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]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

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]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

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]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

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":

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by AlBell

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by daenku32

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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



I agree that this sentence:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

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

Agreed completely.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[tomasF]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

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]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

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]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

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.

Quote:

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/krugm...#ixzz1tFTyhWrr

I always knew there was something wrong with Keen.

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by mhaze

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:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

“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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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:

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]

Originally Posted by balrog666

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]

Originally Posted by daenku32

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]

Originally Posted by balrog666

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.

Originally Posted by tomasF

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]

Originally Posted by balrog666

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Krugman

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]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

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]

Originally Posted by balrog666

... in China.

Yes, and in every other country in the world.