Economists as a lot are a curious group of people. Their most useful function is arguably predicting and preventing financial collapses. Yet, these academics who gain so much notoriety and traction during times of financial chaos invariably view financial collapses as black swan events which cannot be predicted or modeled. At some point, many economists gave up altogether attempting to reconcile financial collapses with their fantasy economic models. Instead, they created a whole new field of study called political economics which rationalized sweeping policy changes during these times of economic turmoil.

It’s more crowded than ever these days among the bottom-feeders of our society. Forget contending with politicians, ponzi-schemers, and usurers. Political economists highlight the dregs of society nowadays. These ‘academics’ purposely obfuscate, manipulate data, and lie to achieve their agenda. These interlopers lay dormant for years or even decades waiting for a moment of financial turmoil when they may rise to prominence. Among their leaders is none other than Paul Krugman.

Paul Krugman – nobel laureate, New York Times columnist, Professor of Economics at Princeton – may seem an unlikely candidate as one of the country’s chief villains. For years, he had fired up the progressive left with his glossy opinions about the “failed policies” of the Bush-Cheney administration. He built a steady following and trust by warning of the browbeating policies of the Republican Congress and White House. He correctly predicted (as many financial forecasters had) that unusually low interest rates would fuel asset bubbles.

In 2008, Paul Krugman recognized a unique opportunity to leverage his nobel laureate and academic ties to become part of the press corps of the Executive Branch of government. One can only imagine his motivations. Perhaps he was satisfying a secret fantasy of controlling the minds of millions through economic nostrum, as his former professor Paul Samuelson did; perhaps he recognized an opportunity for greater personal accolades by proposing policy through the mainstream media; perhaps he wanted to become this generation’s John Maynard Keynes; or, perhaps he just enjoys the limelight. Regardless of his rationale, Paul Krugman has persistently and conveniently hidden the truth from his readers in order to advance dangerously flawed policy decisions. The New York Times, for its part, has contributed to the Krugman machine by routinely censoring feedback about Mr. Krugman from its comments page. Negative feedback must be hidden from the public lest it undermine Mr. Krugman’s overall efficacy.

Miraculously, the New York Times offers a selection of Krugman editorials dating back to 2000 to allow the public to review the caliber and consistency of Mr. Krugman’s message. Decide for yourself if Krugman has danced as a politician over the past several years as the data has come in:

Trade Deficits

March 26, 2000: Trade deficits are good for America

When the U.S. trade deficit passed $100 billion for the first time, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth…. At the moment the U.S. trade deficit is good, not bad, for our economy. It doesn’t cost us jobs because we already have more than enough domestic demand.

November 15, 2009: Trade deficits threaten American Jobs, China to blame

So picture this: month after month of headlines juxtaposing soaring U.S. trade deficits and Chinese trade surpluses with the suffering of unemployed American workers. Unfortunately, the Chinese don’t seem to get it: rather than face up to the need to change their currency policy, they’ve taken to lecturing the United States, telling us to raise interest rates and curb fiscal deficits — that is, to make our unemployment problem even worse.

Budget Deficits

May 3, 2002: Rising budget deficits are a fiscal disaster

But the unfolding fiscal disaster hasn’t yet penetrated the public’s consciousness — and the administration is trying to exploit that window of ignorance. In fiscal 2000 the federal budget was in surplus by $236 billion. This year’s deficit will be more than $100 billion, possibly more than $150 billion.

November 5, 2009: Rising budget deficits are the solution

Conventional wisdom in Washington seems to have congealed around the view that budget deficits preclude any further fiscal stimulus — a view that’s all wrong on the economics, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

August 27, 2009: A $150 deficit is catastrophic, but $9 trillion is nothing

So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, that’s a terrifying number, requiring drastic action…. The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy…. As I said, deficits saved the world.

Interest rate manipulation

December 27, 2000: America is not Japan

Rather, the point is that recessionary tendencies can usually be effectively treated with cheap, over-the-counter medication: cut interest rates a couple of percentage points, provide plenty of liquidity, and call me in the morning. Or more accurately, call me in six months — or maybe as much as a year. Experience suggests that the Fed can almost always persuade consumers and businesses to spend more by cutting interest rates, but that there’s a longish lag between the rate cut and the spending increase.

June 14, 2009: 0% interest rates have failed, America must force more borrowing

For this is the third time in history that a major economy has found itself in a liquidity trap, a situation in which interest-rate cuts, the conventional way to perk up the economy, have reached their limit. When this happens, unconventional measures are the only way to fight recession.

The Danger of Political Economists

April 23, 2000: How to be a Hack Economist

Portrait of a hired gun: He or she is usually a mediocre economist — someone whose work, if it didn’t have an ideological edge, might have been published but wouldn’t have had many readers. He has, however, found a receptive audience for work that does have an ideological edge…. How can you tell the hacks from the serious analysts? One answer is to do a little homework. Hack jobs often involve surprisingly raw, transparent misrepresentations of fact.

December 17, 2009: Forget economic details, just pass the Health Care Bill (I’m not a hack, I’m a nobel laureate)

A message to progressives: … pass the health care bill….

The question, then, is whether to pay the ransom by giving in to the demands of those senators, accepting a flawed bill, or hang tough and let the hostage — that is, health reform — die.

On Globalization

July 23, 2000: Those who stop globalization are dangerous

Mr. Nader now apparently believes that whatever is good for General Motors, or Pfizer, or any corporation, must be bad for the world…. And was I the only person who shuddered when Mr. Nader declared that if he were president, he wouldn’t reappoint Alan Greenspan — he would ”re-educate” him?

Krugman’s solution to a finacial collapse: Dump the currency

March 11, 2001: The Japanese should just print money

On Thursday Japan’s finance minister made the startling declaration that, after a decade of deficit spending to prop up the economy, his government’s finances were close to a ”catastrophic situation.”… In fact, there’s a lot that the B.O.J. could do. It could commit to a long-term policy of printing more money…. The United States is not in anything like Japan’s situation…. But if the bursting of a bubble turns into an overall recession, the fault will lie not in ourselves, but in our central bankers, who acted too little, too late. And it will be the Federal Reserve’s responsibility to get us out again.

October 11, 2009: A dollar collapse is good for America

But if you get your opinions from, say, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, you’re told that the falling dollar is a terrible thing, a sign that the world is losing faith in America (and especially, of course, in President Obama). Something, you believe, must be done to stop the dollar’s slide. And in practice the dollar’s decline has become a stick with which conservative members of Congress beat the Federal Reserve, pressuring the Fed to scale back its efforts to support the economy.

Confused by Krugman’s message? Don’t be. It’s not all that complicated. In Krugman’s world as a political economist, he’s always right. He knows how to manipulate markets just right. We just need to trust him more. He’s a political economist, by Jeeves. What’s there to fear?