Paul Krugman: Scholar or political hack?

[Wayward son]

I'm not sure that's the relevant metric here. Carl Sagan, for example, only has an H-index of 25, which is fairly modest. But it wouldn't make sense to claim he's not a significant figure or that his views on science are less worthy on that account. Citation rates are indicative of how productive someone is within their academic field, but it tells us nothing about either the validity of their work or the usefulness of their work outside an academic setting. As I'm not a professional economist, his citation rate seems rather unimportant.

I actually thought about Sagan as I posted earlier, but I think that the situations are not that similar. There was little doubt that when Sagan was talking about science he was almost always espousing the views of vast majority of relevant scientists. I don't get that impression about Sowell at all. I accept that it is different in economics as there competing schools of thought, but to me Sowell is representing the extreme of the extreme. Of course, he may still be correct, but I have my doubts. As for whether Sowell should have a high citation rate, well he is raised up there as academic economist, but I see no evidence of it.

I don't see Krugman as representing mainstream views either, although I do give him more credit for being both highly cited, and for co-writing several University textbooks.

 

[Ziggurat]

I actually thought about Sagan as I posted earlier, but I think that the situations are not that similar. There was little doubt that when Sagan was talking about science he was almost always espousing the views of vast majority of relevant scientists. I don't get that impression about Sowell at all.

But economics is a far more uncertain field, so not only is there much less unanimity than in the hard sciences, as you mentioned, but there's also less reason to place faith in the majority.

I accept that it is different in economics as there competing schools of thought, but to me Sowell is representing the extreme of the extreme.

Perhaps. But that too isn't necessarily what matters. As I said before, I don't learn anything from Krugman anymore. That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, but it does mean that he's not useful to me.

 

[Proper Dave]

Scholar, here in the developing world nobody really listens to the millions of pieces of advice given by your so-called economists.
But you do have two great economists, that we sometimes listen to: The first is Stiglitz and the other one is Krugman.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Saw Krugman tonight. He made the case for an evidence based economic approach. Keynes is the way to go at the moment. The evidence does not support a "structural problem".

If anyone believes the current problem is debt and government overspending they are ignoring all the historical evidence. The problem is lack of demand and only the government can fix that in any kind of speedy way. Debt can be addressed when we are out of the recession and raising taxes on the rich is in no way going to stifle recovery. It's the other way around. More tax cuts to the rich does nothing to increase demand. And right now anyone who thinks the problem is supply is likely a blind ideologue.

 

[Humes fork]

Saw Krugman tonight. He made the case for an evidence based economic approach. Keynes is the way to go at the moment. The evidence does not support a "structural problem".

Uhh, I'm a bit at a loss at who opposes evidence-based economics.

And yes, your debt issue is a problem. Perhaps not the greatest one, but certainly a problem.

 

[Kestrel]

Uhh, I'm a bit at a loss at who opposes evidence-based economics.

People who stand to make a lot of money if the evidence is ignored.

 

[Humes fork]

People who stand to make a lot of money if the evidence is ignored.

Well that's true. But I meant in academia.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well that's true. But I meant in academia.

It was interesting that in academia there is a divide among the most prestigious economics departments. I don't recall the whole list Krugman cited but U of Chicago vs UC Berkeley were on opposite sides of the isle. I was aware of this divided ideology within the institutions because my son actually applied to a number of economics departments for his doctorate. (He ended up in a masters in applied math program at the U of WA, but I digress.)

I believe, as I think Krugman was saying, that political ideology is particularly prevalent and distorts the conclusions regarding the evidence in the science of economics. You don't see the same thing, for example, in the science of medicine or astronomy. Krugman challenged anyone to provide the evidence that austerity was the way out of a recession. At the same time there are dozens of historical examples that government spending when the problem is lack of demand as it is now does indeed result in an economic turnaround.

In addition and as a separate note, Krugman said the Republics were totally dishonest in that if Romney is elected they will spend like Bush did and simply let the deficit grow with their 'no tax increases on the rich' ideological folly.

