity on the moon, houses only increase in value. That’s why lunar real estate is such a cash cow. How else do you think Bill Gates got so rich?

  • ged2

    Better than the satire — which is good, but not as good as Kim Jong Un as the Sexiest Man Alive being picked up by the Chinese press — is the number of humor-impaired right wing types who take this seriously.The Tweeting Twits scroll is outstanding! I almost thought that was part of the piece.I mean, doesn’t the fact that “Currant” is a fruit give you a clue to what this publication is about?

    There must be a site you folks can take remedial humor lessons and catch up with the rest of us. Start with knock-knock jokes; move on to maybe elephant jokes. Then clown noses, Groucho, seltzer bottles and, finally, satire.

  • sure thing, and you in the mean time go read economics book or watch a youtube video……

  • FreeMan


  • CH

    Guess he must have been following his own economic advice…

  • I wondered about that, but must admit I did believe it.

  • I’m afraid the U S of A is heading for that homeless option.

  • And Bernanke is stealing purchasing power with the printing presses rolling day & night.
    OBAMA BIN LOOTIN is stealing our Grandkids’ future thru generational theft. What they’re doing is the very worst form of taxation without representation.

  • notrupert

    A great, Nobel-winning macro-economist may not a good financier make (recall Black and Scholes) and vice versa. Each to his own. We can’t all duck the slings and arrows.

  • I so wish it was true. It is funny

  • You’re not alone.

  • [email protected]


  • mlebauer

    He did, but his insurance had lapsed, so he applied for a Federal emergency relief bailout.

  • I find two things fascinating:

    1. You used an apostrophe incorrectly in one instance, and then failed to use one where it was required.

    2. You are too dumb to know this article is a joke.

    Congratulations, Tony. You’re a genius (or as you would probably say “You’re a genious.”).

  • Self-referential?

  • it’s so far beyond absurd, how could you wish it were “true”: like i might wish benny dictator, mr ratzinger resigned as pope to concentrate on his business of renting out swiss guards to gay weddings, or rand paul were really transexual, or obama was secretly carying on a love afair with one of mitt romney’s sons, or something. it’s beyond a joke. it it’s not a really clever one once you read through it.

  • it would have been funny if ut were better written. it should have been left as a headline because the writing is dumb. oh so dumb. i am embarrassed.

  • you can’t add can you i take it. 🙂 like clinton said. it is a matter of arithmetic and krugman’s arithmetic has been batting 1000 for a decade. that is a matter of record. very few economists have been more accurate. over the short or long of it.

  • Then why did you start you post with “HAHA HA HA HA”? Are you really this stupid?

  • satire is only funny if it reflects something plausible. this doesn’t even come close. anyone who finds this funny just doesn’t know simple arithmetic just like clinton says. it’s like calling him a “clown” neither clever nor funny. just insulting. mindlessly. this was mindless. captures not one thing he’s said nor done. so it’s only funny to the typical GOPer who lives in the counter factual world that believes romney won in a landslide. or still know there are WMD in iraq. hidden somewhere.

  • Bicdorf

    I don’t think George gets it.

  • this is well written? thanks for the information. i really hadn’t noticed. i thought it was so dumb only a died in the wool GOP counter factual universe subscriber or even a limbaugh subscriber would find it funny. how could i have been so wrong. after all everyone in the GOP knows romney really won in a landslide. and the 2008 crash was a gay conspiracy.

  • goes to show just how smart the GOP really is. all rocket scientists. how they relish the thought that a Krugman is as dumb as GOP member of congress.

  • so is ya mudda. ya poopy wears lingerie. you’re 1, 2! NO! you’re 1, 3. nan nanna naanaa! i a wiggling my ears back at ya.

  • do you really think so? why?

  • you are goofing, right? you’re part of the satire team here. right?

  • don’t even try to say anyting logical. these are the kind of people who blame the tree if it runs into their car, blame the poor if they go hungry. who think kids on food stamps have blackberries they bought with food stamps.

