Paul Krugman: Scholar or political hack?

[mhaze]

What Roboramma said. This particular article made a point that Europe isn't some barren socialist wasteland.

PS. I do read his blog on a daily basis and I would say his stuff is very educational.

It shows. A Krugman junkie, now that's a malady best cured in bars in Alaska.

 

[tomasF]

When I went to uni I had a coursebook on international trade written partially by him, which was excellent. It's one of those university books you don't sell when you're done with.

What book are you talking about?

I have read good stuff from him. He at least seems to have a very clear economic line. During the past couple of months he has kept critizsing europes leaders for their economic policy and still is doing so.

Can't make my mind up about him completely though, I think for that I have not read enough of his writings, mostly opinion pages in the times.

 

[stokes234]

On the other hand, in this article he argues for the superiority of "Europe" (that recurring American assumption that Europe has a homogenous economic system...) by looking at if Frankfurt, Paris and London appear to be poor. Um okay, do we get to judge the American economic performance by looking at Manhattan and Beverly Hills, or the Russian economic performance by looking at Moscow? This article is not a scholarly article, it's the work of a political hack.

That's a fairly poor reading of the article, if you ask me. I'd also say that your post titles and opening paragraphs often come across as JAQing off.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Funny story, he got in a squabble with one of the economists I do read, Steve Keen, and most observers thought he came across

quite poorly.

Linky.

KEEN: Reading what Paul Krugman is saying about banking feels like reading a Ptolemaic Astronomer describing sunrise today as if that’s actually what’s happening. He is dismissive of the view that banks can “create credit out of thin air”—so dismissive in fact, that anyone unacquainted with the empirical evidence might be fooled into believing that his case is so strongly supported by the facts that it’s not even worth the bother of citing the empirical data that backs it up.

http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-fights-keen-2012-4#ixzz1tFTyhWrr

I always knew there was something wrong with Keen.

I don't think Krugman is alone in "coming off quite poorly" either

KEEN: In just a couple of days I’ve gone from the privilege of being acknowledged by Krugman to being misread by him, in a way that would have any student failed in a multiple choice exam. In a passage where I specifically referred to DSGE models–which includes both “New Classicals” and “New Keynesians” he interpreted me as referring to New Keynesian models only...

Since I don’t work for The Times, I can and will use a four letter word to describe your poor comprehension here Paul: FAIL.

 

[daenku32]

It shows. A Krugman junkie, now that's a malady best cured in bars in Alaska.

Also Brad Delong, Adam Ritholz, John Quiggin, Noah Smith, and of course the "Communist" Robert Reich.

 

[daenku32]

Krugman was recently on a panel.
Is America’s Economic Recovery Built To Last?

Krugman Stands Up For Social Security And Stimulus On This Week

From the first, a quote from one of the not-Krugman's, arguing against Krugman:

Walker said the country could achieve tax reform if “we broaden the tax base and recognize that we’re spending $1.1 trillion a year in deductions, exemptions, credits, exclusions and differences in tax rates, we can lower the top marginal tax rates for corporations, individuals and estate taxes 25 percent.”

Essentially this person argues that the way to prosperity is for the government tax the people responsible for most of the private sector spending even more, and giving the breaks for corporation and rich individuals that hoard money, rather than spend it.

Compare that to Krugman:

“The most important thing right now is to end the depression we’re in,” said Krugman, who advocated for the re-hiring of laid off public sector workers such as teachers.

“By not having enough jobs in the economy right now, by not doing stimulus, by not ending this depression, we are condemning a lot of recent college graduates to not getting a job that makes use of their skills,” Krugman added. “This is destroying people’s lives. It’s destroying human capital. We’re paying a huge price.”

It's a pretty clear indication who is concerned about unemployment right now, and who is not.

 

[jimtron]

Krugman comes up with interesting ideas,but he has an obvious political bent that is apparent to anyone whom has read his articles. I don't think he is a "hack" as carlitos said, but he can't ever look outside his own personal worldview that he seemed to settle on 20 years ago.

But he doesn't present himself as a reporter or neutral observer; he's an op-ed columnist.

For those of you who aren't crazy about Krugman, which economists do you prefer?

 

[balrog666]

Krugman was recently on a panel.
Is America’s Economic Recovery Built To Last?

Krugman Stands Up For Social Security And Stimulus On This Week

From the first, a quote from one of the not-Krugman's, arguing against Krugman:

Essentially this person argues that the way to prosperity is for the government tax the people responsible for most of the private sector spending even more, and giving the breaks for corporation and rich individuals that hoard money, rather than spend it.

