We watch CNBC all day and every day, and ever since last Thursday’s punk jobs report, there’s been endless talk of a second stimulus.
But Paul Krugman — who was for a larger stimulus from the very beginning — says he and others are being censored and that the media has decided that some viewpoints aren’t to be heard:
The most notorious example was during the buildup to the Iraq war: scepticism about the case for war was treated as a fringe view, even though the evidence being presented by the hawks was flimsy on its face, and the ranks of the sceptics included a number of people with excellent national-security credentials.
But in a way, the implicit censorship on the stimulus debate is even stranger. During the initial discussion of the stimulus, the debate was framed almost entirely as a debate between Obama and those who said the stimulus was too big; the voices of those saying it was too small were largely frozen out. And they still are — if it weren’t for my position on the Times op-ed page, there would be hardly any major outlet for Keynesian concerns.
Then he goes onto say that advocates of a larger stimulus have been relegated as “non-persons.”
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.