Paul Krugman: Solar Panels for Thee, But Not . . .
. . . not for Paul Krugman, as the latest episode of the Contra Krugman podcast notes. Krugman begins his column by labeling the GOP “Enemies of the Sun:”
When it comes to energy policy, the G.O.P. has become fossilized. That is, it’s fossil fuels, and only fossil fuels, all the way. . . . While politicians on the right may talk about encouraging innovation and promoting an energy revolution, they’re actually defenders of the energy status quo, part of a movement trying to block anything that might disrupt the reign of fossil fuels.
Tom Woods and Robert Murphy, the folks at the new Contra Krugman podcast that refutes Krugman every single week, found a picture of Krugman’s house. How many solar panels does it have? You guessed it!
The podcast episode on this can be found here, or at iTunes or Stitcher. It is excellent. Woods and Murphy expose Krugman hypocrisy. They reveal ways that Krugman deceives with statistics. They refute illogical arguments. And they do it all with humor and clarity.
Here’s one more example of hypocrisy to whet your appetite. In this column Krugman suggests that the GOP opposes renewable energy because they’re in Big Coal’s pocket:
[Y]ou need to follow the money. We used to say that the G.O.P. was the party of Big Energy, but these days it would be more accurate to say that it’s the party of Old Energy. In the 2014 election cycle the oil and gas industry gave 87 percent of its political contributions to Republicans; for coal mining the figure was 96, that’s right, 96 percent. Meanwhile, alternative energy went 56 percent for Democrats.
It is certainly a fair argument that one’s views may be affected by the sources of the money one receives. In other words: we need to look at who is giving you money when we evaluate your arguments. But that wasn’t the position Krugman took when Jonathan Gruber was attacked in 2010 for making pro-ObamaCare arguments without disclosing that he had received money from the Obama Administration to work on ObamaCare:
Given that Gruber was providing this kind of technical consulting, should he have recused himself entirely from the public debate? Should he have stopped writing op-eds and, more important, technical papers read by the likes of Ezra Klein and myself? If he had, the public debate would have been much poorer; again, there aren’t many people in a position to do the kind of quantitative assessments Gruber does.
And one more thing: what Gruber has had to say about health reform in the current debate is entirely consistent with his previous academic work. There’s not a hint that he has changed views, or altered his model, to accommodate the Obama administration.
In other words, look at his arguments, not at who is giving him money.
Krugman will always adopt whatever position helps the leftist view, regardless of consistency or logic.
He is, after all, a Liberal with a Conscience — and a Friend, not an Enemy, of the Sun.
Go listen to the whole thing and subscribe. You won’t be sorry!
Looks like new construction. I like to see a view of next door so I can see if he has a bank of panels over to the right of the photo
Even if he has panels, he still is a big fat hypocrite.
Speaking of hypocrites, how about KFI reporters catching climate change legislation weenie Kevin DeLeon leaving his Suburban running for over two hours so he could keep the air conditioning on… while he was celebrating Gov Browns signing of a bill that will severely restrict the way we can move about the state.
steveg (fed1c9) — 10/10/2015 @ 3:19 pmOh, and then DeLeon’s staff tried to get the reporter fired, said it was fake and not DeLeon… of course the reporter has time stamped photos, but DeLeon and his staff keep lying.
I don’t understand Krugman. His lefty statements are so easy to refute. He doesn’t even agree with his own textbook.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 10/10/2015 @ 3:50 pmjust like Tom Friedman, married to a General Properties heir, is also very nonchalant about green energy,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/10/2015 @ 3:52 pmif solar is as cheap and efficient as the squidget says then it’ll be adopted irrespective of whichever particular whore sits in failmerica’s white house
that is my opinion on this
happyfeet (831175) — 10/10/2015 @ 3:58 pmwatch black sails, or turn, to see the wonderful world of green energy,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:04 pmI don’t understand Krugman. His lefty statements are so easy to refute. He doesn’t even agree with his own textbook.
He has become addicted to the adulation that he receives from the far left, as well as from those who are cowed by a Nobel Prize winner and are too intellectually insecure to dare doubt the pearls of wisdom coming from their celebrated idol. I remember reading one of Krugman’s colleagues from Princeton telling a reporter that people who know Krugman’s academic work have come to realize that his NYT column and blog are just lazy pandering to the intellectually insecure left, and that serious scholars don’t take Krugman’s political musings seriously.
It reminds me of people who thought that since Carl Sagan knew so much about astrophysics that surely his ideas on nuclear disarmament were lucid and thoughtful.
