This is rich. No, maybe it’s poor; I just don’t know anymore. Paul Krugman has an opinion piece in the New York Times today where he claims the Occupy Wall Street crowd is just trying to get their message heard.
Krugman’s final paragraph reads as follows:
So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.
So what did Krugman have to say about the TEA Party protests? Michelle Malkin reminds us.
The man who grabbed every opportunity to mock the Right and the Tea Party as an “insane,” fringe mob inciting violence now whitewashes the nutballs of Occupy Wall Street and explains the reaction of sane, working people to the entitled grievance-mongers stinking up the streets…
Malkin also reminds Krugman he’s married to and collected a salary from the oligarchy. From National Review Online.
In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company.
Humph… it was only $50,000…
Loading ...
Obama, Gore, Krugman… all proof the Noble prize should be on a 2 ply roll.
My first comment in weeks= Perfect!
The “Occupy”ers have no message,they just want to play & get on TV-just like Krugman-they’re kindred spirits.
I think the fact that Krugman was an “advisor” to Enron speaks volumes about his economic acumen: he is just a little liberal toadie who isn’t even able to hide his lefty biases. Which explains why he works for the NYTimes.
It was actually $37,500. Because he resigned to go to work for NY Times, he never got paid for the last quarter.
Ever get the feeling that most of Krugman’s economic expertise is more commentary than fact?
Ok $37,500 or $50,00 he was paid by Enron and had the credibility of being an advisory board consultant to write a glowing report in Fortune Magazine that year. Quibbling about the amount does NOT change the facts, it was a conflict of interest. Also, Enron was in very bad shape. so he was not a credible expert, was he?