Comments on: Paul Krugman Exposed? http://notreason.com/2009/06/17/paul-krugman-exposed/ Abolition, Nullification and Revolution Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: GS http://notreason.com/2009/06/17/paul-krugman-exposed/#comment-2053 GS Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:43:39 +0000 http://notreason.com/?p=688#comment-2053 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. 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.

]]>