Liberal Hypocrisy, Krugman-Style

Dan Joppich
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's blog is titled "The Conscience of a Liberal."  Apparently, a liberal like Krugman has no conscience -- otherwise, he would recognize his own blatant hypocrisy.

He must be a super-smart economist if he can pack so much liberal hypocritical drivel in a 200 word NY Times blog post

July 6, 2013, 9:12 am

Lifestyles of the Rich and Something or Other

A very New York piece in today's Times about trendy, wealthy New Yorkers who have been acquiring pied-a-terres in newly fashionable Lower Manhattan. You have to read a bit carefully to realize that these are, for the most part, people with apartments on the Upper East Side; their downtown bolt-holes are to avoid the need to trek uptown after a night out. But then, who am I to talk? It's no secret that, courtesy of the Swedish Riksbank and Worth Publishers, we have a place in New York as well as a house in Princeton; and I find the arrangement immensely practical... And the truth is that of the various things the wealthy might spend on, this is one of the less offensive; it might even reduce externalities, if people walk back to their downtown hideaways instead of having a limo wait outside the restaurant for hours. Still, a nice reminder of the state of inequality.

"Still a nice reminder of the state of inequality"!

Let's point out a few obvious hypocrisies:

In his typically arrogant style, Mr. Krugman admits that he personally perpetuates this form of inequality and even justifies it as "immensely practical" in his case.  Not just practical, but immensely practical.  This strikes me as more than a little hypocritical.  It's okay for him, but not for those "other" rich people.

Is the reader supposed to infer that the "Rich and Something or Others" are conservative Republicans?  And when these supposed rich conservative Republicans typically spend their money on "various things," it is "offensive."  I seem to remember the Clintons spending five million dollars on a wedding a few years back.  I wonder if Krugman was offended then.

Krugman should rename his article "Lifestyles of the Rich and Me."

The area in New York he is talking about includes previously abandoned, crime-ridden, depressed neighborhoods that have been reclaimed as loft apartments.  These developments have increased the tax base, helped local businesses thrive, created good-paying jobs for construction companies, etc.  Limo drivers are losing work, though -- sorry, Paul.

Krugman thrives in a world where wealth or equality is a zero-sum proposition.  That is, if one man is rich and keeps a second home in town, somebody else (or many somebodies) must have ended up on the streets.

Lastly, these are predominantly the homes and second homes of wealthy New York liberals like Krugman himself, who voted for Obama.  As a matter of fact, they are the people who open up these very same homes to $35,000-a-plate Democrat fundraisers attended by Obama and liberal celebrity elites.

As I have stated many times, if liberals like Krugman didn't have double-standards, they would have no standards at all.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's blog is titled "The Conscience of a Liberal."  Apparently, a liberal like Krugman has no conscience -- otherwise, he would recognize his own blatant hypocrisy.

He must be a super-smart economist if he can pack so much liberal hypocritical drivel in a 200 word NY Times blog post

July 6, 2013, 9:12 am

Lifestyles of the Rich and Something or Other

A very New York piece in today's Times about trendy, wealthy New Yorkers who have been acquiring pied-a-terres in newly fashionable Lower Manhattan. You have to read a bit carefully to realize that these are, for the most part, people with apartments on the Upper East Side; their downtown bolt-holes are to avoid the need to trek uptown after a night out. But then, who am I to talk? It's no secret that, courtesy of the Swedish Riksbank and Worth Publishers, we have a place in New York as well as a house in Princeton; and I find the arrangement immensely practical... And the truth is that of the various things the wealthy might spend on, this is one of the less offensive; it might even reduce externalities, if people walk back to their downtown hideaways instead of having a limo wait outside the restaurant for hours. Still, a nice reminder of the state of inequality.

"Still a nice reminder of the state of inequality"!

Let's point out a few obvious hypocrisies:

In his typically arrogant style, Mr. Krugman admits that he personally perpetuates this form of inequality and even justifies it as "immensely practical" in his case.  Not just practical, but immensely practical.  This strikes me as more than a little hypocritical.  It's okay for him, but not for those "other" rich people.

Is the reader supposed to infer that the "Rich and Something or Others" are conservative Republicans?  And when these supposed rich conservative Republicans typically spend their money on "various things," it is "offensive."  I seem to remember the Clintons spending five million dollars on a wedding a few years back.  I wonder if Krugman was offended then.

Krugman should rename his article "Lifestyles of the Rich and Me."

The area in New York he is talking about includes previously abandoned, crime-ridden, depressed neighborhoods that have been reclaimed as loft apartments.  These developments have increased the tax base, helped local businesses thrive, created good-paying jobs for construction companies, etc.  Limo drivers are losing work, though -- sorry, Paul.

Krugman thrives in a world where wealth or equality is a zero-sum proposition.  That is, if one man is rich and keeps a second home in town, somebody else (or many somebodies) must have ended up on the streets.

Lastly, these are predominantly the homes and second homes of wealthy New York liberals like Krugman himself, who voted for Obama.  As a matter of fact, they are the people who open up these very same homes to $35,000-a-plate Democrat fundraisers attended by Obama and liberal celebrity elites.

As I have stated many times, if liberals like Krugman didn't have double-standards, they would have no standards at all.