Krugman's Intellectual Waterloo
And what about Krugman's strawman protests that he didn't cause the housing bubble, much less the Enron scandal or Kennedy's assassination? The man is willfully missing the point. What is damning about these quotes is not that he necessarily caused anything. What is devastating about them is that they expose the intellectual bankruptcy of his economic principles. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (63)
Jack
"To be honest, a new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble... There was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: 'The nation demands a new bubble to invest in,' and that's pretty much right." - Krugman, 2009
For source, see here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010153.asp#comment-558213
So Krugman agrees with The Onion.
Published: June 22, 2009 6:43 AM
Borislav
I joined in exposing Krugman in (my local country's) very influential political portal.
Google Translate is funny a bit, but you'll understand :-):
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http://www.nspm.rs/ekonomska-politika/krugman-je-prizivao-mehur-s-kucama.html&sl=sr&tl=en&history_state0=
Cheers.
Published: June 22, 2009 7:15 AM
Thinker
I wouldn't call this Krugman's Waterloo. It's more like Borodino-he can't win overall, but he wins (that he did it by lying is not important) this latest conflict. After this, he may start crawling back to his office, but there needs to be one, big slap in his face to make him run. I look forward to his Leipzig.
Published: June 22, 2009 7:26 AM
Scott D
It's really interesting to see this guy twist and spin. Krugman wrote an article several years back criticizing what he called the "hangover theory" of recessions, aka Austrian Business Cycle Theory. From his commentary there, he thinks that there is no cause and effect whatsoever between bubbles and recessions.
The problem, for him, is that now the cause and effect is painfully obvious. The bubble is, itself, now widely recognized as being both a driver of huge consumer debt and of poor lending practices, in addition to the malinvestments that ABCT recognizes. So Krugman can't pretend that, in retrospect, the housing bubble was, taken as a whole, a good thing.
He's really stuck between admitting that ABCT is valid and admitting that Keynesian economic policies are fatally flawed. Of course, we know that both of these statements are true, but somehow I believe he'll weasel his way through anyway.
Published: June 22, 2009 7:53 AM
Sean
Lilburne writes:
"Those who look up to him like the second coming of Adam Smith should realize that the neo-Keynesian principles that lead him to advocate aggressive interest-rate cuts and mammoth public spending now, are the very same principles that led him to advocate inducing a housing bubble then."
I agree, but this is not much of an argument. If I were a Krugman ditto-head, I'd not be persuaded by this. Nor would I be moved by the argument that Krugman's current protestations are disingenuous - your evidence on this, though good, is just too thin - and is besides the point anyhow imho.
Published: June 22, 2009 7:55 AM
8
"We must destroy the economy to save it from recession."
Published: June 22, 2009 8:29 AM
Marcus
8
"We must destroy the economy to save it from recession."
Just like the free market :(
Published: June 22, 2009 8:37 AM
wilderness
Sean, it's unraveling...
I agree with Scott D, a clash has occurred and another late night is in order for Krugman to figure out how to weasel out of this mess he is in.
Published: June 22, 2009 8:42 AM
Taras Smereka
I'm all for exposing Paul Krugman, but this seems like a rather scrubby collage of antagonistic comments left on Krugman's blog.
Published: June 22, 2009 9:05 AM
Yancey Ward
From Sean:
If one were a ditto-head, no weight of evidence would suffice. You could dig up evidence that, for example, Krugman said, on video no less, "To be honest, a new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble," and it would not be sufficient to prove to a ditto-head that Krugman advocates creating bubbles.
Published: June 22, 2009 9:25 AM
Richie
How else does one expose him?
Published: June 22, 2009 9:27 AM
Borislav
8 & Marcus
I have the better one :-):
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," US President George W. Bush told CNN television on December 16th 2008, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
Published: June 22, 2009 9:40 AM
Matthew
Perhaps I'm only making matters worse for the Austrian cause here, but I recall an episode of the Lone Gunmen (it's the only episode I ever watched) that depicted terrorists remotely hijacking a commercial flight and controlling it to crash into the World Trade Center. As I vaguely recall, the show's heroes, through their own non-governmental means, regained control of the plane and averted disaster. Mention of this episode and plotline appears to be confined to only obscure corners of the web.
