Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed page and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He was awarded the Personally, I’m sick of the whole Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton debate, but one of my mottos for column-writing has been “if it feels bad, do it.” If I really want to avoid a topic because it makes my life uncomfortable and will predictably lead to another wave of angr y email, that’s probably a good indication that it’s important. There is one other aspect of this discussion that should be aired, involving incentives and motives. What you get a lot from supporters of Mr. Sanders are accusations of bad faith. In gen- eral, “feeling the Bern” often seems to mean accusing anyone who doesn’t of corruption. So how should we think about such thi ngs? First of all, yes, corruption — including cor- ruption of alleged experts — really does hap- pen. It tends to be a much bigger issue on the right, simply because there’s so much more money and so many fewer scruples. I’ve been saying for a while that there are three kinds of economists: liberal professional economists, conservative professional economists and pro- fessional conservative economists. The box for a fourth kind is mostly empty , for lack of f und- ing. Still, it would be naïve to claim that main- taining access to corporate consulting gigs and the like has no effect on policy a rguments. But it’s also naïve, and destructive, to pre- sume that that’s all t here is. You don’t have to be a corporate hireling or a shill for Mrs. Clin- ton to be taken aback when a Democratic ca m- paign endorses economic projections that are even more outlandish than the Republican fan- tasies you were ridiculing just the other day. And you really, really don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of assessing everyone’s argu- ments solely on their political convenience, and assuming that nobody who disagrees with you might honestly disagree with you. That’s what right-wing apparatchiks do, a nd you don’t want to emulate them. It’s also important to understand that to the extent that personal ambition distorts analy- sis, that’s not a phenomenon unique to well- connected insiders. For sure, big money or the prospect of having big influence are much more powerful corrupting forces than what I’m about to describe. But t hey’re not the only sources of impurity. Imagine an economist who has some fol- lowing but is, for whatever reason, not in the “nomenklatura” of policy wonks who typi- cally get called upon to advise officials or give speeches at financial conferences. That mig ht be because said economist holds views that are considered too heterodox. Or it might be because he is too honest about the corruption of the mighty. Or perhaps insider circles don’t consider him especially insightful or even technically competent — which in turn could be a huge injustice, or possibly kind of true. Whatever the reason, he is, or feels himself to be, on the outside looking in. Now imagine that our outsider encounters a situation in which another outsider, this time in the sphere of politics, has some chance of stag- ing an upset victory. It should be obvious that our outsider economist has every personal incentive to throw his lot in with the politica l outsider — even if the politician’s chances of winning are relatively small, and even if his campaign could bring about disaster because it’s not ready for the challenges of the larger world. The point is that if the outsider politician should happen to emerge victorious, it will give the outsider economist a seat at the table, which he won’t have otherwise. It also follows that this outsider has every incentive to vilify a nd blacken the reputation of insider types who aren’t on the challenger’s bandwagon, even if this means alienating progressives whose support he could really use later on (after all, you don’t want to see your champion turn to established figures if he makes it to office). My point is not that outsiders are more cor- rupt than insiders, nor t hat everyone’s actions right now should be seen as reflecting nothing but self-interest. That’s exactly what I’m argu- ing against! What I’m saying instead is that nobody can be presumed to be pure simply because he is currently without much power or access to power — for that very lack of power can have its own distorting effect. What each of us should do all the time is ask ourselves not just what we believe but why. One fun thing about being a public figure is hearing some of the rumors about the terrible, terrible things that you’ve done. In my case, there was the fake story about my per- sonal bankruptcy a few years ago, and then that story about how I had to leave Princeton because of my drunken brawls with colleagues. I thought that was as good as it was going to get. But now I’m hear- ing that I’ve received lavish favors from Donald Trump, including stays at his properties and free gambling chips. I have to say, this imaginary vil- lain sounds a lot more interesting than the real g uy. This Is What a Wall Street Shill