Arnold Kling over at Tech Central Station pens an open letter to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman urging him to become "part of the solution, not part of the problem."

For example, suppose I were to say, "We should abolish the minimum wage. That would increase employment and enable more people to climb out of poverty."

There are two types of arguments you might make in response. I call these Type C and Type M.

A hypothetical example of a Type C argument would be, "Well, Arnold, studies actually show that the minimum wage does not cost jobs. If you read the work of Krueger and Card, you would see that the minimum wage probably reduces poverty."

A hypothetical example of a Type M argument would be, "People who want to get rid of the minimum wage are just trying to help the corporate plutocrats."

Paul, my question for you is this:

Do you see any differences between those two types of arguments?

I suspect that Krugman does see the difference between the two, but his blinding hatred of President George W. Bush doesn't allow him to argue in this fashion. Krugman is psychotic psychic, he knows what's going on inside every conservative's head. He knows that we're all evil, and spend our spare time drowning puppies. Why should he actually try to make an argument that doesn't simply impugn conservative character?

A nice effort, Mr. Kling, but don't hold your breath. Krugman didn't get where he is by being honest and reasonable.

*UPDATE* Don Luskin adds the D-type argument -- deceptive.