So, their tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists aside, comparing Austrians to the Lone Gunmen is a poor choice, considering some of the prescience the show displayed.
Published: June 22, 2009 9:41 AM
Robert Nathan
First the dot com bubble
Then the housing bubble
Now the government spending bubble
Fractional leveraging yields an exponential growth of paper. A small spark and the whole house of cards will erupt in flames.
Published: June 22, 2009 9:43 AM
Marcus
Borislav
8 & Marcus
"I have the better one :-):
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," US President George W. Bush told CNN television on December 16th 2008, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse." "
Borislav, i know this quote is the reason why i posted my comment :-):
Published: June 22, 2009 9:50 AM
Bill
This article is a bit deceptive. Krugman didn't say that, Paul McCulley of Pimco is credited with saying a housing bubble is need to save the economy. It's pretty clear that Krugman isn't in favor of creating a housing bubble. He's actually pointing out the lunacy of the situation the economy finds itself in.
Published: June 22, 2009 10:31 AM
RWW
Krugman didn't say that
Which of the numerous damning quotes are you referring to?
Published: June 22, 2009 10:42 AM
Sean
Taras Smereka writes:
"I'm all for exposing Paul Krugman, but this seems like a rather scrubby collage of antagonistic comments left on Krugman's blog."
Indeed. Arguments like the one posited by Lilburne, presented incarefully, and resting on a rather scant amount - and therefore apparently presumed preponderance - of evidence, run a high risk imho of simply reinforcing the stereotype of Austrians being nothing more than cranks and ideologues.
And take this risk for what potential reward? To demonstrate that Mr. Krugman did actually call for a housing bubble?
I suspect the import of this fact would be lost on, and thus appear as something of a strawman argument to, the non-dittoheads anyhow. Better to explain WHY rather than THAT Keynesianism - and by implication Krugman - are and will always be wrong.
Published: June 22, 2009 10:50 AM
Bill
Which of the numerous damning quotes are you referring to?
I'll repeat it, since it took a small amount of inference to understand the pronoun "that" in my reply. This is the quote I was refering to:
"[So] Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
It's much like a Hannity hit piece where the quotes are taken out of context, in this case the text is deceptively quoted to have an effect.
The article is quoted as Dubya's Double Dip?. While the author of this hit piece makes it look like Krugman is calling for a housing bubble when beneath the quote, the Mises author writes "Krugman. 2002. Calling for a housing bubble."
The Austrians can do better than this. If this is the kind of journalism you need to rely on to make your case, then you don't have much of a philosophy worth following.
Published: June 22, 2009 11:01 AM
Greg Ransom
LOVE the picture.
Published: June 22, 2009 11:02 AM
Greg Ransom
What are the odds.
Krugman is exposed as a dishonest man, again.
It couldn't be a character issue, could it?
Published: June 22, 2009 11:11 AM
Taras Smereka
The quote, in its original context, already exposes Krugman as a fraud. Keynesianism treats capital, GDP, the price level, and unemployment as being homogeneous aggregates. The fact that he even thinks of economic events as "housing bubbles" and "Nasdaq bubbles" contradicts this view as it reveals that the economy is more complicated than keynesian aggregates and models.
There is no reason to maliciously edit quotes, plagiarize anonymous blog commentators, or bash on Arnold Kling. I seriously hope that Jeffrey or someone removes this article from the daily blog.
Published: June 22, 2009 11:11 AM
joebhed
central government planner here
It's too bad this blog gains machismo by ragging on Krugman, even though he is only the apostle of modern keynesianism.
I know that underlying this fun is the knowledge that the federal-reserve's fractional-reserve bank credit system is behing the NEED to continually create the next bubble.
Why isn't there more criticism on the cause of the next bubble, and less on the messenger, who, IMHO, is only stating the obvious.
Which is that this debt-money system of the Federal Reserve is broken, and all we can do is continually pump more TRILLIONS of new debts(money) after the debt-service payments due on the old debts(money).
The debt money system is broke.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2005/1212b.html
Krugman is just today's announcer.
Published: June 22, 2009 11:27 AM
Eric
Of valuable note here is not that Krugman advocates a central bank solution to a central bank problem but that he implicitly blames the Fed for bubbles even though as of late he has been in his "blame capitalism" robes.
