What I’ve been doing; en route home. Yes, I know there was a midterm election; thoughts in tomorrow’s paper.

Meanwhile, a quick hit. Matt O’Brien has a lot of fun with Paul Singer, a billionaire inflation truther who is sure that the books are cooked because of what he can see with his own eyes:

… check out London, Manhattan, Aspen and East Hampton real estate prices, as well as high-end art prices, to see what the leading edge of hyperinflation could look like

Hyperinflation in the Hamptons; hard to beat that for comedy, although Matt adds value with the Billionaires Price Index.

But Singer will get very angry if you make fun of him; in fact, he denounces reporting that points out how wrong he and others have been as the “Krugmanization” of the media, a term I’ll adopt with pride. It’s yet another illustration of one of the remarkable revelations of recent years, the incredibly sensitive feelings of the superrich, who are so hurt at any suggestion that great wealth does not also go with great wisdom and great virtue that they threaten to take the economy with them and go home.

But we must make fun of such people — and not just because, I admit, it’s one of the pleasures of life. Let me quote from a wonderful essay by Molly Ivins (read the whole thing):

Satire is a weapon, and it can be quite cruel. It has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful.

She went on to talk about how the likes of Rush Limbaugh misuse satire to attack the powerless, but let’s stick with the first point. Making fun of billionaires who are clueless about economics, and lack the menschood to admit their mistakes, serves a couple of functions. It reminds the audience that being rich doesn’t mean that you know what you’re talking about; it also provides other rich people some incentive to think before they speak, and maybe even do some homework before preaching to the rest of us. I’m snarky for a reason.

So I think Krugmanization is a great idea, although I would, wouldn’t I?