the perfect illustration of projection. Like the Brian William's model, there is no attempt to elucidate only to pretend to be someone so dumb that they can't balance their own checkbook. Male Barbies who tell us the news.

He's been a sane voice in the political wilderness for years. He seems to be able to rise above partisanship and cut right to the heart of economic, and often political, issues. He will criticize whoever is in power if he thinks they are wrong, and he has the knowledge (and the credentials) to do it in a way that convinces people to question their own preconceived ideas. When people start raving about great depressions or the end of the U.S. as we know it, I remind myself that Krugman hasn't given up yet. I trust him to tell me when he see's that things are beyond redemption. It's nice to have somebody to really trust.

Paul Krugman is not just an accurate critic because he was "right" about George W. Bush. Paul Krugman is accurate because he makes rational arguments supported by the facts. He criticized George Bush for giving people money who were already getting richer than the rest of us and for failing to pay for the cost of his policy, or even admit the cost. Both of these claims are verifiable, and manifestly true.

The sense of his argument about the banks as far as I understand it is that throwing money down a black hole is a very unsure way to secure the financial industry.

Obama's rescue plan is nothing more than a handout to the banks and "investors". It lets them buy securities, chosen by the banks, with up to 90% (or more?) of taxpayer money. One of the largest hedge funds in the world already publicly said it's a "big transfer of funds from the public to the banks and private equity". The only reason it's still contemplating whether to participate? Potential government intrusion into executive compensation. Now even that threat is removed as Obama puts the brakes on congressional legislation to recoup AIG/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bonuses.

You know what securities banks will put up for sale? The most worthless ones. Wouldn't you do the same?

If they're smart, they'll buy bad assets from each other. You know, it may well solve a lot of problems, because $1 trillion is a lot of money.

So much it could've bought more than 5 million median-priced homes. Sleep on that.

..in a sling.

Was right during the Bush years, but it was a pretty easy call. Everyone I knew could see there was a housing bubble, and knew it was gonna burst, just like everyone I knew could see going into Iraq was a bad idea.

Is he right now? It depends on whether you think we've hit bottom or are very close to bottom with this mess. If we have, the administration's approach will work. If, as Krugman believes, we are far from it, then it will not. Either way, it's a much harder call.

Krugman, before he started writing for the NYtimes, advised Enron. He didn't foresee the problems they would have until after they'd already blown up.

It's not a matter of Krugman being right about Bush. A lot of people were right about him. It was HOW he was right - he made rational arguments against Bush's policies, helping people to understand why Bush was wrong. This was at a time when most columnists were either worshipping Bush or ranting at him irrationally.

As for Enron... I fail to see how a person who advised Enron on economic matters should be expected to have insider knowledge about their accounting crimes. Nobody knew about what they were doing until it exploded.

Krugman is plenty smart, but what distinguished him from the other talking heads over the last decade was not the brains required to understand the looming disaster, but the balls it took to speak out about it.

I don't quite understand your criticism, Andrew. NY Times today, 3/30/09, America the Tarnished, Krugman writes:

"...Yet that is exactly the situation we’re in. I don’t believe that even America’s economic efforts are adequate, but they’re far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week’s G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.

But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when — as in this case — the Americans are right.

The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America’s reputation, an asset we’ve lost just when we, and the world, need it most. "

OK so what's the trouble unless you are blinded by anything Obama and want him (O) to succeed. Then ANY criticism is bad. But American's are far smarter or at least more observant than ever.

I think Krugman wants a lot more of government oversight, way too much as far as I am concerned. He wants it NOW before the recession/depression is over and America elects a more right-wing govt. than Pelosi and Reid (note that I did NOT say Obama?). He is right about one thing though, we are in no mood for Wall Street types screwing us over. We want to literally throw them off some damned high buildings...and fast too!

Lighten up a bit Andrew.

Now alas he has fallen from the party faithful like Lin Biao's plane over Mongolia. Exterminate the disloyal. We must proceed with the Great Leap Forward.

Let me see, December 8, 2008, Stockholm, Sweden. Was Krugman's Nobel speech longer than 15 minutes? Who is Evan Thomas and where is his Nobel?

Economists might not be among the best known figures in pop culture but Krugman has been a talking head, best selling author and in the news for quite some time now.

I'm not happy to hear him criticizing Obama because he has a lot of credibility. that credibility comes from having been right a lot. I'd say Evan Thomas is looking for HIS 15 minutes.