Paul Krugman: Scholar or political hack?

[Humes fork]

I have somewhat of a problem in making up my mind about Paul Krugman. On one hand, his articles here are very scholarly and interesting (at least the ones I have read). His undressing of prectionists and their motives is brilliant, as is his comparison of protectionists to creationists. His analysis of capitalism as more flexible than socialism is also interesting. 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.

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.

 

[mhaze]

So did he smell which way the money might flow to him?

 

[carlitos]

Hack.

 

[Dunstan]

Scholar with some political opinions which he occasionally expresses bluntly.

 

[AlBell]

I only hope he gets a well-deserved monthly stipend from the DNC.

Hack.

 

[NotJesus]

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.

Only if you stop reading after the third paragraph does he appear to do so.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

He's a scholar who's gotten too much attention and now has a platform that is a bit too grand.

We've had neoliberal economists jumping into every public policy discussion, from education, so I like that there is a more "Liberal" voice out there. However, I think many Democrats are treating him like the party vanguard. Much of his writing are just cheering on the party line, regardless of what he himself has said before.

Personally, I don't like reading him because he dumbs down things too much. I don't care what Krugman thinks about this issue or what he feels is "textbook economics". I want to know what models he is basing those opinions on.

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.

Oh dear, oh dear, Mr. Krugman. For shame. This is not very professional at all.

What sort of an impact might having a Nobel Laureate allude to your work as being “****” have on your career? Surely not a very good one. I think most people come to think that Nobel Prizewinners are careful, reasoned, scientific types who would never tear a quote out of context to stitch up an intellectual opponent. Not so, it would seem. Press their intellectual buttons in a certain way and kaboom!

This whole affair has become dank and sordid. While I was first happy to see Krugman engage with this topic, I now only hope the whole exchange will end. It has truly brought out the worst in him. He is clearly not willing to consider any new perspectives on any fundamental issues because he has too much intellectual capital at stake. Any pressing of the matter by his colleagues is now only generating flak from Krugman’s side.

Linky.

 

[Dunstan]

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.

You have a source for "most observers" other than two bloggers you cite?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

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.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You have a source for "most observers" other than two bloggers you cite?

Er, are you wanting a survey ?

You can also look at the comments from his readers on Krugman's goodbye post.

 

[Roboramma]

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, the article doesn't argue for the superiority of Europe, nor does it do so by "looking at if Frankfurt, Paris and London appear to be poor":

It’s true that the U.S. economy has grown faster than that of Europe for the past generation. Since 1980 — when our politics took a sharp turn to the right, while Europe’s didn’t — America’s real G.D.P. has grown, on average, 3 percent per year. Meanwhile, the E.U. 15 — the bloc of 15 countries that were members of the European Union before it was enlarged to include a number of former Communist nations — has grown only 2.2 percent a year. America rules!

Or maybe not. All this really says is that we’ve had faster population growth. Since 1980, per capita real G.D.P. — which is what matters for living standards — has risen at about the same rate in America and in the E.U. 15: 1.95 percent a year here; 1.83 percent there.

It seems to be arguing that Europe is doing okay, which is much better than it's presented as. You are singling out one paragraph and ignoring the actual content of the article.

From reading it, no, I don't think he's a hack. But maybe you can argue with the numbers he presented (and the conclusions he draws from them)?

By the way, I agree that the paragraph you dislike is a little silly. I don't think it's more than that though.

 

[daenku32]

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.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

False dichotomy, wohoo.

I think his blog is generally well-written - I don't read it daily, though. I don't think he's a political hack, and I don't see him toeing the party line as much as pushing his own political ideas (He criticizes Democrats quite a bit, from what I see), which we all do, frankly.

Also, you can't compare his scholarly articles to his New York Times blog. That's just silly. They're not supposed to be anything alike.

I've also read his textbook on Economics, which is great.

 

[AlBell]

Er, yes, he was a scholar before choosing to be a political hack.

 

[daenku32]

Er, yes, he was a scholar before choosing to be a political hack.

A political hack is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political party apparatus, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.

While I'm 100% sure he leans strongly Democratic, I'm pretty sure it's more about his personal conviction over economic policies than party allegiance. The GOP, and those who comment negatively on his blog, do their darn hardest to keep Krugman a Democrat, even if the Democrats are not exactly heeding his advice.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

While I'm 100% sure he leans strongly Democratic, I'm pretty sure it's more about his personal conviction over economic policies than party allegiance. The GOP, and those who comment negatively on his blog, do their darn hardest to keep Krugman a Democrat, even if the Democrats are not exactly heeding his advice.

That's my experience as well.

 

[Humes fork]

To those thinking the passage about the European cities is not so bad, keep in mind that he is essentially asking us to ignore European statistics in favor of looking at if some of the richest cities in Europe look prosperous or not.

 

[NotJesus]

To those thinking the passage about the European cities is not so bad, keep in mind that he is essentially asking us to ignore European statistics in favor of looking at if some of the richest cities in Europe look prosperous or not.

No, he's not. Don't you see the bit after, "In any case, the statistics confirm what the eyes see... "?

Neither is he arguing for the "superiority of 'Europe,'" as you claim.

 

[Roboramma]

To those thinking the passage about the European cities is not so bad, keep in mind that he is essentially asking us to ignore European statistics in favor of looking at if some of the richest cities in Europe look prosperous or not.

Except he doesn't want you to ignore statistics: he highlights those statistics throughout the rest of the article.



I agree that this sentence:

You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it.

Was stupid. Luckily it's also completely irrelevant to the rest of the article.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I agree that this sentence:
Was stupid. Luckily it's also completely irrelevant to the rest of the article.

Agreed completely.