 

[Humes fork]

It was interesting that in academia there is a divide among the most prestigious economics departments. I don't recall the whole list Krugman cited but U of Chicago vs UC Berkeley were on opposite sides of the isle. I was aware of this divided ideology within the institutions because my son actually applied to a number of economics departments for his doctorate. (He ended up in a masters in applied math program at the U of WA, but I digress.)

I believe, as I think Krugman was saying, that political ideology is particularly prevalent and distorts the conclusions regarding the evidence in the science of economics. You don't see the same thing, for example, in the science of medicine or astronomy. Krugman challenged anyone to provide the evidence that austerity was the way out of a recession. At the same time there are dozens of historical examples that government spending when the problem is lack of demand as it is now does indeed result in an economic turnaround.

In addition and as a separate note, Krugman said the Republics were totally dishonest in that if Romney is elected they will spend like Bush did and simply let the deficit grow with their 'no tax increases on the rich' ideological folly.

There is an academic dispute, but it doesn't mean that one side is blind to the evidence and the other is not. It could just be hard to interpret. No doubt ideological viewpoint plays a role here, but that is not less so the case with Krugman than with his opponents.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is an academic dispute, but it doesn't mean that one side is blind to the evidence and the other is not. It could just be hard to interpret. No doubt ideological viewpoint plays a role here, but that is not less so the case with Krugman than with his opponents.

You are welcome to point to the evidence. I'll start: I point to the government spending (including on the war) that ended the Great Depression.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are welcome to point to the evidence. I'll start: I point to the government spending (including on the war) that ended the Great Depression.

"Why are you whistling?"
"To keep tigers away."
"But there aren't any tigers here!"
"See? It works!"

The fact that government spending preceded a recovery doesn't mean that government spending produced the recovery. There is considerable disagreement about the role government spending played in the ending of the Great Depression.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Why are you whistling?"
"To keep tigers away."
"But there aren't any tigers here!"
"See? It works!"

The fact that government spending preceded a recovery doesn't mean that government spending produced the recovery. There is considerable disagreement about the role government spending played in the ending of the Great Depression.

Of course you have no evidence it doesn't or evidence the national debt matters right now given how low interest rates are. I've seen this tactic on the forum before. A person cites one example and it is argued against using the false premise/straw man that the single example is all the evidence there is.

If you believe in supply and demand, how is evidence that increasing demand revived the economy inconclusive and meaningless? It's like smashing a window with a hammer and saying, "but gee, we can't draw any assumptions from that observation."


Oh wait, you're saying Keynes had no evidence for his theories. I see.


Krugman NYTs columns:

None So Blind

Eddie Lazear has an op-ed in the WSJ on the fiscal cliff that, among other things, pooh-poohs any concerns that sudden cuts in spending might hurt the economy. He weasels a bit, but basically conveys the impression that there’s no evidence for Keynesian effects.

What this signifies to me is the politicization and corruption overtaking the economics profession. I’ll give Eddie the benefit of the doubt; he is probably just going by what his friends say. But it’s truly awesome: in the midst of a crisis that has both provided overwhelming evidence for Keynesian views of fiscal policy and inspired a great deal of empirical work that also confirms the case for a Keynesian view, the right wing of the profession is just covering its ears and yelling “La, la, la, I can’t hear you.”

Fiscal Policy Works

Via Brad DeLong, there’s a paper by David Romer (pdf) summarizing recent research on fiscal policy, inspired by the crisis and aftermath. ...

