Well, I've seen better insults here...Hindraker's never impressed that much, but if you like him.. that's your gig.

I've certainly seen better writers. Krugman is easily more concise and exacting. But again, it's all opinion in the end.

PB

Krugman also has a long history of mulitple instances of being BLATANTLY incorrect, if not outright lying. And when people point out his mistakes, the NYT just turns and walks the other way, whistling innocently as if nothing had ever happened.

Or it acknowledges a correction on the bottom of page A27.

Oh, and just to quell the "PROVE IT!!" cries from the Peanut Gallery:

Google for "krugman lies", "krugman corrections" and "krugman truth squad".

If Paul Krugman is the best you can do as a "superior" writer to Hinderaker...

...the old cliche "brings a pocketknife to a gunfight" rings loud and clear.

Wait, I know your next two choices after Krugman:

Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins.

Might as well throw Jim Hightower in there as well.

The hits just keep on coming.

Bill, I'll go look at your sites and respond. I'm assuming their not whack-job idiots who don't know economics from their rear-ends. Recognize as well that Krugman is an immensely respected Professor of Economics at Princeton. But I'll see what I see. As it is, Bill, regardless of whether EVERY fact is right, Krugman is a helluva lot more cogent, concise and insightful on an average day than Hindraker is on his best day.

My response to your first post would not have been "Prove it" as much as "what are you referring to"? See I'm a tad more respectful of respectful people than the average poster here, or than the author.

PB

BTW - no, I would not choose Dowd, although I find her pretty funny, she certainly has Bush's number.

If you feel your comments somehow put me in my place.. well, whatever makes you sleep better.

I'll post a few comments from Krugman, some examples. Feel free to refute them. They certainly are better writing than Hindraker.

PB

Bill..

Just read an article from "Krugman Truth Squad"

Candidly, it said nothing of substance.

First, it used the same innuendo it accused Krugman of - "no facts that can be checked" as if that is of course Krugman's design.

Regardless, it then purports to refute Krugman, but doesn't. Krugman didn't say that stocks soared at a certain point, he said they soared... and presumably suggested it was in part due to the cozy relationship between Bush and Business. It then smears him by an unproved association to a completely unrelated Democratic Congresswoman.

That's not exactly proof, in fact, it's no proof at all.. I'll look some more, but your pardon, you didn't exactly make a relevant point.

BTW, the article I looked at was:

http://jottings.blogspot.com/2002_04_14_jottings_archive.html#85009197

One more thing, I did not attack Mitch for liking Hindraker, as I said, that's his choice, it's opinion. I don't like Hindraker, my choice, but attacking me, or belittling me "knife to gunfight" over opinion.. hrmmmm... and I'm SURE than Hindraker doesn't use innuendo, or have carefully staged facts or a myriad of other accusations you'd make against Krugman, right?

My comment was regarding writing style, Krugman is a very effective writer. He writes clearly, he shreds his targets very effectively. If you need to get kicks out of criticizing me personally for thinking Krugman an effective writer.. well, I'm sorry that you feel such a need. I didn't feel a need to call Mitch an idiot for an opinion about writing, I hope you can appreciate the difference. especially since your "proof" was nonsense.

PB

Wow,
http://jottings.blogspot.com/2002_04_21_jottings_archive.html#85024262

Just read this one, this guy is a fruit loop.

First, I paid and handled Medicare Claims for going on 8 years. Their financial controls on Medicare are FAR more stringent than private carriers (who btw adminsiter the program using Medicare's rules). This guy doesn't know medicare from his butt.

$80 Million spent on Viagra by NY... err first of all, many Viagra prescriptions are NOT considered medically necessary and so, totally unreimbursable by ANY carrier. Second, as there is currently NO prescription benefit, Medicare didn't pay a dime for this Viagra..

Wow Bill.. talk about not checking facts.. you might want to become informed on the subject before you accuse Krugman of being falacious based on the side-comments of an obviously ignorant doofus who uses sidelong commentary to impugn and does so very poorly, because your "BS" meter needs to go off here.

His rationing argument is even worse. There is not, nor has there really EVER been a problem getting sufficient numbers of doctors to provide services paid by Medicare. The assumption made here is totally unproven and unfounded. It also refutes his "the controls of Medicare are a disgrace" as on the one hand he implies that Medicare is paying $80 Mill for Viagra (untrue), in the other that it reimburses below market, which while true is not as of yet at all a problem. It MAY become one, but isn't yet. Realistically, the QUALITY of care is an issue, but not the quantity. Leaping to the conclusion that services will not be provided because they cost too much.. well people under Bush's anti-bankruptcy bill may make that choice now because of huge out of pocket expenses, but a little known law requiring medical treatment even to the indigent means this assertion is essentially bogus.

Regardless, it's entirely away from Krugmans point, and was not one in argument. Medicare faces a couple key issues, first the system is under inflationary pressures caused by increasing patient numbers, and that it is inadequately funded. It has consequently further restrained growth in payments. The larger problem is the aging population. Krugman's point (as I gleened) was that Bush is making Medicare even more untenable, which is essentially irrefutable. Bush promised to deal with Medicare, and his solution was to throw money at a highly inflationary system.. That's NO solution. He didn't deal with the underlying problem of inflation in the system running WAY above CPI, he didn't deal with the pharmacutical co's charging exhorbitant fees to US citizens, he threw money he didn't have at them.

This article is one unproven, and mostly unrelated, comment, after another...

Again Bill, I'm afraid you this didn't refute anything Krugman said here. Further, this guy seems pretty much an arm-chair commentator on a system he doesn't understand. Finally, he appears to not understand the economics invovled at all, yet accuses Krugman of being a poor one currently.

PB