JVW (ba78f9) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:09 pmi had a dream about a burning house
happyfeet (831175) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:09 pmAnd your opinion is absolutely correct, happyfeet. That’s why conservative’s like me loathe the leftists constant attempts at pass laws for this or that. If it’s good then people will want it, no laws needed. That goes for light bulbs, toilets, electric cars as well as solar panels and health insurance.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:31 pm4.if solar is as cheap and efficient as the squidget says then it’ll be adopted irrespective of whichever particular whore sits in failmerica’s white house
that is my opinion on this
Noting date and time in which I wholeheartedly agree with happyfeet.
Paul Krugman is embarrassingly predictable. Is he heating that huge place with coal in the winter?
Dana (86e864) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:41 pmThat’s not a house, that’s two houses joined together by a kludge.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:46 pmAw c’mon, give the guy a break … Krugman thinks Trumponomics is right on!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:51 pmWith apologies to the Colonel
Paul’s house, is a very, very, very fine house,
Gazzer (7baf28) — 10/10/2015 @ 4:54 pmNo panels in the yard,
Would that have been so hard?
To mollify the garbage that he spews.
Geothermal for sure.
mg (31009b) — 10/10/2015 @ 5:01 pmNo driveway … helicopter?
BobStewartatHome (10a570) — 10/10/2015 @ 5:28 pmI note a lack of defensible space… Cal Fire would be all over his a$$ for that, but not all over his house to save it from fire. They won’t defend your house if you won’t take the steps to protect yourself. One hundred feet clear of combustibles, more if approach is up slope.
Actually, the photo has a certain quaint, Ma & Pa Kettle look to it…..
Gramps, the original (bc022b) — 10/10/2015 @ 5:48 pmScarcity of oil drives oil prices up and profit up –
Has Krugman ever thought about reading his own textbook – introduction to economics
virtually everything he says in his NYT column is contrary to his own textbook.
Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/10/2015 @ 5:52 pmRenewable energy does create more jobs in the energy sector.
Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/10/2015 @ 5:54 pmDoes krugman know why?
Its because it takes a lot more manpower to produce the same amount of energy. 20-30x the manpower. Like renewables are more efficient – NOT
Is that really Krugman’s house? It seems like awfully tight quarters for both him and his ego.
ropelight (fbcaaf) — 10/10/2015 @ 6:08 pmIs that really Krugman’s house? It seems like awfully tight quarters for both him and his ego.
There’s an airlock in that middle portion.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/10/2015 @ 6:12 pmTo be fair though — as much sense as solar might make in the southwest, it’s not nearly as useful in places that get snow. Not that Krugman would accept that “excuse” from other people.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/10/2015 @ 6:13 pmIn 2006 Washington voters mandated green energy by initiative. Now, in a state that was at the time 80% hydroelectric and 10% nuclear, you might think that nothing would have been necessary, but of course hydro and nuclear were defined as “not green” by the initiative. Which is one of the reasons I voted against it and attempted to persuade others.
That meant wind. Well, wind power is problematic because it can’t be run on demand. The cheapest form of energy storage is in the form of water behind a dam. So the wind farms in Northwest have been pushing hydro power off the grid, so the energy is no more carbon neutral than it was.
At this time the equivalent production of one dam is in reserve for balancing wind. Further, the dams have many demands, such as flood control, irrigation, and salmon migration, and sometimes they have to run even when the wind is at full capacity.
So when that happens, the wind farmers can’t get their tax credits, which are the only thing that makes them profitable. So the Federal government has to pay the wind farmers for power that we can’t even use, and then pay someone else to put it on their grid.
Even worse, the strain of balancing wind has required the building of natural gas plants, which can be stopped and started quickly. So to top it all off, our carbon emissions have gone UP.
Everyone would have been better off if we had paid for the wind farms, written checks to the wind farmers, and then thrown the wind generators into a hole. We’d be out the same money, but we’d still be able to use our dams instead of having to run natural gas.
Gabriel Hanna (940cc0) — 10/10/2015 @ 6:26 pmGabriel, we agree! For the second time in a week. The band will be playing “The World Turned Upside Down”.
Sunk costs can be dealt with. Entitlements will last at least as long as the 2nd Reich.
BobStewartatHome (10a570) — 10/10/2015 @ 6:42 pmThat is one butt-ugly house. So obviously Krugman has the same expertise in architecture he has in economics. And he should shoot the landscaper.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/10/2015 @ 8:14 pmGabriel, I could have told you that 20 years ago. This is what happens when you let right-brain types attempt engineering.
