I don't get it. Paul Krugman* repeats in today's op-ed column what he said in his most recent column, namely, that if there weren't a housing boom, the economy wouldn't be doing as well as it is. Duh. Does it take a Ph.D. degree in economics to make such a banal statement? I can't help but think that Krugman wants the housing bubble to burst, which will, if he is right, make the economy decline. But why would he want the economy to decline? Ah; because it would make President Bush look bad. That's the Bush-hatin' imperative: make President Bush look bad. By the way, did you notice that Krugman admitted that the Bush tax cuts have created jobs? He said it ever so grudgingly, but he said it. Maybe we're seeing a new, less partisan Paul Krugman. What do you think?
* "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" (Daniel Okrent, "13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did," The New York Times, 22 May 2005).