Sounds Like The estimable Mike Konczal at the Roosevelt Institute recently pointed out in a blog post that the Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio is even more radical in his desire to scrap all regulation of the financial industry than the rest of the Repub- lican field. Mr. Rubio wants to get rid of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, with no replacement, and he wants to eliminate all taxes on capi- tal income. The Florida senator has also fully bought in to the “Big Lie” (as the commentator Barry Ritholtz puts it) that private sector abuses had noth- ing to do with the financial crisis, and that somehow it was big govern- ment that forced banks to make all those bad loans. This is dangerous nonsense. We should, however, note that one other potential candidate is peddling the same stuff: Michael Bloomberg. Running Away From the annals of they can di sh it out but they can’t take it: “Mega- Donors Shy Away From Fight With Trump,” according to Politico. “Fearful of counterattacks, rich conservatives and their allies are mostly holding their fire.” (Read the article here: politi.co/1mW9RWK. ) Or to put it another way, the Re- publican Party has decided — to run away. I still predict that once Mr. Trump locks up the nomination, judicious, chin-stroking Republican moder- ates will declare, after much cogita- tion, that given Hillar y Clinton’s, um, something or other, Mr. Trump is the more responsible choice. PAUL KRUGMAN Ho w ‘F eeli ng the Bern ’ Can Lead to Dist ortio ns PAUL KRUGMAN Debunk ing the Latest T all T ales On Feb. 20, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Democratic caucus, her first significant victory in the par- ty’s presidential nominating con- test. A year ago, Mrs. Clinton was widely expected to have a rela- tively easy path to the nomina- tion, but in recent months she has faced an unexpected challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described “democratic social- ist” from Vermont who is popular among younger voters. In the American nomina- tion process, the contests in ear- ly states tend to receive outsized media attention, and victories can sometimes propel largely un- known candidates to national prominence. The long-term suc- cess of Mr. Sanders’s campaign was predicated on besting Mrs. Clinton in enough early states to boost his national profile, and af- ter he effectively tied Mrs. Clin- ton in Iowa and beat her in New Hampshire, national polls showed that the race was tightening. Shortly before the Nevada cau- cus, polls there showed Mr. Sand- ers running even with Mrs. Clin- ton. However, Mrs. Clinton held on to achieve a five-point victory over Mr. Sanders, and some an- alysts have speculated that her win effectively stopped the Ver- mont senator’s early momentum. The upcoming nomination sched- ule heavily favors Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders will have few op- portunities to change the national narrative in the coming months. Still, while some political pun- dits believe that Mrs. Clinton once again has a clear path to the nom- ination, others expect Mr. Sand- ers to continue to dominate with younger voters, which he won by 70 points in Iowa, and by similar margins in the other contests. “Whether or not Bernie Sand- ers wins the Democratic nomina- tion outright, he’s already won in another, perhaps more important way: His brand of politics is the future of the Democratic Party,” wrote the Vox commentator Mat- thew Yglesias earlier this month. “What’s clear is that there’s ro- bust demand among Democrats — especially the next genera- tion of Democrats — to remake the party along more ideological, more social democratic lines, and party leaders are going to have to answer that demand or get steamrolled.” BACKSTORY A Shift In the Race Mr. Krugman, when it comes to Bernie Sanders’ s economic pro- posals, I agree with the central points of your arguments. How- ever, the constant criticism can get tiring. Someone should put together an actual economic analysis of Mr. Sanders’s plans and provide a data set that a broad swath of liberal pro- fessional economists can agree on. Only then can we move on from this sorry episode. — C.D.P., CALIFORNIA I find the criticism of your recent columns to be quite puzzling. After the 1960s, I became skepti- cal of all the “come the revolution” talk, and Mr. Sanders’s supporters seem to be using similar rhetoric these days. It seems to me that your criticism is simply intended as a message to Mr. Sanders that he should get his ducks in a row. I have yet to read something of yours that would lead me to believe that you are shilli ng for Hillary Clinton, nor have I ever seen a sign that you are an esta blishment figure. I am sorry that the debate ha s come to this. If Mrs. Clinton holds enough support to win the Demo- cratic nomination and the disap- pointed Sanders fans decide to sit on their hands on Election Day, the United States could end up electing Donald Trump, or even worse, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. — STEPHEN BERWIND, BRITAIN Mr. Krugman, just explain why Mrs. Clinton’s policies are better for America. And don’t begin your argument by saying: “While I support [specific progressive policy], there is no way it can happen.” We will never have progressive policies implemented in this country if we give up on them before we even have a substantial debate. — SCOTT W., NORTH CAROLINA As an ardent supporter of Mr. Sanders, I greatly appreciate your honest criticism and clear desire to remain transparent about your views. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a certain strain of Sand- ers supporter who shows up on various online comments sections simply to disparage anyone who disagrees with him. This i s not the path forward — this tactic will only discredit the genuine concerns thet millions of people have about health care, inequality, wages and per- petual war. — NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA Mr. Krugman, you have yet to provide a direct analysis of either of the Democratic candidates’ economic policy proposals. In- stead, you have chosen to lash out against your critics, lumping them together in a homogeneous mass. A true wonk would engage with the candidates’ proposed policies and at least evaluate the ana lyses of other liberal economists and com- mentators, while checking their as- sumptions and math. — NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA The thing that’s most worri- some about some of Mr. Sanders’s supporters is their tendency to vilify Mrs. Clinto n and her fans as though they were Republicans. When the center-left of the party becomes the enemy, it feels like the 2000 election all over again, when the Democratic candidate Al Gore was treated as if he was par t of the problem, and Ralph Nader, of the Green Party, was considered by many to be the only candidate worth voting for. — AMY MULLEN, NEW YORK Mr. Krugman, when you find yourself to be the target of legiti- mate criticism from the left , your response is seldom to apologize. Instead, you pull out your tattered victim card and l ist some of the most reputation and credibility with more than a few erstwhile admirers. — T.B., NEW YORK Donald’s Trump’s economic plan could be called “casino econom- Mr. Krugman, I would like to see you write about how Mrs. Clinton’s policy decisions might be affected by the tens of millions of dollars that her and her husband have received in speaking fees from special interest groups over the years. Mrs. Clinton says that if she is elected president, she will get tough on Wall Street. But do you really be- refuse to explain how her presidency would be anything but a continua - tion of the status quo. Please explain why that won’t be the case, and don’t bring Mr. Sand- ers into the conversation in order to use him as a cover for not addressing the issue. — S., NORTH CAROLINA No matter how badly we paint best efforts and knowledge, it still bugs me when someone exposes my flaws. There are times for self-criticism, and then there are times to support your friends. Such is the human condition. — S., CANADA The Republican Party has be- come dangerous to American READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM Less Criticism and More Analysis READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM Who’ s the V ictim H ere ? RUTH FREMSON/THE NEW YORK TIMES Donald Trump addresses supporters in Las Vegas earlier this month after winning the Nevada caucuses. ROWE/AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW - SYDNEY/CARTOON ARTS INTERNATIONAL/THE NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE DEBATING POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND OTHER TIMELY TOPICS WITH PAUL KRUGMAN OF THE NEW YORK TIMES FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2016 ONLINE: COMMENTS Comments have been edited for clarity and length. For Paul Krugman’s latest thoughts and to join the debate online, visit his blog at krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/21/2019 Krugman 26/02
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/krugman-2602 1/1
Paul Krugman
joined The New
York Times in 1999
as a columnist on
the Op-Ed page
and continues
as a professor of
economics and
international
affairs at Princeton
University. He was awarded the
Nobel in economic s cience in 2008.
Mr. Krugman is t he author or edit or
of 21 books and more than 200
papers in pr ofessional journ als and
edited volumes. His latest book is
“End This Depression Now!”
Personally, I’m sick of the whole BernieSanders/Hillary Clinton debate, but one of
my mottos for column-writing has been “if itfeels bad, do it.” If I really want to avoid a topicbecause it makes my life uncomfortable andwill predictably lead to another wave of angr yemail, that’s probably a good indication thatit’s important.
There is one other aspect of this discussionthat should be aired, involving incentives andmotives.
What you get a lot from supporters of Mr.Sanders are accusations of bad faith. In gen-eral, “feeling the Bern” often seems to meanaccusing anyone who doesn’t of corruption. Sohow should we think about such thi ngs?
