Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Well, he’s at it again. Yesterday’s New York Times ran an article by Andrew Ross Sorkin describing how, much to the surprise of many people, the bank bailouts have actually worked. Sorkin takes a well-desrved shot at Krugman:

You may recall that during the most perilous months of 2008 and early 2009, there was a vigorous debate about how the government should fix the financial system. Some economists, including Nouriel Roubini of New York University and The Times’s own Paul Krugman, declared that we should follow the example of the Swedes by nationalizing the entire banking system.

They argued that Wall Street was occupied by the walking dead, and that no matter how much money we threw at the banks, they would eventually topple the system all over again and cause a domino effect worldwide.

So were they wrong after all?

Krugman responded today with a Nobel-Prize-winning hissyfit:

I certainly never said anything like that, and I don’t think Nouriel did either. First of all, I never called for “nationalizing the entire banking system” — I wanted the government to take temporary full ownership of a few weak banks, mainly Citigroup and possibly B of A. I defy Sorkin to find any examples of me calling for a total takeover.

Well, Paul, how about this example from your March 2009 Newsweek cover story:

Obama administration officials are dismissive of Krugman’s arguments, although not on the record. One official made the point that pundits can have a 60 percent chance of being right—and just go for it. They have nothing to lose but readers, and Krugman’s many fans have routinely forgiven his wrong calls. The government does not have the luxury of guessing wrong. If Obama miscalculates, he could truly crash the stock market and drive the economy into depression. Krugman’s suggestion that the government could take over the banking system is deeply impractical, Obama aides say. Krugman points to the example of Sweden, which nationalized its banks in the 1990s. But Sweden is tiny. The United States, with 8,000 banks, has a vastly more complex financial system. What’s more, the federal government does not have anywhere near the manpower or resources to take over the banking system. Krugman swats away these arguments, though he acknowledges he’s not a “detail” man. He believes he is fighting a philosophical battle against the plutocrats and money-changers.

So, Paul, did you demand an apology from Newsweek back in March 2009 when they described you as advocating a Swedish-styled nationalization of the entire banking system? Or is there a framed copy of that cover story hanging on the wall in your office?

Paul Krugman used to be a serious academic economist. Today he is a national joke who has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to compromise the truth.

Why is anybody still taking this guy seriously?

UPDATE: Sorkin responds to Krugman:

Just so there is no confusion, I based that passage on what you and Mr. Roubini had said and written during the crisis about a Swedish-style nationalization of the banking system.

Mr. Roubini began an Op-Ed in The Washington Post by writing, “The U.S. banking system is close to being insolvent, and unless we want to become like Japan in the 1990s — or the United States in the 1930s — the only way to save it is to nationalize it.” Later in the piece, he added, “We believe that, if applied correctly, the Swedish solution will work here.”

On your blog on Sept. 28, 2008, after reading a piece by Brad DeLong, an economist, which you linked to, you wrote, “Brad DeLong says that Swedish-style temporary nationalization is the right answer to a financial crisis; he’s right.”

In your column on Feb. 23, 2009, you asked, “Why not just go ahead and nationalize? Remember, the longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis.”

I appreciate that you may have articulated the details of your views differently, or more specifically, in other columns and forums.  And I appreciate that you could quibble with my words. But I do think it is clear that both you and Mr. Roubini had pressed for a Swedish-style nationalization.

But recently MSNBC has taken their extreme rhetoric to an unprecedented new level. They are slandering anyone who disagrees with them. Anyone who questions their Leftist dogma is portrayed as violent, a racist, or both—and peaceful Tea Party protesters are referred to as “teabaggers,” a derogatory sexual term.

Never before has a news network launched such an attack on such a broad cross-section of the American public. For example, according to recent a recent Gallup poll, 28% of the public supports the Tea Party movement. 49% of them are Republicans, 43% are Independents, and, 8% are Democrats. Gallup concludes that in terms of their age, educational background, employment, and race, “Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.”

What can you do about it?

The country is already boycotting MSNBC itself. It averages less than a million viewers every night. According to TV Newser, MSNBC’s ratings fell by double digits in the First Quarter of 2010. Rachel Maddow was down -25% overall and -38% in the coveted 25-54 demographic. Keith Olbermann did even worse: down -26% overall and -42% in the 25-54 demographic. Despite these death-spiral ratings, the slander of millions of peaceful Americans continues unabated on a nightly basis.

The time has come to hold MSNBC’s parent corporations responsible for its actions. MSNBC is a joint venture between NBC Universal, which owns 82%, and Microsoft, which owns 18%. The only way to stop liberal extremists like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews is to hold NBC Universal and Microsoft responsible.

Sign the petition! Boycott NBC Universal and Microsoft until they stop the slander!