Comments on: The Passionate Politics of Paul Krugman's Apolitical Economics

By: max191

max191 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:20:24 +0000

Your blog is very interesting. I would like to tell that I have been looking for such information and finally got it. Thanks a lot.
regards
charcoal grill

By: just noticing the pattern

just noticing the pattern — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:04:59 +0000

Boilerplate anti-Krugman. Starts by saying 'he is shrill,” repeat several times, and end with a significant elaboration such as he is 'freaking” shrill. Laughs and pats on the back all around.

By: Economic Confidence and Bidirectional Causation — Objectively Biased

Economic Confidence and Bidirectional Causation — Objectively Biased — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:18:38 +0000

[...] I argued that Will Wilkinson was being a bit hard on Krugman. I tried to use a reductio ad absurdum to mock the argument that stimulating [...]

By: toad

toad — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:19:39 +0000

Krugman understands that policy is largely determined by the outcome of the public opinion shoutfest. Yet this recognition seems to have no effect on Krugman’s ideas. Rather than bring inside his models disagreement over economic theory and the lack of political incentive to faithfully apply them, which would lead him to radically revise his prescriptions, Krugman leaves his textbook theory untouched and simply tries to win the shoutfest.

And this wrong, why? If you are convinced that your policy ideas are sound, and the only way to get them adopted is to win the shoutfest, why shouldn't you try to win the shoutfest?

By: PRMCGEE.COM » The Passionate Politics of Paul Krugman’s Apolitical Economics

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:57:55 +0000

[...] Wilkinson offers a great critique NYT columnist Paul Krugman, whose pieces I’ve never been able to enjoy: Perhaps more than any economist of his caliber, [...]

By: Keyah

Keyah — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:33:00 +0000

Krugman's reputation in the area of macroeconomics is a sham. He spent the 2001-2004 period warning about deflation, a period during which the Fed flooded the economy with liquidity, commodities and real estate skyrocketed and the stage was set for what we are experiencing right know. Krugman's deflation hysteria contributed to create the climate in which Greenspan's and Bernanke's (helicopter Ben, “savings glut” Ben) dovishness took hold. It was only in 2005, after the 2004 election, and when the writing was already on the wall, when he came out with a column saying that the Fed had solved the popping of one bubble (the dot com) by creating another (real estate). That column is his claim to having been right all along, although it is inconsistent with his stated Keynsian beliefs (being consistent with what the Austrians had been saying since the mid 90's instead), and completely at odds with his position during the 2001-2004 period.

Krugman's claim to authority must be challenged!!! Forcefully!!!

By: Northerner

Northerner — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:09:59 +0000

What's funny is this, from a recent Krugman post quoting the Center for American Progress: “The Senate compromise recovery and reinvestment legislation provides for 12 to 15 percent fewer jobs created or saved than the House-passed Recovery and Reinvestment Act despite costing slightly more. The House-passed legislation creates or saves between 430,000 and 538,000 more jobs than the Senate compromise.”

How on earth can anyone claim to know those figures so precisely? I want the people producing those figures to show proof that as of 1999, their models predicted the financial devastation that we're seeing now. No such proof that you knew it back in 1999? Then quit pretending that you have a crystal ball.

By: Maggie's Farm

Maggie's Farm — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:41:01 +0000

Are we scared yet?…

Be very, very afraid. That’s the selling-point of the sh-t sandwich of a ten-year backlog of Lefty projects and political payoffs which constitute the "Stimulus." (See $300 million for golf carts).
It’s a recession. We have them regularly….

By: Commenting on Paul Krugman - 2parse

Commenting on Paul Krugman - 2parse — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:41:00 +0000

[...] Will Wilkinson on Krugman: Perhaps more than any economist of his caliber, Krugman understands that policy is largely determined by the outcome of the public opinion shoutfest. Yet this recognition seems to have no effect on Krugman’s ideas. Rather than bring inside his models disagreement over economic theory and the lack of political incentive to faithfully apply them, which would lead him to radically revise his prescriptions, Krugman leaves his textbook theory untouched and simply tries to win the shoutfest. Krugman’s often unbearable stridency seems to reflect an attempt to overcome the problems of democratic disagreement and incentive compatibility through sheer force of will–as if the deep reality of politics is no match for the rhetorical gifts and gold-plated reputation of Paul Freaking Krugman. [...]

By: Pauline

Pauline — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:53:08 +0000

Deleted by NYT blog moderator:

your comment is awaiting moderation.

Paul –

The problem with posts like this — as opposed to your (increasingly pertinent) wonkish posts and the occasional more or less neutral factual posts — is that it erodes your audience. Pointlessly. And at moments like this, the only relevant audience is the Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Your role in all this is to provide the best possible economic analysis. To clarify confusions. To interpose inconvenient facts. Etc. (If you want a different role, you should ask Obama for a job.)

Every time you post on this blog, you ought to ask yourself: If Keynes found himself in my position today (or Samuelson or Solow, etc.), what would they feel compelled to say. And what would he (or they) resist saying.

To put it some entirely different way: Posts like this cheapen the brand. Why play club basketball with Galbraith when you can play in some other better league?

Affectionately,

Old friend