First of all, yes, corruption — including cor-ruption of alleged experts — really does hap-pen. It tends to be a much bigger issue on theright, simply because there’s so much moremoney and so many fewer scruples. I’ve beensaying for a while that there are three kinds ofeconomists: liberal professional economists,conservative professional economists and pro-fessional conservative economists. The box fora fourth kind is mostly empty, for lack of f und-ing. Still, it would be naïve to claim that main-taining access to corporate consulting gigs
and the like has no effect on policy a rguments.But it’s also naïve, and destructive, to pre-
sume that that’s all t here is. You don’t have tobe a corporate hireling or a shill for Mrs. Clin-ton to be taken aback when a Democratic ca m-paign endorses economic projections that areeven more outlandish than the Republican fan-tasies you were ridiculing just the other day.And you really, really don’t want to go downthe rabbit hole of assessing everyone’s argu-ments solely on their political convenience,and assuming that nobody who disagrees withyou might honestly disagree with you. That’swhat right-wing apparatchiks do, a nd youdon’t want to emulate them.
It’s also important to understand that to theextent that personal ambition distorts analy-sis, that’s not a phenomenon unique to well-connected insiders. For sure, big money orthe prospect of having big influence are muchmore powerful corrupting forces than what
I’m about to describe. But t hey’re not the onlysources of impurity.
Imagine an economist who has some fol-lowing but is, for whatever reason, not in the“nomenklatura” of policy wonks who typi-cally get called upon to advise officials or givespeeches at financial conferences. That mig htbe because said economist holds views thatare considered too heterodox. Or it might bebecause he is too honest about the corruptionof the mighty. Or perhaps insider circles don’tconsider him especially insightful or eventechnically competent — which in turn couldbe a huge injustice, or possibly kind of true.Whatever the reason, he is, or feels himself tobe, on the outside looking in.
Now imagine that our outsider encounters asituation in which another outsider, this time inthe sphere of politics, has some chance of stag-ing an upset victory. It should be obvious thatour outsider economist has every personalincentive to throw his lot in with the politica loutsider — even if the politician’s chances ofwinning are relatively small, and even if hiscampaign could bring about disaster becauseit’s not ready for the challenges of the largerworld. The point is that if the outsider politicianshould happen to emerge victorious, it will
give the outsider economist a seat at the table,which he won’t have otherwise.
It also follows that this outsider has everyincentive to vilify a nd blacken the reputationof insider types who aren’t on the challenger’sbandwagon, even if this means alienatingprogressives whose support he could reallyuse later on (after all, you don’t want to seeyour champion turn to established figures if hemakes it to office).
My point is not that outsiders are more cor-rupt than insiders, nor t hat everyone’s actionsright now should be seen as reflecting nothingbut self-interest. That’s exactly what I’m argu-ing against! What I’m saying instead is thatnobody can be presumed to be pure simplybecause he is currently without much power oraccess to power — for that very lack of powercan have its own distorting effect.
What each of us should do all the time is askourselves not just what we believe but why.
One fun thing about being a publicfigure is hearing some of the rumorsabout the terrible, terrible thingsthat you’ve done. In my case, therewas the fake story about my per-sonal bankruptcy a few years ago,and then that story about how I hadto leave Princeton because of mydrunken brawls with colleagues.
I thought that was as good as itwas going to get. But now I’m hear-ing that I’ve received lavish favorsfrom Donald Trump, including staysat his properties and free gamblingchips.
I have to say, this imaginary vil-lain sounds a lot more interestingthan the real g uy.
This Is What a Wall Street
Shill Sounds Like
The estimable Mike Konczal at the
Roosevelt Institute recently pointedout in a blog post that the Republicanpresidential candidate Marco Rubiois even more radical in his desire toscrap all regulation of the financialindustry than the rest of the Repub-lican field. Mr. Rubio wants to getrid of the Dodd-Frank Wall StreetReform and Consumer ProtectionAct, with no replacement, and hewants to eliminate all taxes on capi-tal income.
The Florida senator has also fullybought in to the “Big Lie” (as thecommentator Barry Ritholtz puts it)that private sector abuses had noth-ing to do with the financial crisis,and that somehow it was big govern-
ment that forced banks to make allthose bad loans. This is dangerousnonsense. We should, however, notethat one other potential candidate
is peddling the same stuff: MichaelBloomberg.
Running Away
From the annals of they can di shit out but they can’t take it: “Mega-Donors Shy Away From Fight WithTrump,” according to Politico.“Fearful of counterattacks, richconservatives and their allies aremostly holding their fire.” (Read thearticle here: politi.co/1mW9RWK.)
Or to put it another way, the Re-publican Party has decided — to runaway.