There is only one “green” technology that is half-way worth while, and that’s solar. It has the added advantage that it allows people to be self-sufficient. It’s limited to daytime, but it’s predictable and matches up well with peak load. Otherwise you have hydro, nuclear and things that burn, as usual.
The rest of this is wank, ego, wishful thinking and graft.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 10/10/2015 @ 10:27 pm“Matches up well with peak load”. Peak load on the grid as a whole or peak load at an individual location? Solar works during daylight hours, no? At a personal residence, when are the peak usage times? Morning as people get ready for work and school and evening as people come home and eat dinner/do home work. Morning is limited daylight, evening again, limited daylight. Workplaces and schools have the higher demand during daylight hours, so solar on schools and businesses decrease their electric usage directly. Morning and evening before schools and businesses are open, little to no gain from solar there.
As a source feeding back into the grid in general, ok, but like wind power, you still need storage capacity.
mer (2d74b6) — 10/11/2015 @ 1:35 amNo driveway … helicopter?
BobStewartatHome (10a570) — 10/10/2015 @ 5:28 pm
ferret-faced weezul
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/11/2015 @ 8:19 amvaunted bearded clam travels
by hot-air balloon…
If that is his primary residence,Looks like he’s far from any power connection. So it probably would make a lot of economic sense to outfit the south-facing roofs with solar panels. He would get some serious tax credits federally and probably form his state. And as to my clients who have installed solar components, they have seen their utility bills drop dramatically . Some even get checks form them during summer months for selling power back to the grid. But what do i know, I’m not a famous Enron-consultant/Keynesian/Ivy League/ NY Times economist.
Bugg (fa64ec) — 10/11/2015 @ 8:45 amThat house is indeed a mess. It looks like there is a fireplace between two homes that were mashed together by some tectonic plate shift.
I see two fireplaces ready to belch poison into the air, one seems to be by some part of the structure that has skylights. I dislike corner fireplaces, they screw up the room furnishing layouts.
this house reminds me of those websites dedicated to people piling up mobile homes.
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4075/4919598270_1a5d6c4dee_z.jpg
steveg (fed1c9) — 10/11/2015 @ 10:16 amhe could hang him a tire off one of them trees and swing all day and swing all night
fun!
plus he’d be diverting a tire from the landfill which as you know is just
it’s just so key
happyfeet (831175) — 10/11/2015 @ 12:24 pmHot air indeed! He’s making the most of his Gaia-given aptitudes. But if the balloon should burst, it’d burn a new hole in the ozone layer.
BobStewartatHome (10a570) — 10/11/2015 @ 1:08 pmCruz is very under estimated. he came from virtual unknown in Texas to capture the Texas Senate seat against a very well known and respected republican.
he knew when to peak in the campaign.
He was a supreme court clerk which requires a tremendous amount of brain power (at least if you clerk from renquest, thomas, alito, roberts, – just takes good imagination if you clerk for ginsburg/ stevens, etc.
He is by far the most qualified of the bunch for president (maybe not the best candidate, but the best qualified for the job)
Joe from Texas (debac0) — 10/11/2015 @ 3:20 pmit’s easy to underestimate people what snuffle all up deep deep into kim davis’s fragrant fat-ass bigot buttcrack looking for some sweet sweet trailer trash advantage amongst them there voters in them there heels
plus he went to harvard
happyfeet (831175) — 10/11/2015 @ 3:51 pmIt isn’t just the lack of solar panels; how is it that the esteemed Dr Krugman, who lives only with his wife — his Wikipedia biography lists no children — needs a house of that size in the first place? Oh, I can see why he might want one, but why is it that someone who makes money railing about the evils of the top 1% of earners is engaged in such conspicuous consumption that he’d build of buy a house of that size?
In Dr Zhivago, when Yuri Andreievich returns to Moscow after serving in the first World War, he finds that that local Soviet has occupied his home, and the unsmiling matron and local Communist deputy angrily scolds and says, “There was living space for thirteen families in this one house.”
Knowing his place, Yuri Andreievich replies, “Yes, this is a better arrangement, comrades. More just.”
P’raps the esteemed Dr Krugman should be shown that particular clip?
The Dana who isn't one of the top 1% (1b79fa) — 10/11/2015 @ 4:29 pmMr M wrote:
Oh, I don’t know. That photograph was obviously taken in the late fall, or winter, or very early spring, when the trees were barren of leaves, and it’s brightly illuminated by the sun.
The house is at about the same latitude as Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania, where I provided some of the concrete for a solar energy park. If a company can generate enough energy from solar power to make itself commercially viable there, then surely solar panels as power supplements in New Jersey would work.
