KRUGMAN AND ENRON (he took money from them... and did nothing in return)

AndrewSullivan.com ^ | 1/18/02 | Andrew Sullivan

[xm177e2]

KRUGMAN AND ENRON: We’re all used to Paul Krugman’s insistent attacks on the Bush administration’s economic policies, his suspicion of big business, his love of high taxes and greater government spending, and his withering scorn for idle corporate bloat and what he recently called the “crony capitalism,” epitomized by Enron. So I was a little taken aback by the nugget buried in yesterday’s Times that Krugman too has been on Enron’s payroll. Even more intriguing is what he was paid for. At the very end of the article we hear Krugman’s explanation for taking $50,000 as a consultant for Enron in 1999: "This was an advisory panel that had no function that I was aware of. My later interpretation is that it was all part of the way they built an image. All in all, I was just another brick in the wall." Run that by me again. He took $50,000 to sit on a panel that “had no function that I was aware of” except to add allure to Enron’s image? And today, he is still waxing self-righteous in his column about a corrupt system of regulation that allowed Enron to get away with financial murder. He’s right about the corruption and the need for stronger regulation. But don’t you think that someone who bemoans cronyism and corruption might, after this scandal broke, acknowledge in his own column that he himself was an Enron crony and that he contributed to the corruption by giving his name as a glittering seal of approval to a company busy raping its investors and share-holders?

[xm177e2]

YET ANOTHER liberal nailed by the Enron scandal, this is just too funny.

[Rain-maker]

Greed has no preferences. Example: Keating, junkbond king (republican).

Business and morality are seperate animals...Let's not drag GW into this pile of horse apples!

[Wphile]

An advisory panel that had no function that I was aware of

So what the heck? I took the $50,000 anyway.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[dpwiener]

Why did Krugman accept the $50,000 if he did nothing? If he was initially misled about the advisory panel's function and purpose, then shouldn't he have returned the money when he realized he was only being used as window dressing? If he thinks he deserved the money for burnishing Enron's image, then doesn't that also make him partially responsible for the damage Enron has caused? And if he rejects such responsibility, does that mean he will now return the $50,000? If not, will he at least recuse himself from writing or commenting further on Enron?

I won't hold my breath waiting for answers.

[greydog]

I Just posted the following clip from this article on Krugman's Opinion board of today's NYT: Krugman’s explanation for taking $50,000 as a consultant for Enron in 1999: "This was an advisory panel that had no function that I was aware of. My later interpretation is that it was all part of the way they built an image. All in all, I was just another brick in the wall." Should do well.