Paul Krugman has a Bachelors from Yale, a PhD from MIT, writes daily for the New York Times and probably has his Nobel Prize in Economics prominently displayed in his parlor (though I have yet been invited to his manor.) He is also a proud progressive and an excellent resource for those on the left looking for a prominent economist to lend intellectual credence to ridiculous notions like Obama’s 2009 Stimulus plan.

He is also prone to intellectual laziness.

For example, in an article whose premise I otherwise support, Krugman makes this comment, “You say that reintroducing what amounts to slavery is unacceptable? Well, that’s just your ideology — and a significant number of Americans probably don’t share that ideology.” Krugman is implying, if not out-right declaring, that if you at all sympathize with the South in the Civil War you support slavery. Ignore the arguments about State’s Rights; ignore such trivial details such as Lincoln’s tripling of tariffs (of which the South paid most of, while the North received the majority of the projects they funded); ignore the fact that the founding of America itself was itself an act of Southern-like secession – if you have any sympathy to the Confederate cause, you advocate reintroducing slavery.

This is not the first time that Krugman gets all limp-minded whenever the Civil War is involved. When Domestic Monetary Policy Chairman Ron Paul had economist, historian and Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute Thomas DiLorenzo testify at his first DMP hearing, Krugman dismissed it all as “Johnny Reb economics”. DiLorenzo, author of Lincoln Unmasked, is extremely critical of Abraham Lincoln’s economic policy, which offends Krugman who advocates our 16^th President’s canonization. Not happy with simply criticizing DiLorenzo, Krugman also brings up Congressman Paul Ryan for stating, “There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its people than to debase its currency.” For daring to speak out about the dangers of inflated currency, a policy advocated by Lincoln, Krugman accuses the two men of supporting a return to “the antebellum era.”

In his article February 8^th article on the Paul hearing, Krugman makes the curious choice to bring up Amity Shales, the author of The Forgotten Man, a book critical of FDR’s New Deal policies. This is curious because the two authors have no connection. As Robert Wenzel of EconomicPolicyJournal explains:

To Krugman, if you think FDR policies were failed policies (as does the Mises Institute), then you are part of the MI circle.

How’s that for a tight connection?

In truth, as far as I know, and I know the Mises group fairly well, I don’t think any of them know Shlaes personally. And, there is probably a good part of the group that don’t know her work at all. So why is Krugman making the broad swipe to link Shlaes to the dishonest Clay attack, when the linking is absolutely absurd?

Unfortunately this sort of sloppy, erroneous content has become the standard for Krugman. Instead of engaging in a healthy discussion of debate, he resorts to generalizations, straw men or simply half truths. Should anything more be expected of a guy who apparently believes that in a time with the internet you can get away with lying about your record.