Krugman then takes issue with Romney's claim of 100,000 jobs created by Staples, Sports Authority and Dominos. True, not all the jobs were created under Romney's tenure. Krugman asks, rhetorically, "Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years?". Of course not. But he can claim credit for some of it, by putting the companies on a good path to growth. And, let me point out, that the 2000s were an overall bad time for the US economy. Obama inherited a mess and deserves some credit for starting the economy back on the right track. But, to be fair, Krugman should give Romney credit for his companies doing well even through the lousy 2000s. Of course he won't.
The rest of the editorial is more of the recent Krugman sophistry similar to his recent column "well, the debt is not a problem, we owe most of it to ourselves". And well, if Staples did well, maybe Office Depot didn't, so Romney must take the blame for their job losses. Sorry, I'm calling B.S. here. You aren't going to blame your pitcher for lowering the batting average of the other team, are you? "Sorry Gio, you got us 3 extra wins but that came at the expense of the Baltimore Orioles who had three extra losses. So, overall wins for the league were equal, no raise for you." Like that would work...
Krugman then goes into a complete non-sequiter.
"In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole."True, But need I point out the obvious? Romney wasn't responsible for America as a whole. Nor did he claim to be. This is a complete Red Herring, ascribing a ridiculous false argument to your opponent then tearing it down. Listen to Obama and you'll hear a lot of the same.
Krugman claims that Romney destroyed good jobs. Maybe Romney did. Perhaps Krugman, Nobel Prize Laureate economist with access to lots of data and papers, could cite a number?
No comments:
Post a Comment