  • tell that to Ireland, UK, Spain, Portugal, Italy, who’ve all seen their economies shrink [UK and Ireland in depression] after structural reform, while Iceland, Ecuador, Malaysia have strong growing economies by letting the banks fail and putting the banksters in jail. and spending on the poor.

  • in other words pay for spending by increasing revenue. but when your education, health care, infrastructure, and crime are measurably behind all your competition even third world countries, you have to invest, or you’re economy will continue to be overtaken, as the USA is today by most of Europe and most of the far east [taiwan, hong kong, korea, australia even, and now china even] by all measures of economic success and competitiveness.

    Hospitals and health corporations run 25% profit margins, eat up our economy and leaves us behind over 50 other countries in health care with a falling life expectancy and third world health care in some US states {California has the same maternal death rates as afghanistan} and health ten times more expensive than anywhere. that is where we need structural reform. not by forcing old people to stop taking medicine and start eating dog biscuits.

    the USA today has the lowest taxes for the rich, and the least social mobility of any advanced economy. lower taxes than any time since 1945. 100% of the top 25% of our economy were born rich. 70% of the poor were born poor. 100% of those born poor will never find full employment no matter how hard they work. 800 of the top earning USA corporations pay no federal taxes.

    this country if it does not begin to invest in 21st century infrastructure will find itself left behind by china brazil india and europe. we’ll be the Ottoman Empire [if we’re not already] of the 1890s.

  • nonsense. dogma. unrelated to any economic facts.
    this country’s infrastructure, education, health system, and competitiveness are measurably behind. our best education does not even come to average world wide. our worst education is the worst anywhere. our health care is behind more than 50 other countries, our infrastructure is 1950s 1960s where china even is 21st century. our infrastructure is collapsing instead of getting ahead. we spend hundreds of billions on jails and executions. and our military bleeds dollars like a 19th century oil rig. it ‘s a huge engine of pure corruption. makes teapot dome look like mothers’club monopoly game.

  • simply factually not true. look at UK, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy: the economy collapsed. UK and Ireland in depression by cutting spending. Spain’s unemployment 25%. Iceland defaulted. put the bank management in jail and increased spending and bootstrapped its way into a strong growing economy. same withy ecuador. same with malaysia. over the last 70 years higher taxes and higher spending have consistently grown the economy, increased jobs, increased corporate profits, grown the stock market. no cuts in taxes have ever increased tax receipts. no where ever. literally factually never. in economic history.

    before reagan the usa was the world’s creditor. after 4 years, the usa became the world’s debtor. under every democratic administration the debt has been reduced. under every republican administration the debt has increased. the greatest increase under gw bush. after the bush depression, since the end of 2009, usa debt is declining. fact.

    there are no slices in gdp. that is simply factually false. actually false. in fact absurd. in the usa today we are so far below capacity, our national debt now pays negative interest. buyers of usa debt give payment to the treasury to give us their money. because our gdp is so far below its potential right now. usa corporations are swimming in cash but have no one to buy product because we’ve impoverished the middle class. the only way to get growth in gdp is giving money to people to buy. something china is now doing. iceland is doing. and gdp will grow. not until then. most working families today are working and getting pay lower that the 1965 minimum wage. until people can buy something our economy will decline.

  • so clever. i am so impressed by your wit and wisdom. i bow before your superior testerone.

  • UK and Ireland are in depression. Spain, portugal and italy are going there too. but Iceland isn’t ecuador isn’t. turkey isn’t. strongest economy in europe outside of EU increased its payments to the poor STARTING with health care. a $10,000. dollar hospital procedure in the USA costs $50. in a PRIVATE hospital in Turkey. 10 in a public one.

  • KP

    Moronic story.

  • When theory meets reality, reality wins.

  • Rudy_Cant_Fail

    Satire or not?

    You may not be the sharpest tool in the box. You know that, don’t you?

  • All’s I can say…LMFAO…What comes around goes around. Now will you stfu?

  • Sam Sloan

    I am annoyed because I thought this was a real news article. I did not realize that this was a spoof or sarcasm or parody.

  • I thought it was a real story….about Newt.

  • Peter

    Oh yeah, this satirical piece is COMPLETELY LOGICAL. Of course we can completely compare the finances of one person to the finances of a NATION STATE with the largest economy in the world. And of course, it’s totally rational to use this completely LOGICAL comparison to rail on NON-far-right conservatives. Sure — that makes complete sense. Anymore pristine logic from the far-right this week?

  • expat

    Being a Wall Street propagandist pays very well.

  • erehwon

    Naw, look up the word ‘gullible’. It isnt even in the dictionary!

  • ChuckD

    I love how this story is now trending among all the conservatives who hate Krugman simply because he uses facts to counter their narrative. They want it to be true so badly and, in the conservative world, wanting it makes it just real enough to be true. The funny thing is the ANYONE who has truly read any of Krugman’s work could tell in an instant that this story is a farce– yeah, Krugman really did try to “spend his way out of debt”… because that’s what he says about the government if you don’t actually read what he is saying? I think those who bought into this story are also guilty of that fallacy so promoted among the right these days that experts are really no smarter than the average person. Climate scientists never consider that climate occurs in cycles and add that into their calculations and Paul Krugman actually thought that buying a $70,000 suit would get him an ownership stake in the NY Times. No, I am sorry, but Paul Krugman is smarter than this and he’s also much smarter than you. But continue to let your “news” entertainer of choice with no knowledge of economics whatsoever (besides knowing that giving the rubes what they want is good for their own bank account) convince you otherwise.

  • ChuckD

    I think you are the only one here who knows what he is talking about. It’s clear that many of those commenting here are only here because they hate Krugman (even though they have likely never read him) and were here just HOPING the story is true.

  • Hilarious.

  • ccn


  • KPres

    Wow. You couldn’t be more wrong on every single point.

    When each of Kennedy, Reagan and Bush cut taxes, revenues increased in real terms. This is a fact. Also, google “Hauser’s Law”, which shows that tax receipts in the US have remained essentially constant @ ~19% of GDP regardless of how high the tax rates were.

    Furthermore, google “Small Is Best: How Big Government Undermines Growth”, which will lead you to an EMPIRICAL study done last year in the UK which shows an undeniable INVERSE relationship between growth rates and government spending.

    Lastly, you comment about debt decreasing under Democrats is blatantly false. The national debt has increased under every modern president, but most significantly under 4 presidents….Roosevelt, Reagan, Bush and Obama. In each case, the debt increase was a result of a major recession, meaning these Presidents did EXACTLY WHAT KRUGMAN SAYS THEY SHOULD DO!

    PS – This is maybe the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life….”most working families today are working and getting pay lower that the 1965 minimum wage”. The median personal income in 2012 is $1,000 higher than it was in 1965, despite the fact that average weekly hours have fallen for ~39/week to ~33/week.

  • KPres

    Increasing GDP by raising gov’t spending doesn’t increase tax receipts. The government doesn’t tax itself. Only growth in the PRIVATE sector can increase tax receipts

  • Deficit spending on a micro (but still huge) level….

  • smartalek

    No, they really are that stupid.
    The mind boggles…

  • smartalek

    Mr. Parker, you have been lied to.
    The *NON-partisan* Congressional Budget Office — you know, the one the Publicans love to cite on those [rare] occasions that the CBO supports their claims? — said definitively and without qualification last year that the lowering of taxes on the wealthy, and on corporations, does NOT “create jobs,” improve the overall economy, or lead to a net increase in tax revenues, even with the bs of “dynamic scoring.”
    (Of course anyone with an internet connection and an iota of intellectual integrity already knew this — the facts from the entire last century’s correlations of tax rates and economic growth make it very clear.)
    The Republicans responded by suppressing the report, of course, and ordering CBO to drop that line of inquiry. But not before the news went out…

  • smartalek

    Oh, and that “even the Democrats” line means less than nothing.
    Of course they supported the tax cuts for the wealthy — the wealthy and the corporations own half the Democrats, along with all of the Publicans.
    It was Clinton himself who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the bill that, by leaving “exotic instruments,” such as CDOs, MBOs, and CDSs (now known more accurately as “toxic assets”), made the credit collapse of 2008, and the ensuing recession, not just predictable, but inevitable.