Regardless of whether or not he is advocating for a new housing bubble he more than pins down where one would have to come from.
Published: June 22, 2009 11:42 AM
Borislav
@joebhed
It's too bad this blog gains machismo by ragging on Krugman,
I agree.
even though he is only the apostle of modern keynesianism.
What about Gregory Mankiw (sometimes target here) and Joseph Stiglitz?
Published: June 22, 2009 11:59 AM
dewind
With regards to comments on Krugman's blog; those comments are carefully selected and I sincerely doubt detailed and well-thought-out rebuttals would ever make it on his blog.
Published: June 22, 2009 12:12 PM
RWW
Bill,
Even allowing you to stretch the plain meaning of words enough to throw away the single quote you are referring to, there are numerous other Krugman quotes that are just as damning.
If this is the kind of journalism you need to rely on to make your case, then you don't have much of a philosophy worth following.
Whether you agree with a particular entry on the Mises Blog has no bearing on the logic underlying "Austrian" economics. Here, I am assuming that economics is the "philosophy" you mention, although I don't know if that word fits a rigorous field of science.
Published: June 22, 2009 12:13 PM
Magnus
If this is the kind of journalism you need to rely on to make your case, then you don't have much of a philosophy worth following.
Wow, this topic brings out the trolls.
I find it particularly interesting when a commenter focuses not on the topic at hand, but on the blog authors' supposed intentions when he decided to make the post.
It is also entertaining to see people suggest that every blog post must somehow be a fully-formed, self-contained explication of Austrian economic theory. This kind of comment is based on the fallacious implication that every blog post may only advance the purest Austrian economic theory, that it must be a complete and air-tight proof, as though blog posts were held to the production standards of a full-length book or something.
Of course, holding the object of criticism to an impossibly high or otherwise inapplicable standard is, obviously, a rather weak attempt to bolster one's criticism and make it appear to be more substantive than it is.
The short response is -- if you don't approve of the decision to make a blog post like this one, then GO OUT AND START YOUR OWN BLOG. Go start your own economics institute. See how much traffic you get.
Published: June 22, 2009 12:23 PM
Caveman
Why isn't there more criticism on the cause of the next bubble, and less on the messenger, who, IMHO, is only stating the obvious.
A quick search of the mises.org archives will produce a wealth of criticism and explanation of the root causes of bubbles. Unfortunately, rational and clear-headed arguments often fail to move those who prefer dogma to reason. Thus, we're left to try other approaches. If we can effectively expose the "apostle of modern Keynesianism" as an unprincipled, intellectually dishonest partisan it may lead some of the faithful to consider the pile of sand upon which neo-Keynesian economic theory is built. Or not. But, Austrians shouldn't be faulted for trying.
Published: June 22, 2009 12:29 PM
RWW
Well, Magnus, it's not as if the Mises Institute takes the Krugman route and disallows criticism. But silly criticisms will mainly serve to make their proponents look foolish.
Published: June 22, 2009 12:32 PM
Sean
Magnus writes,
"This kind of comment is based on the fallacious implication that every blog post may only advance the purest Austrian economic theory, that it must be a complete and air-tight proof, as though blog posts were held to the production standards of a full-length book or something."
Indeed. However, short of presenting "complete and air-tight" arguments, Mises.org DOES IN FACT run the risk of perpetuating the stereotype of Austrians being ideologues.
In other words, from a public relations standpoint, the Austrians perhaps need be more selective with their arguments.
"Go start your own economics institute. See how much traffic you get."
In other words, the less scientific the argument, the better. Really?
Published: June 22, 2009 12:59 PM
filc
RWW,
The criticism isn't silly. It further exposes Mr Krugman's economic and philosophical beliefs in a historical context. This website makes publicly available far more "Formal Publications" in higher frequency then most any other place online.
Quit complaining and just enjoy it. :)
Published: June 22, 2009 1:02 PM
Kevin Beck
At least the intelligent thinkers around here know that Krugman is a fraud. He cannot get anything right about the way the world works, and he earns a Nobel Prize for his disingenuousness? It's a shame that he would cause the Nobel committee to take their reputation so low. Maybe there weren't any other economics books published that year. And I feel pity for anyone who has faith in his pontifications.
