Besides being irrelevant, how very odd that you should raise these questions since above you’ve stated clearly, and I quote…

“I find it particularly interesting when a commenter focuses not on the topic at hand, but on the blog authors’ supposed intentions when he decided to make the post.”

The distinction you fail to make, and the solution to the difficulty you seem to be having, is that, like me, you are a blog commenter, whereas in my quote, I was referring to the tendency of blog commenters to snipe at a blog’s author, griping about what the author chooses to talk about and how he does it.

You’re the audience. They are the hosts. If you want to be a host, and thus get to talk about whatever you want to talk about, however you want to talk about it, then go be a host. It’s nearly free. All you need is the intellectual firepower, marketing skill and dedication to build an appealing body of work, and develop your own audience.

Ah, but that is easier said than done! It’s MUCH easier to latch onto someone else’s blog, after they have done all the work of building an audience, then try to tell them how to run it.

Your behavior and attitude is reminiscent of sci-fi fans, who, merely by virtue of being sycophants and hangers-on of someone’s body of work, feel that they have acquired some kind of quasi-proprietary interest in the subject matter, and thus have the right to have their opinions and suggestions taken into account by the creator of it.

And when their unsolicited suggestions are insufficiently implemented, they get strangely angry, as though they have been wronged somehow, slighted, cast aside, taken advantage of.

So I guess the bottom line is that we are supposed to believe that Republican Alan Greenspan – in the GW Bush administration no less – took the advice of arch liberal critic Krugman – and created the housing bubble to cure a comparatively small economic problem in 2002? If you believe that, you might also believe that the real strategy was the classic preparation for bankruptcy – distribute as much wealth to the inner circle as possible – and then leave the inevitable Democrat successors with the economic disaster we’re now facing.

jscote,

Krugman is being criticized for his theories and the ideas he advocates, not any direct influence he may or may not actually have. Is that so hard to understand? I guess for some people it is.

Krugman is one of a whole host of economists who give bad advice to politicians in general, whether listened to or not. He’s also very popular with economic ignoramuses in general.

He advocated what are obviously bad policies then and is doing so now. Doesn’t matter if Bush, Greenspan, or Obama ever heard of him. He’s still responsible for “intellectual bankruptcy of his economic principles.”

What’s amazing is that this was pointed out in the four sentences of the article presented as a synopsis and yet you were still to thick to get it.

You have to be careful when you judge the critical content of Krugman’s comment sections. He and Brad DeLong carefully edit out any substantive criticisms on their blogs and leave only those that are clearly insubstantial and/or mentally unhinged. Both are basically intellectually dishonest.

Yancy Ward, I’m sorry if my comments to Krugman’s blog post were too milquetoast for you.

19. June 17, 2009 11:00 am

So you’re agnostic — or were in 2002 — about whether the Fed should pursue “traction” as a policy?

So that we’re all clear, what exactly is meant by the term “traction” when used in this context? Is it the opposite of contraction, i.e. expansion?

93. June 18, 2009 8:30 am

Why would the esteemed columnist distance himself from the wisdom of his economic forebearer?

“The remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.”
John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), 322.

Certainly Mr. Krugman doesn’t deny advocating such policy — even going so far as to suggest the equivalent of negative interest rates — i.e. inflation?

“Some economists have argued for moderate inflation as a deliberate policy, as a way to encourage lending and reduce private debt burdens. I’m sympathetic to these arguments and made a similar case for Japan in the 1990s.”
Paul Krugman, “The Big Inflation Scare,” New York Times, May 28, 2009, Opinion section, online edition.

I don’t think that the censorship is any more than the Times’ policy, considering this comment once made it through. As a general rule when posting comments; WRITE SOMETHING WORTH READING.

Jscote,

So I guess the bottom line is that we are supposed to believe that Republican Alan Greenspan[...]

Would you feel outraged if Greenspan was a Democrat? Or would you just not mention it, out of expediency?

Greenspan’s political affiliation is meaningless when it comes to the competency of his economic policies.

[...] took the advice of arch liberal critic Krugman – and created the housing bubble to cure a comparatively small economic problem in 2002?

No, the commentator is indicating that Krugman, far from being the soothsayer he fancies himself to be, is a charlatan that espoused the very same economic “solutions” that lead to the Great Bubble. He was not advising Greenspan to do anything, he was basically agreeing with Greenspan’s policies.