Paul Krugman Proves He's a Fake Economist

You might recall when "famed" economics professor turned reporter, Paul Krugman recently told White Americans that "they're losing their country," and "they aren't the future." 

In the past I've stated that Paul Krugman has no real credibility as an economist. 

Even worse, Krugman pushes a dangerous leftist ideology along with irresponsible economic policies which have been nothing short of a disaster for America and other western nations. 

I’ve previously provided examples supportive of my claims which have included discussions from works that led to Krugman's Nobel prize in economics. In short, much of Krugman's work in the field of economics amounts to simpleton ideas underlying the notion of economies of scale.

Perhaps this explains why he left academia to become a reporter. 

For those who may have missed previous critiques of Krugman's work in the field of economics, stay tuned because I'll revisit this topic again in the future. 

Despite numerous examples of his unimpressive work as an economist, Krugman has been promoted as a leading expert who we should listen to because he's a "brilliant" economist.

After all, Krugman won a Nobel Prize in economics, so he must be a brilliant economist, right?

Today I'm going to present more evidence highlighting Krugman's incompetence as an economist.

For example, on October 12, 2023, Krugman posted a chart of altered inflation data from January 2022 through September 2023, claiming the "war on inflation" to be over.   

I find it odd Krugman neglected to include data since inflation began in mid-2021.    

As you can see from the image below, Krugman's "inflation" chart shows inflation data without food, energy, shelter, and used car costs. 

Hopefully, you understand why Krugman's claim that the "war on inflation is over" is ridiculous based on his argument. 

Why is his claim so preposterous?

If you remove the primary components of inflation from the equation, you're not going to get much inflation.   

Therefore, without considering these components, you're not really measuring inflation.  

In fact, consumers realize the items removed by Krugman have been responsible for most of the high inflation over this period.

Removing food and energy costs can prove as a useful exercise. Doing so results in what's known as core inflation. Many analysts focus on core inflation data because these data do not include volatile price swings often seen with the food and energy items.  

But removing shelter data from inflation measurements, as Krugman has done leads to an entirely different picture. A very misleading and inaccurate picture. 

Consider that about 40% of core inflation data comes from shelter costs.  

As discussed in the June 2023 Intelligent Investor, shelter costs (rent and owner’s equivalent rent) account for about 33% of the CPI and around 40% of Core CPI data.

How can a competent, honest economist, and especially a Nobel Prize-winning economist remove the single largest contributor of inflation from the data (i.e. shelter costs) and claim this adjusted data represent a reliable measure of inflation? 

You'd have to be in a coma over the past two years to not realize that shelter costs in the U.S. have been way out of control.  

Food and energy costs have also soared as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war. But one cannot simply remove these costs from the inflation picture because the war is still ongoing, so we could see a resurgence in excessive food and energy inflation. 

Finally, used car prices have also soared during this period, so it's convenient to remove used car price inflation (as Krugman has done) if you want to convince people that inflation is no longer an issue to be worried about. 

It should be obvious that Krugman is trying to mislead the public for political reasons. As a shill for the anti-White, anti-American democratic party, Krugman is making a desperate attempt to convince the public that the Biden administration has combated inflation without causing any collateral damage to the economy.  Both parts of this claim are completely baseless.  

Again, I claim Paul Krugman to be a fake economist.

But we now see that he's also a manipulative liar. 

Yet the media, academia, and all other elements of the Jewish control apparatus keep telling us he's a "genius."

Pay no attention to what other people claim.  

Always focus on the facts.  

For instance, the Jewish-controlled media continues to claim that economics professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff are brilliant "experts" whose insights should be closely followed, even after they published a research paper several years ago that was shown to be completely bogus. 

It appears that the bogus research paper by Reinhart and Rogoff was published with the intention of boosting sufficient political supportive needed to implement very harsh austerity measures for Europe and the U.S.A. 

See: Why Are Disgraced Economists Reinhart and Rogoff Still Promoted by the Media?

Fortunately, Reinhart and Rogoff's fraudulent research was detected (by a mere economics graduate student) before Washington crackpots like Paul Ryan could push ridiculous austerity measures through congress.

But it was too late for most of Europe.    

See: The Rape of Greece by the Jewish Bankers

This same cabal of Jewish "experts" also told us to trust Federal Reserve Bank chairmen, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Jerome Powell because they too are "geniuses" who know what's best for us.   

But Alan Greenspan helped create two asset bubbles, each of which was the largest in history at the time.

And neither situation ended well to say the least. But as usual, the Jewish mafia made out extremely well at the expense of the working and middle class. 

Greenspan's first asset bubble, otherwise known as the "dotcom bubble" was facilitated by the "easy money" monetary policy promoted by the Federal Reserve, which was chaired by Greenspan. 

Like all asset bubbles, the dotcom bubble would go on to burst, revealing unprecedented levels of corporate accounting fraud leading in catastrophic losses for most investors.

Meanwhile, virtually no one from corporate America went to prison. 

And of course no one from Wall Street went to prison. 

They made billions of dollars illegally at the expense of investors. 

Not long after the dotcom bubble burst, Greenspan helped create an even larger asset bubble this time in real estate. The bursting of America's largest ever real estate bubble led to the 2008 financial crisis which spread throughout the globe. The fraud embedded within this bubble led to the most devastating financial crisis and economic collapse in world history since the "Great Depression" of the 1930s. 

I predicted the details of this crisis and the ensuring economic and stock market collapse in two books that were banned by all media. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

But the banks were bailed out.  

And no one from Wall Street was even investigated for the fraud that caused the collapse. Meanwhile, working- and middle class citizens had to pay a huge price which they are still on the hook for today.  

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke created an asset bubble of his own after passing out trillions of dollars to his banking buddies to help banks recover from the 2008 financial crisis; a crisis which was created by Wall Street.

Again, the Fed bailout orchestrated by Bernanke occured at the expense of working and middle-class Americans. 

Finally, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell expanded Bernanke's asset bubble in 2020 by swelling the Federal Reserve's balance sheet to unprecedented levels through the purchase of trillions of dollars of U.S. government and agency-backed bonds.

This extreme measure has now created many large-scale risks moving forward. 

Ironically, in most cases whereby Jews are proclaimed as "geniuses" by the Jewish mafia, these "geniuses" are shown to be frauds, failures, and sometimes even sexual deviants.

But the Jewish-run media insists these frauds and failures are "experts" as a way to position them as influential players in discussions of critical economic policies.

We've already seen how that's worked out.