Not only could Dr Krugman afford solar panels, he’d have gotten a tax break for installing them. If he doesn’t have them, it’s because he doesn’t want them.
The Dana who isn't one of the top 1% (1b79fa) — 10/11/2015 @ 4:35 pmsquidgets need space to breed they’re like panda bars
happyfeet (831175) — 10/11/2015 @ 4:44 pmLap-dog bourgeois pseudo-Social Democrats who conspire to distract and stupify the proletariat by pandering to momentary interests with the crumbs that fall off the table of the haute bourgeoisie are the more insidious enemies of the Workers’ Revolution. They shall be dealt with immediately along with the fascists, reactionaries, intelligentsia, petite bourgeoisie, kulaks and other parasites.
norodnyy kommisariat (dbc370) — 10/11/2015 @ 4:57 pmthat’s hard to read
happyfeet (831175) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:00 pmi just gave up half-way in
happyfeet (831175) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:00 pmit’s been a long weekend
happyfeet (831175) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:01 pmmarxist speak, accusing the kulaks of preventing the marvelous revolution,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:09 pmYou are not an intellectual. That is in your favor and will be noted.
norodnyy kommisariat (dbc370) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:10 pmi might could be an intellectual at a later date
maybe
happyfeet (831175) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:12 pmin this case, it’s like the board of the sirius cybernetic corporation, ‘they were the first up against the wall, when the revolution came;
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:14 pmWell, actually, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakhty_Trial
norodnyy kommisariat (dbc370) — 10/11/2015 @ 5:27 pm@Kevin M:To be fair though — as much sense as solar might make in the southwest, it’s not nearly as useful in places that get snow.
It’s not snow or temperature that’s the issue–latitude and hours of daylight are. Solar panels in the French Riviera and in Maine are going to work about as well, provided they have the same number of clear days.
Gabriel Hanna (940cc0) — 10/11/2015 @ 8:51 pmSo it’s the fault of Republicans that the coal industry didn’t give money to the party that declared “war on coal”?
But it’s the virtue of Democrats that “alternative energy” gives money to the party that gives them massive subsidies and credits and loan guarantees.
Rich Rostrom (d2c6fd) — 10/11/2015 @ 10:51 pmMr Hanna wrote:
In snowy regions, there is the issue of snow covering the panels, rendering them useless even on a sunny day. I can see where the noble Dr Krugman might not want to have to climb onto his roof to clean off solar panels, but, realistically, the most they’d be shut down are a few days until the snow melted.
And even in a snowy area, while the panels might be useless for a month or so during the winter, they’d still produce energy the rest of the year.
The Dana who doesn't like shoveling snow (f6a568) — 10/12/2015 @ 3:23 amI think the “esteemed” Dr. Krugman should be shown a one way ticket to North Korea where he can participate in the form of economics he promotes for the rest of us.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/12/2015 @ 5:08 ambet these sad sweaty fascists wished they’d had a dollop or two of old energy lying aboot
happyfeet (831175) — 10/12/2015 @ 6:21 pmIn fairness to Sagan, he did concede that nuclear winter would mitigate the horror of the aftermath of nuclear war.
the only energy policy we need is to let people use as much energy as they can afford to use.
Michael Ejercito (d74b61) — 10/12/2015 @ 6:50 pmexcept nuclear winter, was a figment, as the late tretyakov, revealed, in his memoir, sold by the Soviet Academy of Science,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/12/2015 @ 6:52 pmmuch like the skydragon, a quarter century later,
https://www.tititudorancea.com/z/disinformation.htm
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/12/2015 @ 6:56 pmThe Soviets actually disproved nuclear winter?
what experiments did they use to disprove Sagan’s theorem?
Michael Ejercito (d74b61) — 10/12/2015 @ 8:24 pmthe link explains how the model was presented and why,
narciso (ee1f88) — 10/12/2015 @ 8:25 pmIt backfired, since scientists proved that colder temperatures are better than warmer temperatures.
Michael Ejercito (d74b61) — 10/12/2015 @ 10:46 pmno way Michael. It’s all about LIBTARDS, CONTROL, MARXISM and MONEY.
GUS (7cc192) — 10/12/2015 @ 11:00 pmI think the so-called scientists lost all credibility on temperatures, weather and climate once they became products of and shills for academia. These scientists can come up with a model for whoever pays the largest grant and reverse it next year when someone else bids higher. I have more respect for prostitutes nowadays, at least they’re honest about their work.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 10/13/2015 @ 6:10 am