The Conscience of a Former Enron Adviser -WSJ

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times has incurred the wrath of a colleague, for the following passage in yesterday's "Dealbook" column:

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 [former Enron adviser] Paul Krugman, declared that we should follow the example of the Swedes by nationalizing the entire banking system.

Krugman fired back in an NYTimes.com blog entry titled "Andrew Ross Sorkin Owes Several People an Apology":

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.

Sorkin does just that, in a post to his own NYTimes.com blog sarcastically titled "Dear Professor Krugman . . .":
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."

Sorkin strikes a hilariously condescending tone, as if he is addressing someone who is full of himself and a bit feeble-minded: "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 . . . Again, I love reading your column, and the bailouts are certainly an issue that is the subject of much debate."

Three cheers to Sorkin. This is almost as good as when Krugman was caught describing his own economics textbook as reflecting "a bizarre point of view."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303348504575184081507879688.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion