Paul Krugman is a jackass (1 Viewer)

[Fennis]

GM compares Paul Krugman to Pope

Krugman insulted by comparison

 

[cr8f]

Good thing these threads aren't serious.

 

[prefontaine]

Nobel Prize Winner... ...Jimmah Carter, Al Gore, Obama...you get one for being liberal

I get that most of these threads turn into a liberal vs conservative point of view but Krugman won a prize for Economics, not Peace fyi. Other notable winners include Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Nash, and Paul Samuelson. While there have been calls of bias over time (as certain theories bubbled to the front of economic thought), it isn't anything overly pronounced and no one wins that doesn't have significant achievement in economic theory. I'm not a big Krugman fan, but let's not compare his award to a popularity contest.

 

[JJP]

So Capella gets a month for using the "V" word while making a hilarious joke buried deep inside a thread, but JACKASS in headlines not once but twice flies just fine?

Oh yeah, things are absolutely the same as Day 1.

Not a fan of this bitter, snitching version of GM.

A) I happen to like Krugman and think the title is beyond ridiculous. Not only is he a Nobel Prize winner, not only is he a product of the Ivy Leagues, but he accurately predicted our financial collapse years before it unraveled. He was highly critical of Bush's policies (rightly so) and I'm guessing that's the reason the OP thought to call him a 'jackass'.B) I happen to like Cappy and think his getting a month for using the scientific name for a female body part that flies on shows like The View is pretty lame. A month? Really? For that? And yet this flies just fine?

C) Who are you again?

Nobel Prize Winner... ...Jimmah Carter, Al Gore, Obama...you get one for being liberal

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know of any economists who think Krugman's Nobel Prize was undeserved.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

People may have different ideas on issues that he does, but I think it's incredibly unlikely that he puts out the opinions he does just to get someone to put his name into the title of a thread on a fantasy football website. He's got bigger fish to concern himself with.

As Ivan mentioned, that's his wife's job.

 

[Honda]

Krugman is the tommyGunZ of the real world. Seems like a nice enough guy and comes across as quite intelligent but doesn't live in the same reality as I do.

 

[bigbottom]

What a jag. How can you take any columnist seriously when he begins a column off in this manner

The White House is confident that a financial regulatory reform bill will soon pass the Senate. I’m not so sure, given the opposition of Republican leaders to any real reform.

WTF? Republican leaders are begging for real reform. They are providing solutions that constitute real reform.

Can you summarize the proposed solutions? I think it's an easy talking point to say that Republican leaders oppose reform regarding the regulation of the financial industry, whether or not it's true. As I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the issue, I'd like to hear what initiatives are being promoted by Congressional Republicans on this issue.

Bump.

 

[SacramentoBob]

So Capella gets a month for using the "V" word while making a hilarious joke buried deep inside a thread, but JACKASS in headlines not once but twice flies just fine?

Oh yeah, things are absolutely the same as Day 1.

Not a fan of this bitter, snitching version of GM.

A) I happen to like Krugman and think the title is beyond ridiculous. Not only is he a Nobel Prize winner, not only is he a product of the Ivy Leagues, but he accurately predicted our financial collapse years before it unraveled. He was highly critical of Bush's policies (rightly so) and I'm guessing that's the reason the OP thought to call him a 'jackass'.B) I happen to like Cappy and think his getting a month for using the scientific name for a female body part that flies on shows like The View is pretty lame. A month? Really? For that? And yet this flies just fine?

C) Who are you again?

Nobel Prize Winner... ...Jimmah Carter, Al Gore, Obama...you get one for being liberal

Either time either of you two post, conservatism dies a little. You do more for liberals than they do for themselves.

 

[Desert_Power]

Can we please get to dicussing the solutions of Republican leaders that constitute real reform?

This keeps getting bumped yet all we get is crickets...

I'm open to the possibility that Paul Krugman is indeed a jackass, but I have yet to see any support for the OP's reasoning here.

 

[cr8f]

Well at least he is no Rush Limbaugh.

Saying Obama hated the govt his whole life.

This Obama guy sounds awful bad someone should warn the president- they have the same last name.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I don't know of any economists who think Krugman's Nobel Prize was undeserved.

He definitely deserved the award. The shame of it is that columnist/celebrity Krugman is way left of Nobel Prize Krugman. The guy has certainly opposed Obama on a number of things, but often times it's from the left, not the right.

 

[Saints-Man]

I get that most of these threads turn into a liberal vs conservative point of view but Krugman won a prize for Economics, not Peace fyi. Other notable winners include Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Nash, and Paul Samuelson. While there have been calls of bias over time (as certain theories bubbled to the front of economic thought), it isn't anything overly pronounced and no one wins that doesn't have significant achievement in economic theory. I'm not a big Krugman fan, but let's not compare his award to a popularity contest.

I don't know of any economists who think Krugman's Nobel Prize was undeserved.

 

[HoldSteady]

Krugman is also a big critic of Obama.

Since when did "critic" mean "kiss ###?"

 

[pantagrapher]

Krugman is also a big critic of Obama.

Since when did "critic" mean "kiss ###?"

You must not read Krugman.

 

[Christo]

He will say anything for attention. No reason to give it to him.

Krugmann or Stat?

Stat's contributions at :e: have done more to benefit the world than the totality of Krugman's lifetime of work.

 

[pantagrapher]

He will say anything for attention. No reason to give it to him.

Krugmann or Stat?

Stat's contributions at :e: have done more to benefit the world than the totality of Krugman's lifetime of work.

This is true.

 

[Christo]

Can we please get to dicussing the solutions of Republican leaders that constitute real reform?

This keeps getting bumped yet all we get is crickets...

I'm open to the possibility that Paul Krugman is indeed a jackass, but I have yet to see any support for the OP's reasoning here.

Well, here's what they proposed almost a year ago:Central Elements of the Republican Plan for Financial Regulatory Reform

Enhanced Bankruptcy – would create a new chapter of the bankruptcy code to deal with the efficient

resolution of insolvent non-bank financial institutions; would have regulators and the courts coordinate

in order to “ensure technical and specialized expertise is applied;” and would give bankruptcy judges

authority to “stay claims by creditors and counterparties to prevent runs on troubled institutions.”

Market Stability and Capital Adequacy Board – would monitor interactions among sectors of the

financial system and identify potential risks to the system. The Board would not have enforcement or

supervisory authority over firms but would work with existing financial regulators, thus avoiding the

creation of new regulators. The Treasury Secretary would chair the Board, which would be comprised

of financial regulatory agency representatives as well as outside experts.

Regulatory Restructuring – would streamline “the current framework of overlapping and redundant

federal financial regulatory agencies” by centralizing “the supervision of deposit-taking entities in once

agency while preserving charter choice as well as the dual banking system; would combine the Office

of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS); and would shift

the supervisory functions of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation –

including oversight of bank holding companies -- to the combined new OCC/OTS .

Fundamental Reform of the Federal Reserve – would require the Fed “to focus on its core mission

of conducting monetary policy” and require an explicit inflation target; would limit the Fed’s authority

(under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act) to respond to “unusual and exigent circumstances” by

forcing Treasury to approve of any such actions and place related transactions on its balance sheet,

enabling Congress to disapprove such actions, and prohibiting the use of such actions “on behalf of

specific institutions;” and would direct the Government Accountability Office to conduct extensive

audits of the Fed.

Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) Reform – would gradually phase out taxpayer

subsidization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; would sunset the government conservatorship currently

running Fannie and Freddie by a date certain, placing them in receivership if they are not viable at that

point; would, when the housing market has stabilized, wind down the federal subsidies granted through

the Fannie and Freddie charters and transition the GSEs into private entities forced to compete on a

level playing field with other private firms; and would address reducing Fannie’s and Freddie’s

portfolios, re-focusing their mission on promoting housing affordability, and requiring SEC

registration and federal taxation.

Credit Rating Agency Reform – would change the definition of Nationally Recognized Statistical

Ratings Organization (NRSO) to “nationally registered statistical rating organizations” and remove all

NRSO references from federal laws and regulations so that an NRSO can “no longer operate as a

government sanctioned oligopoly.”

Protecting Consumers Through Improved Disclosure and Complaint Resolution Procedures –

would expand the mission of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, giving it the authority

to direct regulated entities to disclose and post certain content on their websites and would also

streamline the consumer complaint process by offering a one-stop toll-free number and website that

would act as a clearinghouse to guide consumers to the appropriate regulatory enforcement agency.

Strengthening Anti-fraud Enforcement – would increase both civil and criminal money penalties in

government enforcement actions; maximize restitution for victims of fraud; improve surveillance of

bad actors who prey on consumers; improve regulators’ ability to share information with foreign

regulators and law enforcement agencies; and use monetary recoveries exceeding that needed to

compensate harmed investors for hiring additional enforcement personnel.

http://www.financialreformwatch.com/upload...orm-6-11-09.pdf

 

[dwarfboy]

Link to a review of every Krugman NYT article '97-'06

Abstract: We have made a complete review of Krugman’s New York Times columns 1997 through 2006–in all, 654 columns.

The pattern of policy positions and arguments do not square with his purported concern for general prosperity and the

interests of the poor. Some of the evidence lies in statements made. But the more important evidence lies in patterns of statements not made.

Because Krugman assumes the role of addressing the most important things, because our account is comprehensive, and because the omissions are flagrant, we may treat omissions as evidence of Krugman’s ideological character and sensibilities. Krugman is bestinterpreted as a committed social democrat and Democratic partisan. Our main contention is that his social-democratic bent sometimes trumps people’s interests, notably poor people’s interests.

The tension surfaces in what Krugman has written about immigration and the threat it poses to the US welfare state. But the tension is

found in his writings on several topics, and, importantly, in omissions in his writings. Krugman has only rarely come out against extant government

interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, especially for the poor. If Krugman would admit that, to some extent, he is ready to sacrifice poor people’s interests for the sake of advancing social-democratic values, then he has to admit conflict between relevant values and give up posturing to the effect that he has been a voice of unbiased research and has stood above any ideological interpretation of public affairs.

Read more: Krugman Analyzed — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/7708/krugman-analyzed/#ixzz0lbmwCtyq

 

[Mr. Retukes]

At least you didn't call him an idiot. That sort of thing gets threads locked.

 

[Orange Crush]

Link to a review of every Krugman NYT article '97-'06

Abstract: We have made a complete review of Krugman’s New York Times columns 1997 through 2006–in all, 654 columns.

The pattern of policy positions and arguments do not square with his purported concern for general prosperity and the

interests of the poor. Some of the evidence lies in statements made. But the more important evidence lies in patterns of statements not made.

Because Krugman assumes the role of addressing the most important things, because our account is comprehensive, and because the omissions are flagrant, we may treat omissions as evidence of Krugman’s ideological character and sensibilities. Krugman is bestinterpreted as a committed social democrat and Democratic partisan. Our main contention is that his social-democratic bent sometimes trumps people’s interests, notably poor people’s interests.

The tension surfaces in what Krugman has written about immigration and the threat it poses to the US welfare state. But the tension is

found in his writings on several topics, and, importantly, in omissions in his writings. Krugman has only rarely come out against extant government

interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, especially for the poor. If Krugman would admit that, to some extent, he is ready to sacrifice poor people’s interests for the sake of advancing social-democratic values, then he has to admit conflict between relevant values and give up posturing to the effect that he has been a voice of unbiased research and has stood above any ideological interpretation of public affairs.

Read more: Krugman Analyzed — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/7708/krugman-analyzed/#ixzz0lbmwCtyq

I'm not saying their analysis is incorrect, but I do wonder about potential bias. How much of that analysis is influenced by a difference of opinion on policies' economic effects on the poor? Krugman himself is an "expert economist." So if he disagrees with other expert economists, does that mean he is automatically wrong? And Mises.org is the main hub of Austrian economic thought on the web. Do the "expert economists" in their analysis come from a range of economic schools, or are they all Austrians?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Link to a review of every Krugman NYT article '97-'06

Abstract: We have made a complete review of Krugman’s New York Times columns 1997 through 2006–in all, 654 columns.

The pattern of policy positions and arguments do not square with his purported concern for general prosperity and the

interests of the poor. Some of the evidence lies in statements made. But the more important evidence lies in patterns of statements not made.

Because Krugman assumes the role of addressing the most important things, because our account is comprehensive, and because the omissions are flagrant, we may treat omissions as evidence of Krugman’s ideological character and sensibilities. Krugman is bestinterpreted as a committed social democrat and Democratic partisan. Our main contention is that his social-democratic bent sometimes trumps people’s interests, notably poor people’s interests.

The tension surfaces in what Krugman has written about immigration and the threat it poses to the US welfare state. But the tension is

found in his writings on several topics, and, importantly, in omissions in his writings. Krugman has only rarely come out against extant government

interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, especially for the poor. If Krugman would admit that, to some extent, he is ready to sacrifice poor people’s interests for the sake of advancing social-democratic values, then he has to admit conflict between relevant values and give up posturing to the effect that he has been a voice of unbiased research and has stood above any ideological interpretation of public affairs.

Read more: Krugman Analyzed — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/7708/krugman-analyzed/#ixzz0lbmwCtyq

I'm not saying their analysis is incorrect, but I do wonder about potential bias. How much of that analysis is influenced by a difference of opinion on policies' economic effects on the poor? Krugman himself is an "expert economist." So if he disagrees with other expert economists, does that mean he is automatically wrong? And Mises.org is the main hub of Austrian economic thought on the web. Do the "expert economists" in their analysis come from a range of economic schools, or are they all Austrians?

I enjoy the fact that their principal critique comes not from things he's written, but things he hasn't written. Essentially their analysis is - Krugman hasn't written things that we believe to be true about social justice and welfare, therefore he cares more about his partisan positioning than social justice and welfare. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

 

[dwarfboy]

Yes, it's from the Ludwig Von Mises institute so it's written 100% from the austrian perspective.

Mises.org frequently has articles critical of recent Krugman articles since he is so well known as an economist and has a forum in the New York Times which they feel needs rebutting. I saw this thread, went to Mises.org and searched for "Krugman" and this article came up. There are dozens more if you search that aren't this comprehensive.

From wikipedia:

Austrian School economists advocate strict adherence to methodological individualism, which they describe as analyzing human action from the perspective of individual agents.[6] Austrian School economists argue that the only means of arriving at a valid economic theory is to derive it logically from basic principles of human action, a method called praxeology. Additionally, whereas natural experiments are often utilized within mainstream economics, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists.[7]

Austrian School economists hold that the complexity of human behavior makes mathematical modeling of an evolving market extremely difficult (or undecidable) and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy. Austrian School economists advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, and hold that commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of forces they consider to be coercive. In particular, they advocate an extremely limited role for government and argue for the smallest possible amount of government intervention in the economy, especially in the area of money production (advocating instead a gold- or silver-based commodity-money system).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Link to a review of every Krugman NYT article '97-'06

Abstract: We have made a complete review of Krugman’s New York Times columns 1997 through 2006–in all, 654 columns.

The pattern of policy positions and arguments do not square with his purported concern for general prosperity and the

interests of the poor. Some of the evidence lies in statements made. But the more important evidence lies in patterns of statements not made.

Because Krugman assumes the role of addressing the most important things, because our account is comprehensive, and because the omissions are flagrant, we may treat omissions as evidence of Krugman’s ideological character and sensibilities. Krugman is bestinterpreted as a committed social democrat and Democratic partisan. Our main contention is that his social-democratic bent sometimes trumps people’s interests, notably poor people’s interests.

The tension surfaces in what Krugman has written about immigration and the threat it poses to the US welfare state. But the tension is

found in his writings on several topics, and, importantly, in omissions in his writings. Krugman has only rarely come out against extant government

interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, especially for the poor.

Was it really necessary to read all 654 columns to reach this conclusion? You'd think two or three would have sufficed. I'm not even sure that Krugman himself would disagree with this characterization of his work at the Times although maybe he'd pick some other word besides "partisan."

If Krugman would admit that, to some extent, he is ready to sacrifice poor people’s interests for the sake of advancing social-democratic values, then he has to admit conflict between relevant values and give up posturing to the effect that he has been a voice of unbiased research and has stood above any ideological interpretation of public affairs.

Read more: Krugman Analyzed — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/7708/krugman-analyzed/#ixzz0lbmwCtyq

Eta: I don't think Krugman has ever claimed that his NYT column/blog represents anything unbiased or nonideological. Not sure where they got that from.

 

[Iraqi Information Minister]

Sex & Drugs & the Spill

He cannot be serious, this man. I would like to throw a shoe at him!

 

[Iraqi Information Minister]

Sex & Drugs & the Spill

He cannot be serious, this man. I would like to throw a shoe at him!

Yah. Terrible of him to suggest that there are some roles that are appropriate for government and that in some of those roles, government and business interests are not aligned.

It's the audacity to suggest that the distrust in government began with Bush's handling of Katrina that's the problem.And nobody's buying his straw man argument that the right is saying the only good government is NO government.

 

[Desert_Power]

His coverage of what is going on in Europe has been a very interesting read.

 

[Statorama]

What a jag. How can you take any columnist seriously when he begins a column off in this manner

The White House is confident that a financial regulatory reform bill will soon pass the Senate. I’m not so sure, given the opposition of Republican leaders to any real reform.

WTF? Republican leaders are begging for real reform. They are providing solutions that constitute real reform.

Can you summarize the proposed solutions? I think it's an easy talking point to say that Republican leaders oppose reform regarding the regulation of the financial industry, whether or not it's true. As I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the issue, I'd like to hear what initiatives are being promoted by Congressional Republicans on this issue.

Bump.

Google Paul Ryan's positions on this. He's my go-to guy for centrist solutions to issues.At least there was no argument about Krugman being a jackass.

 

[Desert_Power]

What a jag. How can you take any columnist seriously when he begins a column off in this manner

The White House is confident that a financial regulatory reform bill will soon pass the Senate. I’m not so sure, given the opposition of Republican leaders to any real reform.

WTF? Republican leaders are begging for real reform. They are providing solutions that constitute real reform.

Can you summarize the proposed solutions? I think it's an easy talking point to say that Republican leaders oppose reform regarding the regulation of the financial industry, whether or not it's true. As I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the issue, I'd like to hear what initiatives are being promoted by Congressional Republicans on this issue.

Bump.

Google Paul Ryan's positions on this. He's my go-to guy for centrist solutions to issues.

 

[Iraqi Information Minister]

Sex & Drugs & the Spill

He cannot be serious, this man. I would like to throw a shoe at him!

Yah. Terrible of him to suggest that there are some roles that are appropriate for government and that in some of those roles, government and business interests are not aligned.

It's the audacity to suggest that the distrust in government began with Bush's handling of Katrina that's the problem.And nobody's buying his straw man argument that the right is saying the only good government is NO government.

I don't think that what you're reading is actually there. He does say there's anti government rhetoric and he does cite Katrina as an example of ineffective government. But he doesn't say that distrust of government had its genesis in Katrina.Re: good government, no government.... he's not making that claim, either. Even the most libertarian people allow for provisions for an army and roads. But if you place the continuum of size of government and belief in government functions, he's not making a strawman when he places the right on the "small government" side of the spectrum. Cf. Grover's quote about shrinking government to the size where it can fit into a bathtub and repeated mantras of, "Starve the Beast"

Let's just say this isn't his best article. He starts off by saying that Bush's Katrina response was poor due to government corruption - well no duh.

Then he continues with the BP thing isn't Obama's fault - well, maybe just a little.

Then he proceeds potshot towards the Tea partiers, completely missing the point as to what they're partying about.

Then he finishes with a statement of "we need government to do some things, guy" statement. Again, no duh.

His continuing to beat the "Four legs good, two legs bad"/"Obama good, Bush bad" political hack drumhead gets extremely tiresome. Especially for a guy as smart as he.

 

[DCThunder]

Sex & Drugs & the Spill

He cannot be serious, this man. I would like to throw a shoe at him!

Yah. Terrible of him to suggest that there are some roles that are appropriate for government and that in some of those roles, government and business interests are not aligned.

It's the audacity to suggest that the distrust in government began with Bush's handling of Katrina that's the problem.And nobody's buying his straw man argument that the right is saying the only good government is NO government.

I don't think that what you're reading is actually there. He does say there's anti government rhetoric and he does cite Katrina as an example of ineffective government. But he doesn't say that distrust of government had its genesis in Katrina.Re: good government, no government.... he's not making that claim, either. Even the most libertarian people allow for provisions for an army and roads. But if you place the continuum of size of government and belief in government functions, he's not making a strawman when he places the right on the "small government" side of the spectrum. Cf. Grover's quote about shrinking government to the size where it can fit into a bathtub and repeated mantras of, "Starve the Beast"

Let's just say this isn't his best article. He starts off by saying that Bush's Katrina response was poor due to government corruption - well no duh.

Then he continues with the BP thing isn't Obama's fault - well, maybe just a little.

Then he proceeds potshot towards the Tea partiers, completely missing the point as to what they're partying about.

Then he finishes with a statement of "we need government to do some things, guy" statement. Again, no duh.

His continuing to beat the "Four legs good, two legs bad"/"Obama good, Bush bad" political hack drumhead gets extremely tiresome. Especially for a guy as smart as he.

Does Krugman mention the Nashville flooding or the fact that The One can't be bothered to find time to go visit a flooded major American city but he can find time to play golf and go out for "date nights" with his wife?

 

[JJP]

Krugman is the most credible economist not currently under Obama's employ.

Crack is a terrible thing.

 

[Statorama]

What a jag. How can you take any columnist seriously when he begins a column off in this manner

The White House is confident that a financial regulatory reform bill will soon pass the Senate. I’m not so sure, given the opposition of Republican leaders to any real reform.

WTF? Republican leaders are begging for real reform. They are providing solutions that constitute real reform.

Can you summarize the proposed solutions? I think it's an easy talking point to say that Republican leaders oppose reform regarding the regulation of the financial industry, whether or not it's true. As I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the issue, I'd like to hear what initiatives are being promoted by Congressional Republicans on this issue.

Google Paul Ryan's positions on this. He's my go-to guy for centrist solutions to issues.

Choosing to post a smilie without actually looking up the policies and making an educated judgement says a lot about you.

 

[The Ref]

Krugman, like most other followers of John Maynard Keynes, is right. That is, untill he is wrong.

 

[Statorama]

Krugman, like most other followers of John Maynard Keynes, is right. That is, untill he is wrong.

Investors.com agreesLoved this part

The world is going to hell in a handbasket, Krugman suggested this week, thanks in large part to its refusal to follow his advice to the letter.

Actually, he has it exactly backward. Krugman was among those who encouraged the new Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to spend massive amounts of money early on in a kind of Keynesian frenzy to shock the moribund economy back to life.

It didn't work.

 

[Iraqi Information Minister]

The thing about "government has to spend until the private sector starts to spend again" might have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but today the man on the street knows too much.

Before, he didn't know how much in debt he already was through government, so he wasn't as miserly with his money as a person is today.

Now, knowing that he has to pay his personal debt plus his share of $14 trillion makes it difficult to want to spend what little he has especially when it looks easier to simply hold out until he gets some sort of "rebate" or "credit" from "the government."

 

[bigbottom]

Krugman, like most other followers of John Maynard Keynes, is right. That is, untill he is wrong.

Investors.com agreesLoved this part

The world is going to hell in a handbasket, Krugman suggested this week, thanks in large part to its refusal to follow his advice to the letter.

Actually, he has it exactly backward. Krugman was among those who encouraged the new Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to spend massive amounts of money early on in a kind of Keynesian frenzy to shock the moribund economy back to life.

It didn't work.

I thought Krugman was the guy that said we didn't spend nearly enough.

 

[Iraqi Information Minister]

The thing about "government has to spend until the private sector starts to spend again" might have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but today the man on the street knows too much.

Before, he didn't know how much in debt he already was through government, so he wasn't as miserly with his money as a person is today.

Now, knowing that he has to pay his personal debt plus his share of $14 trillion makes it difficult to want to spend what little he has especially when it looks easier to simply hold out until he gets some sort of "rebate" or "credit" from "the government."

Do you know your share of the $14 trillion? I figure there's so much uncertainty as to when it was going to get paid off and how it was going to be raised and who it was going to be raised from and everything, that I'm not sure if I know mine. Please tell me how you figured yours out.

Of course not, but that's part of the problem too. We all have a feeling that it's "big" and "getting bigger" which fuels the uncertainty which leads to more hoarding.It's not necessary to know it specifically when you know it's a bunch. Or at least that you perceive it is.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The thing about "government has to spend until the private sector starts to spend again" might have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but today the man on the street knows too much.

Before, he didn't know how much in debt he already was through government, so he wasn't as miserly with his money as a person is today.

Now, knowing that he has to pay his personal debt plus his share of $14 trillion makes it difficult to want to spend what little he has especially when it looks easier to simply hold out until he gets some sort of "rebate" or "credit" from "the government."

What guy are you talking about? You really think the average Joe is hoarding his money because of the Federal deficit?

 

[Iraqi Information Minister]

The thing about "government has to spend until the private sector starts to spend again" might have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but today the man on the street knows too much.

Before, he didn't know how much in debt he already was through government, so he wasn't as miserly with his money as a person is today.

Now, knowing that he has to pay his personal debt plus his share of $14 trillion makes it difficult to want to spend what little he has especially when it looks easier to simply hold out until he gets some sort of "rebate" or "credit" from "the government."

What guy are you talking about? You really think the average Joe is hoarding his money because of the Federal deficit?

You think he's not? People watch the news and see that number and at the very least inherently know that it's going to be paid back someday either by them or their progeny.And anyway, reread what I wrote. I wrote "personal debt PLUS his share of $14 trillion".

Edit: I'll concede that we might have differing ideas of who the "average Joe" really is.

 

[Neofight]

link to a jackass being insulted by the comparison?

Statmandu

 

[jon_mx]

I don't know of any economists who think Krugman's Nobel Prize was undeserved.

Here is one, now you know:

Political Economist

Peter J. Boettke, 10.13.08, 04:00 PM EDT

The Nobel will validate Krugman's partisan punditry.

There are at least two ways to think about today's awarding of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economic Science to Princeton University Professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

First, there are the reasons why Krugman would have earned such an award, just as he previously won the John Bates Clark Medal (1991) in his youth. And second, there are reasons why awarding him this prize is particularly problematic.

Krugman is far more politically partisan than any of the recent award winners. Joe Stiglitz became more ideological and partisan after he won the prize, Ned Phelps used the platform of the prize to think "big" thoughts about the capitalist system, but Krugman became ideological and partisan more than a decade prior to the announcement of his prize. And he has not really written serious academic papers or books in economics during that time span. Krugman more or less abandoned scientific economics when he decided to start writing for a broader audience in the 1990s.

But let's first look at the reasons why Krugman would earn such a prestigious nod from the Swedish committee. From the beginning of his career as a research economist Krugman forced the economics profession to rethink the fundamentals of international trade. To a considerable extent this was an artifact of the age.