He cites from the Romer paper:

For within-country evidence, see Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston (2010); Suárez Serrato and Wingender (2010); Shoag (2010); Fishback and Kachanovskaya (2010); and Nakamura and Steinsson (2011). For cross-country evidence, see International Monetary Fund (2010); Council of Economic Advisers (2009); and Kraay (2010). For time-series evidence (as well as simulation-based evidence), see Hall (2009); Barro and Redlick (2010); Fisher and Peters (2009); Coenen et al. (2010); and Christiano, Eichenbaum, and Rebelo (2010). On this list, all but Kraay, Barro and Redlick, and Fisher and Peters implicitly or explicitly try to provide evidence about the case where monetary policy does not act to offset the effects of fiscal policy. With the exception of two of these three (Kraay and Barro and Redlick), the papers all suggest substantial effects of fiscal policy. As I describe below, this brief tour omits all work that predates the crisis.

 

[balrog666]

Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: This is hard to get people to do, much better, obviously, to build bridges and roads and healthcare clinics and schools. But my proposed, I actually have a serious proposal which is that we have to get a bunch of scientists to tell us that we're facing a threatened alien invasion, and in order to be prepared for that alien invasion we have to do things like build high-speed rail. And the, once we've recovered, we can say, “Look, there were no aliens.”

I have a better idea - some scientists should get together and predict some human caused calamity, maybe environment- or climate-related. That should be sufficient to push for more government spending! Then we'll all be rich!

Hey, wait a minute .......

 

[Humes fork]

You are welcome to point to the evidence. I'll start: I point to the government spending (including on the war) that ended the Great Depression.

Oh, I didn't intend to get into a political debate here. I mostly agree with Krugman's views in general, at least when he is not overdoing appealing to his fanbase. I'm just pointing out that anyone not sharing your ideological doctrines isn't delusional.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, I didn't intend to get into a political debate here. I mostly agree with Krugman's views in general, at least when he is not overdoing appealing to his fanbase. I'm just pointing out that anyone not sharing your [one's] ideological doctrines isn't delusional.

I agree with the concept but I disagree that the evidence isn't there or that the ideology clouds every side of every debate. I welcome evidence to the contrary. You yourself seem to be saying you've not seen it either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money



I have a better idea - some scientists should get together and predict some human caused calamity, maybe environment- or climate-related. That should be sufficient to push for more government spending! Then we'll all be rich!

Hey, wait a minute .......

"We'll all be rich" is a straw man.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course you have no evidence it doesn't or evidence the national debt matters right now given how low interest rates are. I've seen this tactic on the forum before. A person cites one example and it is argued against using the false premise/straw man that the single example is all the evidence there is.

You have failed completely to understand my argument. You're off to a very bad start.

The problem isn't the existence of only a single example, a claim I never made or suggested. The problem is connecting correlation to causation. Repetition of a correlation doesn't prove causation. That was what my tiger whistling joke was about, but you failed to grasp that.

If you believe in supply and demand, how is evidence that increasing demand revived the economy inconclusive and meaningless? It's like smashing a window with a hammer and saying, "but gee, we can't draw any assumptions from that observation."

It is nothing of the sort. But what, exactly, do you think that evidence consists of? Because the most YOU have been able to point to is the fact that government demand went up, and then a recovery happened. But it takes a lot more than that to prove causation. Yes, I know that there is more evidence than that, but there is also counter-evidence.

As for why increased government demand might not fix an economy, the reasons are myriad. But I'll mention a few. To start with, you talk about "demand" like it's a single thing. But it isn't. When you say demand increased, what is that demand for? The answer to that question matters, a lot. Even if we take Keynes as being completely 100% right, it should be obvious that the government can still sink the economy by increasing demand if it's demanding the wrong things.

And even to the extent that it may be demanding the right things, that still comes at a price: every dollar that the government spends ultimately has to come from tax payers, and tax payers know that. Their own economic activity will be reduced by government spending, both because of the expectation of future liability and because government demand crowds out private demand because it must compete with private demand. The stimulating effect of government spending *might* be bigger than the damping effects, if that demand is well-placed, but you can't take that as being axiomatic under all conditions. Keynes himself would never take that position.

Oh wait, you're saying Keynes had no evidence for his theories. I see.

No, SG, you really don't see, because I never said anything of the sort. Of course Keynes had evidence. But so do people who disagree with him. Having evidence that you're right doesn't prove that you're right, particularly when the issue involves competing effects, as is certainly the case of government spending.