Compare that to Krugman:


It's a pretty clear indication who is concerned about unemployment right now, and who is not.

Government make-work jobs do not increase production of anything except bureaucracy. Krugman has not been an economist for over a decade; he is just a whacked-out partisan hack.

 

[daenku32]

Government make-work jobs do not increase production of anything except bureaucracy. Krugman has not been an economist for over a decade; he is just a whacked-out partisan hack.

They do too increase production. Krugman actually gets a platform every so often. If he isn't an economist can we say no one that gets on the morning shows is one? Including all those self-described economists on all the various 'money-related' TV channels?

 

[balrog666]

They do too increase production. Krugman actually gets a platform every so often. If he isn't an economist can we say no one that gets on the morning shows is one? Including all those self-described economists on all the various 'money-related' TV channels?

Name them ...

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Government make-work jobs do not increase production of anything except bureaucracy.

If Average Joe has money from Government Make-Work, he can go buy a new pair of shoes. This motivates the shoemaker to make more shoes. Thus increasing production.

 

[applecorped]

Scholarly political hack.

 

[Brainster]

Politically he's a hack. I have forced two retractions to his NY Times columns; in both cases the major mistake he made was believing a liberal source on something that was obviously wrong. On both retractions he tried to weasel his way out of them and it took multiple emails to the NY Times' public editor (at the time, Barney Calame) before he acknowledged his mistake begrudgingly.

 

[carlitos]

Kudos Brainster. One of the conservative blogs years ago had a Krugman Social Security Plan Watch. I followed it for 400 days or so after he promised his plan, which would have been better that the republican plan. Never happened.

 

[Humes fork]

I agree that the rest of the article was good. But in the quoted part, he did basically ask his readers to cherrypick some of the richest parts of Europe and compare them to the US as a whole. I'm simply pointing out that you can do that for any country. Again Russia. Moscow and Saint Petersburg are some pretty well off cities, but they are not representative of Russia as a whole.

What book are you talking about?

I have read good stuff from him. He at least seems to have a very clear economic line. During the past couple of months he has kept critizsing europes leaders for their economic policy and still is doing so.

Can't make my mind up about him completely though, I think for that I have not read enough of his writings, mostly opinion pages in the times.

The book was actually a compilation of I think three books made by my university, and Krugman wasn't the only author used.

 

[daenku32]

Name them ...

I think the most extreme cases of real hacks calling themselves economists are folks like Ben Stein, Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore. You can also include a lot of the people that work for investment companies but talk about macro-economics.

I suppose it's like many fields of science. If you get really familiar with the science through personal involvement with it, and then start preaching to the people about the science you had practiced, you "stop" being a scientist.

 

[daenku32]

Politically he's a hack. I have forced two retractions to his NY Times columns; in both cases the major mistake he made was believing a liberal source on something that was obviously wrong. On both retractions he tried to weasel his way out of them and it took multiple emails to the NY Times' public editor (at the time, Barney Calame) before he acknowledged his mistake begrudgingly.

Can you name those mistakes? Making a mistake isn't being a hack. Refusing to correct your opinion in the face of evidence however... Which is something we see a lot more of coming from those who Krugman has the strongest disagreement with.

 

[daenku32]

Kudos Brainster. One of the conservative blogs years ago had a Krugman Social Security Plan Watch. I followed it for 400 days or so after he promised his plan, which would have been better that the republican plan. Never happened.

I couldn't find the blog, but here a post from Krugman from last October:
Social Security Bait And Switch, A Continuing Series

I’ve written about this repeatedly in the past, but here it is again: Social Security is a program that is part of the federal budget, but is by law supported by a dedicated source of revenue. This means that there are two ways to look at the program’s finances: in legal terms, or as part of the broader budget picture.

In legal terms, the program is funded not just by today’s payroll taxes, but by accumulated past surpluses — the trust fund. If there’s a year when payroll receipts fall short of benefits, but there are still trillions of dollars in the trust fund, what happens is, precisely, nothing — the program has the funds it needs to operate, without need for any Congressional action.

Alternatively, you can think about Social Security as just part of the federal budget. But in that case, it’s just part of the federal budget; it doesn’t have either surpluses or deficits, no more than the defense budget.

Both views are valid, depending on what questions you’re trying to answer.

Maybe the blog was expecting an answer to a question that wasn't all that valid in the first place.

 

[balrog666]

If Average Joe has money from Government Make-Work, he can go buy a new pair of shoes. This motivates the shoemaker to make more shoes. Thus increasing production.

... in China.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

... in China.

Yes, and in every other country in the world.