The first-best theorems of free trade that Krugman reacted to were a consequence of attempts to translate traditional and time-honored arguments among economists into the formalistic model of general competitive equilibrium by Paul Samuelson. By reducing the multiplicity of arguments one found in thinkers from David Hume and Adam Smith to James Mill and David Ricardo--let alone economic journalistic arguments as found in Frederic Bastiat--to the formalistic model of competitive equilibrium, the theorists of mid-20th century economics set up a rather fragile argument for the defense of free trade as the best policy. Bastiat, in perhaps the greatest economic satire every written, exposes the silliness embodied in business interest groups lobbying the government for protectionism--in this case the candlestick makers petitioning the government for protection from the unfair competition from the sun. We now refer to this behavior of petitioning as "rent-seeking" costs in the academic economics literature, but these sort of broader arguments were not accounted for in the formalistic models of trade. Instead, as I have said, we had first-best theorems derived in a vacuum devoid of any political structure or realistic examination of the processes of public policy decision making.

Krugman demonstrated more thoroughly than any of his peers the fragility of those first-best theorems. Deviations from the core assumptions of perfect market structure and decreasing returns, resulted in theorems that challenge the free-trade position and apparently justified protectionism. A major result was that trade patterns often emerged in attempts to realize gains from increasing returns rather than comparative advantage, and thus strategic trade subsidization and protectionism can, in theory, outperform the results that would emerge under a strict interpretation of free trade.

Krugman himself admitted that these results were model artifacts rather than practical policy conclusions. He has on multiple occasions admitted that when we get down to practical public policy we ought to look at the costs associated with political action, and the fundamental truth of thinkers such as Hume and Ricardo that trade deficits are self-correcting and that the gains from trade do not depend on countries possessing an absolute advantage over its rivals. Unfortunately, rather than Krugman's demonstration of the fragility of the first-best theorems forcing economists to rethink the enterprise of formalism--since it results in clouding our understanding of the broader arguments made by the mainline of political economist from the classics to the neoclassic--these broader points are restricted to mere afterthoughts and footnotes.

In addition to Krugman's scientific contributions in first-best trade theory, he also re-established the field of economic geography and location analysis in discussions of trade, growth and development. At one level, his work on economic geography followed naturally from his increasing-returns perspective, and focused attention on industrial clustering in development. But Krugman's claim to originality in this field is very muted, as he himself has admitted on numerous occasions. Instead, Krugman is credited with bringing professional attention back to an earlier literature that in fact had been forgotten in the striving for precise equilibrium models.

To put this very simply, the formal tools used by economists for most of the 20th century required smooth and continuous functions that are twice differentiable. Lumpy and discrete phenomena defy such representation, and it is arguably the lumpy and discrete things in our world that make the economic world worthy of study--and provide alternative arguments about the power of markets and the problems of politics that are missed in the formal exercises of economic theory. They are not missed, however, in the "appreciative theory" exercises we employ in our classrooms and lunchroom conversations, and are evident in the literary economics of classical political economists such as Adam Smith or modern political economists such as F. A. Hayek and James Buchanan.

But Krugman's rediscovery of economic geography did not focus our efforts on the broader points of political economy. Instead, it sought to provide novel ways to translate some aspects of the broader argument into the formalistic exercise of standard economics. Krugman, in fact, saw his role as a sort of economic theorist middleman, who was able to buy low the ideas of economic geographers and sell them at a higher price to modern economic theorists of trade and development.

One other reason why Krugman earning the prize is to be viewed with some pleasure is that among his peers he has done the most to encourage economic discourse among the general public. Like Milton Friedman and J. K. Galbraith before him, Krugman is a gifted writer of economics. While still a relatively young professor he branched out to write beyond his peer group in scientific economics and communicate the importance of economic ideas for public policy discourse. Peddling Prosperity is probably the pinnacle of his work in this regard.

Unfortunately, and unlike both Friedman and Galbraith, Krugman's work devolved from science to ideology and finally to political partisanship. Friedman and Galbraith had always kept (though from differing perspectives) on the scientific to ideological spectrum, but neither became overtly partisan in their writings. This cannot be said for Krugman and the way he has used his platform as an economist and as a columnist for the New York Times for his Democratic partisanship purposes.

This would be innocent enough if Krugman were just another political pundit, but now the prize has given him an enhanced platform from which to pronounce his partisan positions as if they are grounded in economic science. The casualty of this in the public imagination will be the subtle and fine points of the economic way of thinking that we inherited from a long line of political economists from David Hume and Adam Smith to James Mill, Ricardo, J. B. Say and John Stuart Mill to Frank Knight, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan.