Published: June 22, 2009 1:05 PM
Ivan
Borislave,
svaka cast na brzoj reakciji.
Evo i ja sam stavio post na svom blogu
http://trzisnoresenje.blogspot.com/2009/06/sta-je-izlaz-iz-recesije.html
Sorry non Serbians, I just congratulated to Borislav.:)
Published: June 22, 2009 1:05 PM
Caveman
Sean, all things considered, I think the LvMI does a commendable job of presenting logical, thoughtful, honest and respectful criticism of mainstream economic and political thought. The result? Austrians are routinely ignored, lampooned, and ridiculed without justification by persons such as Krugman regardless. So, fretting over "public relations" seems a bit silly. Besides, there's nothing unseemly in calling out BS when we see it, hear it, and read it.
Published: June 22, 2009 1:15 PM
Magnus
However, short of presenting "complete and air-tight" arguments, Mises.org DOES IN FACT run the risk of perpetuating the stereotype of Austrians being ideologues.
In other words, from a public relations standpoint, the Austrians perhaps need be more selective with their arguments.
Then, start your own improved, highly-selective blog and/or institute. Be as selective as you like. Spread the reputation of Austrian economics far and wide. Impress the world with your selectivity of your arguments.
Go on. Do it. Show us. Live your beliefs.
Or are you merely full of hot air? Are you content with merely sniping from the peanut gallery? Do you prefer to give unsolicited advice from the sidelines, or will you get in the arena?
Published: June 22, 2009 1:27 PM
RWW
filc: You've misunderstood my comment.
Published: June 22, 2009 1:34 PM
Sean
Caveman writes:
"Sean, all things considered, I think the LvMI does a commendable job of presenting logical, thoughtful, honest and respectful criticism of mainstream economic and political thought. The result? Austrians are routinely ignored, lampooned, and ridiculed without justification by persons such as Krugman regardless."
Indeed, indeed. Though when the Austrian David take on today's Keynesian Goliath (in the person of Mr. Krugman), he calls attention to himself. Better that he makes a good showing.
Published: June 22, 2009 1:38 PM
Sean
Magnus,
You're right. How silly of me to offer a critical opinion and not fall into line next to you, and next to anyone else who supports the party line at all costs.
After all, progress occurs only through solemn pledges of allegiance and strict adherence to accepted wisdom, right? After all, progress requires deviant opinion to be excluded from all discussion, right? Indeed, deviants ought be rooted out altogether. Sir, make haste and take me to your leader.
Published: June 22, 2009 1:55 PM
Roark
In other news, we apparently haven't learned out lesson from all of this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=avAvJacs7UcU
Published: June 22, 2009 2:07 PM
tawny
I loved this article, very funny, entertaining, and true.
The Onion article is a minor masterpiece.
At least we can get our yuks as the ship goes down, leaving in the lifeboats (or rather their various villas, estates, and swank corporate/govt. offices).... well golly gee whiz, the 'corporate/banking elites'. Whoda thunk it.
He who laughs last laughs best. The invisible (to the masses) plutocracy still rules, despite all our kvetching and erudite entre nous analysis, discussion, and hand-wringing.
Ah, powerlessness - ain't it great?
Published: June 22, 2009 2:30 PM
tawny
I loved this article, very funny, entertaining, and true.
The Onion article is a minor masterpiece.
At least we can get our yuks as the ship goes down, leaving in the lifeboats (or rather their various villas, estates, and swank corporate/govt. offices).... well golly gee whiz, the 'corporate/banking elites'. Whoda thunk it.
He who laughs last laughs best. The invisible (to the masses) plutocracy still rules, despite all our kvetching and erudite entre nous analysis, discussion, and hand-wringing.
Ah, powerlessness - ain't it great?
Published: June 22, 2009 2:31 PM
Bill R
Which of the numerous damning quotes are you referring to?
I'll repeat it, since it took a small amount of inference to understand the pronoun "that" in my reply. This is the quote I was refering to:
"[So] Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
It's much like a Hannity hit piece where the quotes are taken out of context, in this case the text is deceptively quoted to have an effect.
The article is quoted as Dubya's Double Dip?. While the author of this hit piece makes it look like Krugman is calling for a housing bubble when beneath the quote, the Mises author writes "Krugman. 2002. Calling for a housing bubble."
The Austrians can do better than this. If this is the kind of journalism you need to rely on to make your case, then you don't have much of a philosophy worth following.
Perhaps you missed the post five days earlier where Mark Thornton posted a compilation of Krugman's statements. Frankly they are shocking and imo put to rest the debate over "advocacy". Also this advocacy of short term bubbles is right in line with the Keynesian credo "In the long run, we're all dead" and that Aggregate Demand creates its own sustainable employment.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010153.asp
Enjoy.
Published: June 22, 2009 2:33 PM
Magnus
After all, progress occurs only through solemn pledges of allegiance and strict adherence to accepted wisdom, right? After all, progress requires deviant opinion to be excluded from all discussion, right? Indeed, deviants ought be rooted out altogether. Sir, make haste and take me to your leader.
Your sarcasm might be relevant and effective if we were talking about a disagreement over Austrian economics.
We're not.
We're talking about your impulse to offer unsolicited PR advice about how this blog should be run.
What's behind that? Who are you trying to impress? Whose respect are you after?
What I do not understand is why you are so sensitive to the possibility that people who already marginalize, ridicule, ignore and disregard us may find some additional reason to think ill of Austrian economics.
If some economist were the type of person who would form his opinion about Misesian economic theory based on a photoshop of Paul Krugman in a Napoleonic hat appearing on a blog, then I wouldn't be too impressed with that economist's logical reasoning skills, and wouldn't much care what his opinion of me might be.
Published: June 22, 2009 2:59 PM
Sean
Magnus writes:
"What I do not understand is why you are so sensitive to the possibility that people who already marginalize, ridicule, ignore and disregard us may find some additional reason to think ill of Austrian economics."
But you are so quick to assume that the non-Austrian reader is also an Austrian antagonist. This assumption is unwarranted imho.
"If some economist were the type of person who would form his opinion about Misesian economic theory based on a photoshop of Paul Krugman in a Napoleonic hat appearing on a blog, then I wouldn't be too impressed with that economist's logical reasoning skills, and wouldn't much care what his opinion of me might be."
And neither would I be impressed with an economist who posits an argument similar to Lilburne's - it's thin, and taking on a cultural giant like Krugman should call forth a better effort.
"We're talking about your impulse to offer unsolicited PR advice about how this blog should be run. What's behind that? Who are you trying to impress? Whose respect are you after?"
Besides being irrelevant, how very odd that you should raise these questions since above you've stated clearly, and I quote...
"I find it particularly interesting when a commenter focuses not on the topic at hand, but on the blog authors' supposed intentions when he decided to make the post."
Oh, and hail Mises!
Published: June 22, 2009 3:36 PM
Eric
Charles Laughton to Krugman:
Are you lying now or are you not, in fact, a chronic and habitual liar!
Published: June 22, 2009 3:43 PM
gabe
since he brought up lone gunman I found the you tube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A39oOwnQuts
and the interview with one of the actors related about the episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9KMg4zU-o
guess who he says recommended the plot to them?
Published: June 22, 2009 4:35 PM
Barry Klein
I don't think we need worry about the Krugman dittoheads. The people to reach with Liburne's analysis are more garden variety Democrats and progressives.
Published: June 22, 2009 4:38 PM
Brian Macker
Bill,
"This article is a bit deceptive."
Absolute baloney. If anything it went to easy on Krugman.
"Krugman didn't say that, Paul McCulley of Pimco is credited with saying a housing bubble is need to save the economy."
Actually he did say that. He wasn't merely quoting McCulley he was claiming that it was a correct statement and in context he was doing so approvingly.
It's pretty clear that Krugman isn't in favor of creating a housing bubble. He's actually pointing out the lunacy of the situation the economy finds itself in."
Krugman said,
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. "
He was saying that Greenspan should cause a housing bubble but that he, Krugman, doubts that he can pull it off. The reason for creating the bubble is to generate Krugman's theoretically needed household spending to offset the decrease in business investment. This is straight Keynesian dogma we always hear from Krugman.
Not only was Krugman wrong about Greenspan's ability to generate the housing bubble, but he was also incorrect about the effect that housing bubble would have on the economy.