  • smartalek

    What do you expect from people who think the President is a Kenyan, a closet Muslim, and a socialist?
    This isn’t a humor deficiency (we should be so lucky).
    It’s terminal stupidity, weaponised by the corporate “news” media that they actually think is “liberal.”
    As Schiller said, “against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.”

  • smartalek

    The economy is — slowly, painfully — getting better, despite all the efforts of treasonous Publicans to prevent that, for partisan gain, and in the service of their corporate owners, currently enjoying record profits.
    And following Prof K’s advice would clearly help immeasurably, as the experiences of other countries undeniably and irrefutably demonstrate.

  • smartalek

    I’m sure the “Currant” regrets not sufficiently anticipating the depths of stupidity that some readers are capable of attaining, when they set their minds to it.

  • smartalek

    Ladies and gentlemen, for.your edification and amusement, another winger genius.
    Even after dozens of comments pointing out the obvious, he’s still utterly clueless!
    Further evidence that the rightwing mind [sic] is completely impervious to facts, common-sense, logic, or any form of reality contact.
    Thank you, Andrew, for performing this valuable public service.
    God bless you!

  • smartalek

    No, actually, he doesn’t.
    But we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
    Thanks for playing.

  • smartalek

    An economy that grows enough to pay down the debt, and leave everyone much better off…
    Exactly as happened in the decade-plus following WWII, during which we took on debt in excess of 100% of GDP.
    It really isn’t that difficult, if you can manage to tear yourself away from Fox and read just a tiny bit of history.

  • smartalek

    If I had been taken in by such an obvious joke article, I’d be embarrassed enough to avoid pontificating about anything and everything for at least a few days.
    Glad to see you’re upholding the Publican traditions of shamelessness and arrogance.
    You’ll go far…

  • smartalek

    At least you have a sense of humor about it…
    Are man enough to own it…
    And aren’t going off on wingnut tirades.
    Good on you for all three, mate.

  • smartalek

    Mind like a steel sieve, this one.
    John Galt would be so proud.

  • Foo Bar

    No, Tony would say “Your a geniou’s”.

  • Brad

    Econ 101: The problem with this “satire” is that it relies on the ignorant idea that household economics and macroeconomic policies are the same model, just on a larger scale. When you make cuts in macroeconomics, you take money out of circulation, thereby further contracting the economy. If you fire someone, you take away that person’s ability to spend, which shrinks demand that much more. Idle people hurt the economy. It’s better to keep people working so that there is more money available to grow the economy. Debt that results in economic growth is a good thing. Idleness and austerity has never led to GDP growth.

  • DailyCurrant

    We make no such claims.


  • Congrats Daily Currant!! This is the Holy Grail of satirists, to be taken seriously by idiots.

  • Fedos

    This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read today.

  • Fedos

    Just what is the maximum IQ to be allowed into the Libertarian fantasy world? Has it been published, or is it kept secret?

  • pseudonymous in nc

    Spoken with the economic nous of a luke-warm satirist.

  • Alphy

    Good job on getting People’s Daily to quote on this piece. Yet again, a huge national newspaper in China fall victim to US sarcasm. http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/article/1188227/another-chinese-news-outlet-falls-victim-satire-fooled-fake-krugman

  • texasaggie

    Exactly. It was so obviously designed to be totally false that I don’t understand how breitbart could have taken it seriously. Usually Currant is better at its parody than this ham handed effort.

  • texasaggie

    True. It is such an amateur, ham handed attempt at parody that it isn’t funny on any level. Usually their articles are much better written than this. A good parody leaves you wondering if there is even a small possibility that it could be true. This doesn’t even begin to reach the shoelaces of that level.

