Did Obama Dis Paul Krugman?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Larry Kudlow, a man of the right, likes Obama’s stimulus plan. Well enough, anyway:

Obama’s economic advisers are bragging to me about their new tax-cut package. They say they’re very pro-growth. And you know what? I acknowledge it. People like Larry Summers, Austan Goolsbee, Christy Romer, and Tim Geithner are no left-wing big-government whackos. They may not be hard-core supply-siders. But in terms of the economics profession, I would call them center-right.

Paul Krugman, a man of the left, dislikes it.

Mr. Obama’s prescription doesn’t live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed.

Added to this oddity--Kudlow for, Krugman against--is a delicious postscript.

While waiting in the Forbes on Fox studios this morning, I caught a video of Barack Obama talking up his stimulus plan. Did you watch it? Obama said he'd use the best recovery ideas from any source, Democratic or Republican. “If Paul Krugman has a good idea, we’ll use it.” Obama mispronounced Krugman’s name as "Kruggman" instead of "Kroogman"--with an emphasis on the “ugg.”

In other words, I thought I heard Obama dissing Paul Krugman. How wonderful is that? Can Al Gore be next?

Krugman writes his column for The New York Times, which is gasping under lost circulation and $1 billion in debt, $400 million of which comes due this spring. The NYT has only $46 million in cash reserves, writes Michael Hirschorn in TheAltlantic.com.

So here is a question. Could it be that the Times is guilty of projecting its own survival fears upon its readers and is using the spear of Krugman’s Nobel Prize credibility to do so? Some of you will think so; others not.

Frequent posters to this blog fall into two camps. One camp thinks the financial and economic crises are so deeply rooted they will inevitably lead to another Great Depression purge. The numbers don’t say this yet, of course--unemployment would have to multiply by 3.5 times--but the numbers are worsening. A Great Depression II is a possibility, though still a remote one, I say.

Others, like myself, harbor a suspicion that the media is making a cyclical credit bust and recession appear much, much worse than it actually is--a deception that is sadly becoming self-fulfilling. Now, why would the media do this? For three reasons:

1: Fear sells.

2: Many media companies--newspapers, especially--are suffering a very tough year. A recession looks like a Great Depression when it's inside a newsroom wracked with fear of job losses.

3: A Great Depression-economy gives the country’s left wing (a fair description of the tilt of mainstream media … and certainly of The New York Times) a once-in-a-century chance to retool the country in its own image. The 1930s were fun years for left-wing intellectuals and politicians.

Which brings me back to Paul Krugman. Armed with his Nobel Prize, and during a bad economic season such as this, he has become the economic spokesman for the left wing, led by the Times.

For Obama to dis Krugman is a very good sign in this light. It might even be Obama’s Sister Souljah moment.

Post your comments. Do you find it odd that Larry Kudlow has warmed to Obama while Krugman has cooled? Was Obama’s dis of Krugman intentional, and does it signal a centrist economic presidency?

Fire away.

http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2009/...iteglove_google