The economist Paul Krugman used to warn his readers in afterthoughts and footnotes that we should never allow the best to be the enemy of the good, and that while his work has blown up the first-best theorems of equilibrium economics the core ideas of the classics should not be thrown away. But the political pundit Paul Krugman does not warn his readers about the pitfalls. Instead, he rails against the unworkable laissez faire model at the same time as blaming the current administration for pursuing a laissez faire philosophy. Markets and unscrupulous businessmen and conservative politicians come under assault, while enlightened political leaders and insightful thinkers working together are seen as the solution to the social ills that free market fundamentalism has supposedly wrought. This is why Krugman can claim to be the liberal conscience of the intellectual crowd in the U.S. today.

Since the economist Paul Krugman has been buried by the political pundit Paul Krugman for over a decade, the probability that this prize will lead to a renewed appreciation of the subtle and fine points of the mainline of political economy stemming from David Hume and Adam Smith is quite low. Thus, the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Krugman today sends a mixed signal about the relative importance of economic science and scholarship as opposed to political and economic punditry. It also may unfortunately inspire more partisanship among economists and misunderstanding of the real contributions of the scientific discipline of economics to human betterment if the perception is that the Nobel Prize validates Krugman's work as a pundit in the New York Times.

Peter J. Boettke is the BB&T professor for the study of capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he is also university professor and professor of economics in the department of economics.

 

[cosjobs]

What a jag. How can you take any columnist seriously when he begins a column off in this manner

The White House is confident that a financial regulatory reform bill will soon pass the Senate. I'm not so sure, given the opposition of Republican leaders to any real reform.

Meh. That's not a particularly incindiary line by Krugman's standards. I agree that he's a jackass, but you can find much better illustrations than this.Edit: The New Yorker had a profile of Krugman a month or so ago, and it turns out that his wife is the really crazy one. I didn't know this, but apparently the first drafts of many of his columns tend to be fairly tame, and it's his wife that adds/suggests a lot of the red blue meat.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know of any economists who think Krugman's Nobel Prize was undeserved.

Here is one, now you know:

Political Economist

Peter J. Boettke, 10.13.08, 04:00 PM EDT

The Nobel will validate Krugman's partisan punditry.

There are at least two ways to think about today's awarding of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economic Science to Princeton University Professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

First, there are the reasons why Krugman would have earned such an award, just as he previously won the John Bates Clark Medal (1991) in his youth. And second, there are reasons why awarding him this prize is particularly problematic.

Thanks. But I'm not sure to what extent it really qualifies. Boettke's primary argument seems to be not that the work Krugman won the prize for was deficient, but that his later punditry has made a goober out of him.

 

[prefontaine]

The thing about "government has to spend until the private sector starts to spend again" might have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but today the man on the street knows too much.

Before, he didn't know how much in debt he already was through government, so he wasn't as miserly with his money as a person is today.

Now, knowing that he has to pay his personal debt plus his share of $14 trillion makes it difficult to want to spend what little he has especially when it looks easier to simply hold out until he gets some sort of "rebate" or "credit" from "the government."

What guy are you talking about? You really think the average Joe is hoarding his money because of the Federal deficit?

You think he's not? People watch the news and see that number and at the very least inherently know that it's going to be paid back someday either by them or their progeny.And anyway, reread what I wrote. I wrote "personal debt PLUS his share of $14 trillion".

Edit: I'll concede that we might have differing ideas of who the "average Joe" really is.

The general understanding of macroeconomics in this thread is not particularly good. Savings is down over the last 50 years and "hoarding" money would hardly be a problem anyway. Savings leads to long term growth. Spending leads to short term spikes (which is sometimes what we are going for).Also , the reason the debt is a problem has little to do with this back and forth. It's a crowding out effect and does in fact reduce investment and thus long term growth. But I promise the average joe doesn't understand any of this as even people who pay attention (like you two) obviously don't.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Choosing to post a smilie without actually looking up the policies and making an educated judgement says a lot about you.

It shouldn't be his burden to look it up, when you bring it up. It is your burden to provide a link.

 

[Statorama]

Choosing to post a smilie without actually looking up the policies and making an educated judgement says a lot about you.

It shouldn't be his burden to look it up, when you bring it up. It is your burden to provide a link.

Teach a man to fish....

 

[Statorama]

I don't know of any economists who think Krugman's Nobel Prize was undeserved.

Thanks to Jon for providing that link.Obama getting a nobel prize kind of takes the luster off that award. If Obama can get one, for doing absolutely nothing, doesn't that just make it like getting a "participant" trophy?Obama "winning" a nobel prize officially put that award into the "Teen Choice Awards" level. I wish Barack well this fall when he's competing with Robert Pattinson for the "most brooding eyes of the year" honor.

 

[Statorama]

link to a jackass being insulted by the comparison?

Judge for yourself, but seems clear cut to me

 

[Fennis]

link to a jackass being insulted by the comparison?

Judge for yourself, but seems clear cut to me