Just like he is 100% wrong about the current situation. He's cheering on bailouts, monetary printing, government spending, and all that is going to turn out very badly also. Not only is he doing that but he is advocating vast increases beyond the already horrible policies.
Another six years down the road he'll be twisting his own words yet again.
Published: June 22, 2009 8:13 PM
wan
re: bill
upon your urging, i read krugman's original article. from the text itself, it seems clear i.m.o. that krugman was advocating of increased spending, and possibly generating a housing bubble.
but you do have a point about some articles on this site being manipulative of information. they don't need to resort to this - it only makes them lose the moral high ground.
Published: June 22, 2009 8:31 PM
Jack
Krugman apologists need to get over themselves...
These are his words in THIS YEAR (see first comment):
"To be honest, a new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble... There was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: 'The nation demands a new bubble to invest in,' and that's pretty much right." - Krugman, 2009
Published: June 22, 2009 10:04 PM
Magnus
Besides being irrelevant, how very odd that you should raise these questions since above you've stated clearly, and I quote...
"I find it particularly interesting when a commenter focuses not on the topic at hand, but on the blog authors' supposed intentions when he decided to make the post."
The distinction you fail to make, and the solution to the difficulty you seem to be having, is that, like me, you are a blog commenter, whereas in my quote, I was referring to the tendency of blog commenters to snipe at a blog's author, griping about what the author chooses to talk about and how he does it.
You're the audience. They are the hosts. If you want to be a host, and thus get to talk about whatever you want to talk about, however you want to talk about it, then go be a host. It's nearly free. All you need is the intellectual firepower, marketing skill and dedication to build an appealing body of work, and develop your own audience.
Ah, but that is easier said than done! It's MUCH easier to latch onto someone else's blog, after they have done all the work of building an audience, then try to tell them how to run it.
Your behavior and attitude is reminiscent of sci-fi fans, who, merely by virtue of being sycophants and hangers-on of someone's body of work, feel that they have acquired some kind of quasi-proprietary interest in the subject matter, and thus have the right to have their opinions and suggestions taken into account by the creator of it.
And when their unsolicited suggestions are insufficiently implemented, they get strangely angry, as though they have been wronged somehow, slighted, cast aside, taken advantage of.
Published: June 22, 2009 10:08 PM
Justin
Hey Lilburne, what a brilliant article; well-written. More please.
Published: June 22, 2009 11:00 PM
jscote
So I guess the bottom line is that we are supposed to believe that Republican Alan Greenspan - in the GW Bush administration no less - took the advice of arch liberal critic Krugman - and created the housing bubble to cure a comparatively small economic problem in 2002? If you believe that, you might also believe that the real strategy was the classic preparation for bankruptcy - distribute as much wealth to the inner circle as possible - and then leave the inevitable Democrat successors with the economic disaster we're now facing.
Published: June 23, 2009 1:42 AM
E. G. Pohlhausen
Where was the outcry of Krugman's students, collegues, faculty, ivy-league business schools?
Who of them did think of the consequences, all those poor mislead citizens, borrowers, lenders? Did they anticipate these?
Henry Hazlitt once said: ."... the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond."
Published: June 23, 2009 2:20 AM
Brian Macker
jscote,
Krugman is being criticized for his theories and the ideas he advocates, not any direct influence he may or may not actually have. Is that so hard to understand? I guess for some people it is.
Krugman is one of a whole host of economists who give bad advice to politicians in general, whether listened to or not. He's also very popular with economic ignoramuses in general.
He advocated what are obviously bad policies then and is doing so now. Doesn't matter if Bush, Greenspan, or Obama ever heard of him. He's still responsible for "intellectual bankruptcy of his economic principles."
What's amazing is that this was pointed out in the four sentences of the article presented as a synopsis and yet you were still to thick to get it.
Published: June 23, 2009 2:46 AM
Brian Macker
jscote,
Krugman is being criticized for his theories and the ideas he advocates, not any direct influence he may or may not actually have. Is that so hard to understand? I guess for some people it is.
Krugman is one of a whole host of economists who give bad advice to politicians in general, whether listened to or not. He's also very popular with economic ignoramuses in general.