  • Al Dorman28

    I hope Mr. Krugman can find solace from the community in this time of need. Perhaps the “Friends of Hamas” will support him and his family?

  • Cowboydroid

    Krugman was oblivious to the housing bubble, and he’s oblivious to the current asset bubble. He’s a shill that chimes to whatever political wing happens to be blowing.

  • Cowboydroid

    Debt has never resulted in economic growth. That much has been true for centuries.

    Small government = big economy
    Big government = small economy

  • Cowboydroid

    Spending results in debt.

    Doesn’t get any more logical than that.

  • Cowboydroid

    That’s why it’s funny. If he actually practiced his own economics, he’d be living on the street. But instead, our nation is about to be living on the street.

  • Cowboydroid

    Spending dropped tremendously the decade following WWII.

  • Cowboydroid

    The government spends more in hopes to collect more taxes.

    They never have enough. The answer is always more.

  • Kenneth Almquist

    Sorry, but I don’t find this article funny. The basic construct is to take a false premise–that Federal government finances are the same as individual finances–and examine the absurd consequences that follow. The first problem is that there is no originality in the premise; it is (or was) a conservative talking point and has been beaten to death. The second problem is that the author is attacking a straw man. Sure, if you take the rules for government finance and apply them to the individual, you get obviously bad results. But conservatives who adopt the false premise go in the other direction, applying the rules for individual finance to the government. This produces equally bad results, but the reasons they are bad are less obvious, and the author doesn’t discuss them. The article lacks comedic bite because it is making fun of a position that no one holds.

    I suppose the joke about the housing bubble is that in reality Krugman called the bubble and economist Herman Minsky didn’t. That would be lame at best, but as it happens I have no idea what Minskey said about the housing bubble. You have have to explain a joke, the joke isn’t funny. The same is true if your readers have to do a Google search to figure out what you are talking about.

    By the time we get to the claim that Krugman is “pseudo-Keynesian” (because Krugman is arguing for deficit spending to fix the weak economy, in constrast to Keynes, who argued that the solution to a weak economy was deficit spending), I have to wonder whether the author was even *trying* to be funny. This is indistinguishable from something many actual conservatives would write. An essential element of parody is that it is similar but not identical to the real thing.

  • bruce Macgibbon

    In no case would I suggest that Krugman is smart, The fact that this article has brought up so much response shows its merit. bruce

  • Good catch. Good catch.

  • fredfnord

    Heh. That was how I reacted to it. But then the conservative media picked it up and believed it. I guess it really does depend on your preconceptions, huh?

  • fredfnord

    I’m sure you get your information from some right-wing source who has read exactly the same amount of Krugman as you have (which is to say, none). In fact, not only did Krugman identify the housing bubble in 2005 and predict its implosion within a few years (he didn’t specify a time, but in 2005 he said that it had already lasted longer than anyone should have anticipated)… but he accurately identified in 2002 that Greenspan was creating a housing bubble to offset the stock market implosion, and worried, in 2002, about what was going to support the economy when the housing bubble inevitably burst too.

    So yeah, saying ‘Krugman was oblivious to the housing bubble’ is about as wrong as you can be without injuring yourself. But I’m sure that won’t stop you from continuing to spread the meme, because hey, when was the last time someone on your side of the fence worried about whether the mud they were slinging at someone was *true* or not?

  • Cowboydroid

    Krugman said:

    “This is the way the bubble ends: not with a pop, but with a hiss….So the news that the U.S. housing bubble is over won’t come in the form of plunging prices….”

    Krugman argued for low interest rates from the Fed incessantly. He didn’t believe a housing bubble would result…then he realized it would…then he didn’t want to believe it anyway. He’s an idiot economist who doesn’t consider the secondary and tertiary effects of his own monetary and economic policy.