I still predict that once Mr. Trumplocks up the nomination, judicious,chin-stroking Republican moder-
ates will declare, after much cogita-tion, that given Hillar y Clinton’s,um, something or other, Mr. Trumpis the more responsible choice.
PAUL KRUGMAN
How ‘Feeling the Bern’ Can Lead to Distortions
PAUL KRUGMAN
Debunking the Latest Tall Tales
On Feb. 20, former Secretaryof State Hillary Clinton won the
Nevada Democratic caucus, her
first significant victory in the par-
ty’s presidential nominating con-
test. A year ago, Mrs. Clinton was
widely expected to have a rela-
tively easy path to the nomina-
tion, but in recent months she has
faced an unexpected challenge
from Senator Bernie Sanders, a
self-described “democratic social-
ist” from Vermont who is popular
among younger voters.
In the American nomina-
tion process, the contests in ear-
ly states tend to receive outsized
media attention, and victories
can sometimes propel largely un-
known candidates to national
prominence. The long-term suc-
cess of Mr. Sanders’s campaign
was predicated on besting Mrs.
Clinton in enough early states toboost his national profile, and af-
ter he effectively tied Mrs. Clin-
ton in Iowa and beat her in New
Hampshire, national polls showed
that the race was tightening.
Shortly before the Nevada cau-
cus, polls there showed Mr. Sand-
ers running even with Mrs. Clin-
ton. However, Mrs. Clinton held
on to achieve a five-point victory
over Mr. Sanders, and some an-
alysts have speculated that her
win effectively stopped the Ver-
mont senator’s early momentum.
The upcoming nomination sched-
ule heavily favors Mrs. Clinton,
and Mr. Sanders will have few op-
portunities to change the national
narrative in the coming months.
Still, while some political pun-
dits believe that Mrs. Clinton once
again has a clear path to the nom-
ination, others expect Mr. Sand-ers to continue to dominate with
younger voters, which he won by
70 points in Iowa, and by similar
margins in the other contests.
“Whether or not Bernie Sand-
ers wins the Democratic nomina-
tion outright, he’s already won in
another, perhaps more important
way: His brand of politics is the
future of the Democratic Party,”
wrote the Vox commentator Mat-
thew Yglesias earlier this month.
“What’s clear is that there’s ro-
bust demand among Democrats
— especially the next genera-
tion of Democrats — to remake
the party along more ideological,
more social democratic lines, and
party leaders are going to have
to answer that demand or get
steamrolled.”
BACKSTORY
A ShiftIn the Race
Mr. Krugman, when it comes to
Bernie Sanders’s economic pro-posals, I agree with the central
points of your arguments. How-ever, the constant criticism can gettiring.
Someone should put together anactual economic analysis of Mr.Sanders’s plans and provide a dataset that a broad swath of liberal pro-fessional economists can agree on.
Only then can we move on fromthis sorry episode.
— C.D.P., CALIFORNIA
I find the criticism of your recent
columns to be quite puzzling.
After the 1960s, I became skepti-cal of all the “come the revolution”talk, and Mr. Sanders’s supportersseem to be using similar rhetoricthese days.
It seems to me that your criticismis simply intended as a message toMr. Sanders that he should get his
ducks in a row. I have yet to readsomething of yours that would leadme to believe that you are shilli ng forHillary Clinton, nor have I ever seena sign that you are an esta blishmentfigure.
I am sorry that the debate ha scome to this. If Mrs. Clinton holdsenough support to win the Demo-cratic nomination and the disap-pointed Sanders fans decide to siton their hands on Election Day, theUnited States could end up electingDonald Trump, or even worse, TedCruz or Marco Rubio.
— STEPHEN BERWIND, BRITAIN
Mr. Krugman, just explain why
Mrs. Clinton’s policies are better
for America.
And don’t begin your argument bysaying: “While I support [specificprogressive policy], there is no wayit can happen.”
We will never have progressivepolicies implemented in this countryif we give up on them before we evenhave a substantial debate.
— SCOTT W., NORTH CAROLINA
As an ardent supporter of Mr.
Sanders, I greatly appreciate your
honest criticism and clear desire
to remain transparent about your
views.