Krugman NYTs columns:

“La, la, la, I can’t hear you.”

That's... ironic. You haven't listened to a single thing I actually said, but merely constructed a straw man. Then you congratulated yourself on being able to burn it down.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understood your argument, Zig. What you fail to understand is why your argument was a fail.

Here are the false underlying premises you seem to be operating with:

• False underlying premise: I claimed a single example was proof of anything.
• False underlying premise: Keynes and Krugman don't have supporting evidence of causation.
• False underlying premise: Because I didn't address the details of 'demand' your details are correct.

Krugman noted where the dollars needed to be spent and it isn't exactly rocket science.

What's your alternative? Do you believe the "job creator" lie? The rich have never been richer, where are the jobs?

 

[Ziggurat]

I understood your argument, Zig.

Then that's even worse: you intentionally and knowingly lied about what I said.

You're not doing yourself any favors here.

What you fail to understand is why your argument was a fail.

And you needed to lie about my argument in order to prove that?

Here are the false underlying premises you seem to be operating with:[*]False underlying premise: I claimed a single example was proof of anything.

That wasn't part of my premise. I already explained why.

[*]False underlying premise: Keynes and Krugman don't have supporting evidence of causation.

That wasn't part of my premise. I already explained why.

[*]False underlying premise: Because I didn't address the details of 'demand' your details are correct.

That wasn't the point at all. The point was that your simplistic attempt at refuting my position failed. I never claimed that this failure on your part proves that I'm correct, it ONLY proves that this specific criticism was wrong.

What's your alternative? Do you believe the "job creator" lie? The rich have never been richer, where are the jobs?

The rich have never been richer, the jobs are in short supply... and government intervention in the economy is at an all-time high. And you want more government intervention in the economy? By your own admission, your preferred strategy is failing before your eyes. Yet you still want to double down.

Hell, even if you want to continue on the path of government stimulus, it's hard to seriously argue that this stimulus has been handled well. How much employment did Solyndra produce, SG?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then that's even worse: you intentionally and knowingly lied about what I said.... [snip]
That wasn't part of my premise. I already explained why.
That wasn't part of my premise. I already explained why.
That wasn't the point at all. The point was that your simplistic attempt at refuting my position failed. I never claimed that this failure on your part proves that I'm correct, it ONLY proves that this specific criticism was wrong.

So people who don't buy your arguments are lying? You can believe your argument does not have those false underlying premises, but that doesn't change the fact it does have those underlying false premises.

The rich have never been richer, the jobs are in short supply... and government intervention in the economy is at an all-time high.

This is the right wing talking point but not what the data actually shows.

Local government cutbacks, from states to cities has been drastically cut. Education and public employment are being underfunded in most states. And the rich get richer while the recovery stalls.

And you want more government intervention in the economy? By your own admission, your preferred strategy is failing before your eyes. Yet you still want to double down.

Yes, more stimulus, it's not a difficult concept. It helped in '09 but it's not been enough and there have been problems getting the money actually spent. I agree that spending aspect needs to be addressed but simply throwing up your hands and saying it can't be done isn't an answer, just as putting more money in the hands of the rich isn't an answer.

Hell, even if you want to continue on the path of government stimulus, it's hard to seriously argue that this stimulus has been handled well. How much employment did Solyndra produce, SG?

I'm not surprised you'd be repeating a thought stopping talking point. Clearly investing in alternative energy is a good idea.

Tell me, did I see you complaining about the 12 billion in cash that literally disappeared in Iraq? The wasteful war spending didn't get recycled back into the economy or we might not have had as severe a collapse. The lack of banking regulations (and I do blame B. Clinton for some of that) and over extending in the housing market would still have occurred. There are clearly many things that need fixing. But claiming we don't need government to step in is not an answer. Getting some of the money out of politics, yes. But just disbanding government spending isn't going to fix a thing.