a whiff of incompetence

sometimes, i think paul krugman comes up with a headline, but forgets it at some point through every column. after a coupla error-filled columns regarding health care system (exhibits 1 and 2 based on the same debunked facts), krugman turns his attention to 'staglation' with his latest column

primarily, krugman errs with his overly broad definition of stagflation--"rising inflation in an economy still well short of full employment"--that would apply to pretty much every recession. 'stagflation' was coined to reflect terrible economic conditions like those of the 1970s US economy, not to be applied simply for partisan purposes.

strangely, krugman interjects facts and statements which undercut his own argument:
- "measured unemployment isn't bad by historical standards, and inflation is in the low single digits."
- "The official unemployment rate is 5.2 percent - roughly equal to the average for the Clinton years."
- "We shouldn't overstate the case: we're not back to the economic misery of the 1970's."

krugman includes suppositions, implications and inferences which torture the truth on the job market, then continues with a series of potential economic shocks that could spur true staglation.

krugman concludes

"It all adds up to a mild case of stagflation: inflation is leading the Fed to tap on the brakes, even though this doesn't look or feel like a full-employment economy."

like pregnancy, there's no such thing as "a mild case" of staglation--you either have it or you don't.