Whether we want to admit it ornot, there is a certain strain of Sand-ers supporter who shows up onvarious online comments sectionssimply to disparage anyone who
disagrees with him. This i s not thepath forward — this tactic will onlydiscredit the genuine concerns thetmillions of people have about healthcare, inequality, wages and per-petual war.
— NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Krugman, you have yet to
provide a direct analysis of either
of the Democratic candidates’
economic policy proposals.In-stead, you have chosen to lash outagainst your critics, lumping themtogether in a homogeneous mass.
A true wonk would engage withthe candidates’ proposed policiesand at least evaluate the ana lyses ofother liberal economists and com-mentators, while checking their as-
sumptions and math.— NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA
The thing that’s most worri-
some about some of Mr. Sanders’s
supporters is their tendency to
vilify Mrs. Clinton and her fans as
though they were Republicans. When the center-left of the party
becomes the enemy, it feels like the2000 election all over again, whenthe Democratic candidate Al Gorewas treated as if he was par t of theproblem, and Ralph Nader, of theGreen Party, was considered bymany to be the only candidate worthvoting for.
— AMY MULLEN, NEW YORK
Mr. Krugman, when you find
yourself to be the target of legiti-
mate criticism from the left , your
response is seldom to apologize.
Instead, you pull out your tatteredvictim card and l ist some of the mostunhinged, ridiculous attacks thatthe right has waged against you.Why, it must be a vast rig ht-wingconspiracy!
Sorry, but I am turning down theinvite to your pity party this time,with no reg rets whatsoever. Your
misguided adventures in the Hill-ary Clinton apologist racket havehad the sad effect of destroying your
reputation and credibility with morethan a few erstwhile admirers.
— T.B., NEW YORK
Donald’s Trump’s economic plan
could be called “casino econom-
ics”: The house always wins. Andthe gamblers, who have been soft-ened up with free drinks, won’t real-ize that they’ve been had until theywake up the next morning.
— ANDY W., ILLINOIS
Imaginary villains are alwaysmore villainous than real villains.
— STEPHEN BEARD, OHIO
Mr. Krugman, I would like to see
you write about how Mrs. Clinton’s
policy decisions might be affected
by the tens of millions of dollars
that her and her husband have
received in speaking fees from
special interest groups over the
years.
Mrs. Clinton says that if she iselected president, she will get toughon Wall Street. But do you really be-lieve that someone who accepted $3million in fees from financial firmsin one year alone is going to deliveron that pledge?
I suggest that you start writingabout your preferred candidatewith a critical pen, and explain why
money in politics is a good thing.In the end, the real sca ndal for me
is how Mrs. Clinton’s supporters
refuse to explain how her presidencywould be anything but a continua -tion of the status quo.
Please explain why that won’t bethe case, and don’t bring Mr. Sand-ers into the conversation in order touse him as a cover for not addressingthe issue.
— S., NORTH CAROLINA
No matter how badly we paint
the opposition in our minds, they
remain human beings attached to
ideals.Some of them — sadly, I must ad-
mit — considertheir expression offavor and preference as a matter ofloyalty.
But can we blame them?I am especially well versed in
intellectual matters, and despite my
best efforts and knowledge, it stillbugs me when someone exposes myflaws.
There are times for self-criticism,and then there are times to supportyour friends. Such is the humancondition.
— S., CANADA
The Republican Party has be-
come dangerous to American
democracy, as well as to our
economy.
I am an old-fashioned conserva-tive voter, and right now even Mr.Sanders seems much more desirablethan any of the candidates in the Re-publican stable. He seems to be far
less radical and much more knowl-edgeable.
— STEPHEN, FLORIDA
READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM
Less Criticism and More Analysis
READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM
Who’s the Victim Here?
RUTH FREMSON/THE NEW YORK TIMES
Donald Trump addresses supporters in Las Vegas earlier this month after winning the Nevada caucuses.
ROWE/AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW - SYDNEY/CARTOON ARTS INTERNATIONAL/THE NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE
DEBATING POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND OTHER TIMELY TOPICS WITH PAUL KRUGMAN OF THE NEW YORK TIMES FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2016
ONLINE: COMMENTS
Comments have been edited for clarity and
length. For Paul Krugman’s latest thoughts
and to join the debate online, visit his blog at
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.
Related Documents
