Keynes was a charlatan whose theories have approximately as much empirical basis as alchemy. The reason he's held in any sort of esteem at all is because his work provides shabby intellectual cover for the looters and the wreckers.

Anyway, I sure look forward to Barro's demonstration that the multiplier on NDS is zero, though. That'll be neat. (Of particular interest will be how he controls for war-time rationing and high employment.)

Keynes was a charlatan whose theories have approximately as much empirical basis as alchemy. The reason he's held in any sort of esteem at all is because his work provides shabby intellectual cover for the looters and the wreckers.

I sure look forward to Barro's demonstration that the multiplier on NDS is zero, though. That'll be neat. (Of particular interest will be how he controls for war-time rationing and high employment.)

Let’s be clear: this isn’t an argument for beggaring thy neighbor, it’s an argument that protectionism can make the world as a whole better off. It’s a second-best argument — coordinated policy is the first-best answer. But it needs to be taken seriously.

Crook:

Then I read Paul Krugman…explain that raising tariffs – though perhaps unwise for other reasons – “can make the world better off”. “There is a short-run case for protectionism,” he went on, “and that case will increase in force if we don’t have an effective economic recovery programme.” What are his readers to make of this? Are all the economists who say otherwise just wrong? …If you wish to know what Mr Krugman thinks on any policy question, do not read his scholarly writings; see which policies are advocated by the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Krugman responds:

<l>…I acknowledge that there is a potential short-run argument for protectionism, while making it clear that I’m not in favor of acting on that argument. He doesn’t actually take on my argument; he just insists that the only reason I might possibly have said anything like this is partisan bias, as opposed to an attempt to be intellectually honest.

Krugman, 1
Croook, 0
Wilkinson's reading compehension, 0
Wilkinson's definition of “quite reasonable charge”, 0

Seriously, Will? You're going to plant your flag on the hill of High Broderism? Really?

Of course, that's not nearly as dumb as his prediction (see paper with Tenreyro), that the Euro would fiple world trade. That's right, I wrote fiple. As in single, double, triple, quadruple, and so forth…

Didn't really pan out, did it?

http://firelarrysummersnow.blogspot.com/

However, Crook's initial attack on Krugman, that he was advocating protectionism because he followed the liberal wing of the Democratic party, was indefensible. First, that sort of speculation about motives is common enough, but still a low blow. If Crook can lead with that sort of charge, it's not exactly surprising that Krugman will react angrily.

Second, it is clear in reading Krugman's post that it is not meant to undermine the well-established arguments against free trade, arguments that made Obama, to take just one example, look bad during the presidential campaign.

Third, and most importantly, Krugman argues that even if the case he's presented is accurate, free trade is such an important issue that abandoning the progress we've made on it would be unacceptable. And he says that we should not abandon free trade even if it would mean giving up on a temporary source of economic stimulus.

Frankly, I can see why Krugman might be annoyed that he'd been called a protectionist shill for the Democratic party. He could've been more polite, but he'd been accused of acting in bad faith. Crook's polite reply smells a lot like that kid in elementary school who started fights but acted like an angel in front of the teacher.

If he can supply evidence to support the conclusion that the non-defense spending multiplier is zero *at times of a extra-ordinarily low demand*, he will replace Keynes as The Greatest Economist Ever.

AND he will need to explain what it is about defense spending that is so distinctive.