Paul Krugman Exposed?
Written by Dixie Flatline
On the Mises.org Blog, Mark Thornton has some damning past quotations from Paul Krugman which undermine his current statement that (emphasis mine),
One of the funny aspects of being a somewhat, um, forceful writer is that I’m regularly accused of all sorts of villainy. I was personally responsible for the demise of Enron; my nonexistent son worked for Hillary; etc.. The latest seems to be that I called for the creation of a housing bubble.
In “Krugman Did Cause the Housing Bubble“, Thornton shows that Krugman was supportive of the Keynesian economic policies that would shift spending to Housing and create a bubble to replace falling consumption elsewhere, and the heroic Bill Anderson has followed up with “Paul “Hair of the Dog” Krugman” explaining that the problem isn’t that Krugman is wrong, it’s that his theories are ignorant and have always based on flawed economic reasoning.
I don’t think Paul Krugman, despite his recent Nobel prize, can afford too many more hits like this to his public reputation. It seems quite obvious that he’s been on the wrong side of so many economic meltdowns caused by government intervention and central planning.
Even progressives have to admit that Krugman was a supporter of the very policies that have brought on disaster for so many working people and their families, creating senseless pain and suffering while bolstering the power of the political class.
Sadly, I’m sure the most dogmatic progressives, as found in his NYT comment pages will continue to worship Krugman as he provides left intellectual cover for the worst policies of the Republican and Democratic administrations.
GS
I don’t think you’re correct. I think what you’re missing is a few things that we’ve discussed breifly on the forums. Don’t confuse yourself, Krugman is clearly a sharp guy, all five universities (UBerkeley, MIT, Princeton, Yale, LSE) he’s taught at have top 10 grad schools for economics, he has degrees from Yale and MIT.
Secondly, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this but the type of traditional Keynesianism that Krugman adheres to (and has an admittedly poor understanding of) is pretty much out of fashion in academia and has been for long time (in this regard, macroeconomics has been moving in the right direction in the recent past). Yet, in the press this sort of economic analysis is prevelant, and in fact, dominates. The thing is, whilst its theoretically (and empirically) flawed, it’s appealing to people and to some extent intuitive (not to mention, almost all UGs learn Keynesian macro, due to the advanced pedagogical techniques that can be utilized when teaching it). The fact of the matter is that the Austrian prescription of “do nothing” isn’t very appealing when people are losing their jobs and are seeing their friends suffer the same fate, if not worse. Not to mention some other less desirable aspects of the Austrian theory.
I think the third problem in your analysis is that you blur the line (and this isn’r just you, but most Austrians [laymen and otherwise]) between public intellectual and serious academic (for lack of a better phrase, as a qualification, it’s not my intention to denigrate the role of the former). The fact of the matter is that Krugman’s op-eds aren’t the same as the work that he won the Nobel prize for. Whether or not you agree with the latter, it’s more sophisticated than the former. I think a lot of Austrians tend to make their work complicated to the extent that the layman has trouble understanding it and simplify it to the extent that it’s not able to qualify for serious scholarly work.
Now, for the sake of staying concise and not making my ramblings any longer, I’ll make my conclusion as brief as possible. Krugman’s not an idiot, he knows his audience and the audience is very susceptible to his ideas. I’m not wont to portray any intellectual as a political opportunist, but I think Krugman might fit the description. The fact is that his empirical track record isn’t going to weigh heavily against him. Especially not when Austrians are the only macroeconomists without a pretty poor track record when it comes to the boom bust cycle.
Comment — June 27, 2009 @ 7:43 pm