Classic example of what I have been talking about!

Trump’s Virus Is Spreading, and His Economy Is Stalling  (Paul Krugman, NYT)

Quite obviously, Paul Krugman has seen the latest economic numbers. He knows that based on what was reported that the economy has not stalled (or at least hadn't stalled at the time of the report). There is literally no empirical data anywhere to suggest that the economy has suddenly reversed course now that it is July (and no longer June). But, this has become the prevailing wisdom for the Paul Krugman's of the world.

Likewise, Krugman has the same Covid data available to him as anyone else. He can look at the numbers coming from the CDC, Worldometer, Covid Tracking Project, John Hopkins, or where ever and he would see that while cases are going up, deaths are still coming down or at worst leveling off. There has been no empirical evidence to date to show that the recent surge in cases has resulted in the same sort of surge in either hospitalizations or deaths. But, again, the prevailing wisdom in the simpleton world of the left that it's only a matter of time.

To be fair, nobody knows for sure if Krugman and gang are going to be right or wrong about the July economic numbers. That being said, they also believed that the June numbers would be a disaster (and were wrong). To be equally fair, nobody (not even Fauci or Birx) knows if the recent surge in cases will eventually take a bigger toll on the hospitalizations and deaths. It might, but it also might not.

But that really is the entire point I have been making. Krugman doesn't actually know what the future will hold. Yet Krugman writes an article as if his future predictions are already a known reality. To be perfectly blunt. This is an opinion that lacks any mature patience or respect for data and reality. It appears little more than a childish reaction to great economic numbers. Numbers that he believes can be dispelled and discounted based on his own personal opinions regarding the future. 

But isn't this EXACTLY what I have been arguing? The liberal talking points are never about the empirical data or are limited to what we actually know and can prove. They seem to always be about tomorrow, next week, or next month, when all of the chickens apparently will come home to roost. When it doesn't happen the way that they expect, then they simply push out the expectations and predictions a bit further into the future.

This is not a case of moving the goalposts. This is a case of demanding that the field goal that went right down the middle of the uprights should be waved off as "no good" because they are convinced that the goal posts only appear to be where they are, and that in their reality they are actually somewhere else.