  • Simon

    The only humorous aspect of this piece is the irony of someone with no understanding of macroeconomics attempting to lampoon a nobel laureate for espousing one of the most basic and uncontroversial ideas in the field – that government’s have to spend in order to stimulate growth during recessions.

    Although the idea of spending one’s way out of debt may seem counterintuitive to laymen, the perception of this concept as contradictory stems from the deeply flawed comparison of economies to households which is the premise of this (also deeply flawed) article. Although individual households would indeed be unwise to try to consume their way out of debt, households differ from economies in many salient respects. Foremost among these is the fact that households do not have the circular flow of income and expenditures that economies do. The father of a household does not sell goods and services to the daughter, who in tern sells them to the mother, who in turn sells them to the son, who sells them to the father etc… the household is more or less one single financial entity. In an economy, on the other hand, as Krugman is constantly pointing out (apparently with little effect) everyone’s spending is someone else’s income, and if (as happens during a recession, when expectations are low) everyone pays down debt at the same time, demand and output plummet, unemployment soars, social programs are over-burdened, and the recession deepens.

    Unlike a household, therefore, the ONLY way for a government to get out of debt is to spend (intelligently, of course) thus boosting demand and employment, stimulating growth, and creating a surplus from which the national debt can eventually be paid down. This is not advanced theory, it is macro101. I emailed this article to a few friends – they mainly felt bad for the author, and said should go easy because he’d embarrassed himself enough already. That said, I hope this has been more informative than pejorative – the radical misunderstanding of one of the most basic properties of modern economies upon which this piece is predicated is, sadly, pervasive in current political discourse, and needs to be clarified if the American economy is to have any chance of a real recovery in the near-to-mid term.

  • DailyCurrant

    This article does not equate household economics with macroeconomics.

  • nycfellow

    I’m late to the party, but this enjoyed the piece. I appreciated the attention to detail with the Portuguese wine and his lawyer, Bertil Ohlin.

  • EM10

    Why doesn’t Krugman call up his friend Ben Bernanke and have helicopter Ben just print him up $7M or $8M of fresh new Bernanke notes to pay off his debts? Better yet, Krugman can print up the notes himself, put his own image on them, and send the IOU’s to your children.

    After all that’s how governments and individuals are different, as the humorless pro-regressive wags on this blog are eager to remind (and lecture) us. Only governments can debase their own currency and pass the debt to future generations through inflation or economic collapse. Clearly, society would be better off if we could all do the same. After all, that would increase aggregate demand by leaps and bounds.

  • MoreFreedom2

    Yes, Krugman should have known there was a housing bubble. He actually called for the Fed to create one, once the tech bubble burst. From http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?scp=4&sq=krugman%20mcculley%20bubble&st=cse
    in 2002 Krugman writes:

    To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

    Unfortunately, it’s no so funny as this satire.

  • vivek sinha

    Thanks for your great information, the contents are quiet interesting.I will be waiting for your next post.
    Warrington Car Centre

  • Kelly Rogers

    What a pity. Paul Krugman is depicted as an undependable person. His views regarding the economies of the world won’t be believable anymore because of this, I think. I just hope that he will go through this bankruptcy proceeding with grace and panache. If he’s an Australian, I might tell him to check out http://www.debtrescue.com.au/.

  • Roger Cotton

    Keynesian Economics, like Krugman, are eminently deserving of being satirized.

  • tstewart2

    His sh*t don’t work. Period.

  • Personal Bankruptcy

    Its nice to hear that most of popular person in the industries are filing bankruptcy.

  • Personal Bankruptcy

    Yes, its just he wants to solve her financial problem like debt and etc. Wise decision for Paul Krugman.

  • jackw97224

    Nobel Prize winner in economics declares the BIG BR! Ha! Proves what I have always known: he is a fraud and a criminal and deserves no respect. His Nobel Prize should be taken from him. He is a commie/socialist and we know that commie/socialist nations fail because they can’t make economic calculations and becasue they use force to deny freedom of choice. How ironic is that? He is an economist who fails because he gambles and then loots his creditors to bail him out. What a total filth!