He advocated what are obviously bad policies then and is doing so now. Doesn't matter if Bush, Greenspan, or Obama ever heard of him. He's still responsible for "intellectual bankruptcy of his economic principles."
What's amazing is that this was pointed out in the four sentences of the article presented as a synopsis and yet you were still too thick to get it.
Published: June 23, 2009 2:46 AM
Yancey Ward
You have to be careful when you judge the critical content of Krugman's comment sections. He and Brad DeLong carefully edit out any substantive criticisms on their blogs and leave only those that are clearly insubstantial and/or mentally unhinged. Both are basically intellectually dishonest.
Published: June 23, 2009 10:48 AM
Mark Davis
For a school of economic thought that focuses so heavily on empirical data it is odd that being proven wrong over and over again seems to have so little affect on their positions. Keynesians calling Austrians ideologues with a straight face obviously requires years of indoctrination by dedicated cultists. While it may be impossible to reach out to Krugman's Zombies, amusing articles like this play well on Main Street. The battle for street-cred between those whom "idolize" government intervention and those whom "idolize" free markets is no contest. The ivory tower trolls desperately fighting a rear guard action to cover the Keynesian retreat comes off as rather pathetic. Press on!
Published: June 23, 2009 10:52 AM
Jason Gordon
Yancy Ward, I'm sorry if my comments to Krugman's blog post were too milquetoast for you.
I don't think that the censorship is any more than the Times' policy, considering this comment once made it through. As a general rule when posting comments; WRITE SOMETHING WORTH READING.
Published: June 23, 2009 11:22 AM
Yancey Ward
Jason,
Don't know your secret, but I have had every comment ever made on those blogs disappeared down the hole, and I am rarely uncivil or content free. I simply make the error of countering Krugman's and DeLong's assertions with facts or differing interpretations.
My guess is that Krugman's blog is more haphazardly monitored, and, thus, more reasonable counterarguments make it through. DeLong's is like a brick wall. Some comments make it through and disappear within 5 minutes. The longest any comment I made on his site lasted was 2 hours, but I did post that one 4 a.m. PST. It disappeared by the time the sun rose in California.
Published: June 23, 2009 1:50 PM
FTG
Jscote,
So I guess the bottom line is that we are supposed to believe that Republican Alan Greenspan[...]
Would you feel outraged if Greenspan was a Democrat? Or would you just not mention it, out of expediency?
Greenspan's political affiliation is meaningless when it comes to the competency of his economic policies.
[...] took the advice of arch liberal critic Krugman - and created the housing bubble to cure a comparatively small economic problem in 2002?
No, the commentator is indicating that Krugman, far from being the soothsayer he fancies himself to be, is a charlatan that espoused the very same economic "solutions" that lead to the Great Bubble. He was not advising Greenspan to do anything, he was basically agreeing with Greenspan's policies.
Published: June 23, 2009 3:44 PM
Brian Macker
Surprisingly my comment on Krugman's blog got through and stayed up this time. I've had them vanish before.
Brad Delong's is much more consistent in "pruning comments". He's been doing it from at least 2005.
To quote Brad, "OK. Time to cut this off and prune it down to something useful..." That was on a comment thread where he was completely eviscerated. He posted that comment and then went back in and deleted all the comments he could not respond to intellectually.
Oh, and BTW, Brad Delong was more directly responsible for the internet bubble, than Krugman ever will be for the housing bubble, because he was an economic advisor of the Clinton administration.
It's not just the Keynesian's that do this either. Mish's economic blog does the same thing. I wrote a comment response to his article, "http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/big-inflationist-scare.html", on his blog and he moderated it into the vacuum. I've got a copy which I plan to turn into a blog post.
It's clear from his article that he didn't understand North's position and doesn't fully understand Austrian economics, or even the workings of the Fed.
Look at this claim: "Thus, if banks had to pay interest on reserves, rather than causing mass inflation, the Fed would cause mass panic. Indeed, the likely result would be banks scrambling for dollars to repay the Fed as opposed to a mad dash to lend dollars."
He thinks inflationists are "ridiculous" when he doesn't even understand that the banks own the reserves they hold at the Fed. There is nothing to repay.
Published: June 24, 2009 6:16 AM