This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Krugman Can't Understand How Someone Could Be So Stupid As To Believe What He Used To Believe
Submitted by Robert Murphy via The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
Over at CafeHayek, Russ Roberts is mystified at a recent Paul Krugman blog post. Concerning the debate over whether the US federal government should extend unemployment benefits, Krugman wrote on January 12:
There’s a sort of standard view on this issue, based on more or less Keynesian models. According to this view, enhanced UI actually creates jobs when the economy is depressed. Why? Because the economy suffers from an inadequate overall level of demand, and unemployment benefits put money in the hands of people likely to spend it, increasing demand.
You could, I suppose, muster various arguments against this proposition, or at least the wisdom of increasing UI. You might, for example, be worried about budget deficits. I’d argue against such concerns, but it would at least be a more or less comprehensible conversation.
But if you follow right-wing talk — by which I mean not Rush Limbaugh but the Wall Street Journal and famous economists like Robert Barro — you see the notion that aid to the unemployed can create jobs dismissed as self-evidently absurd. You think that you can reduce unemployment by paying people not to work? Hahahaha!
Before continuing, let’s be clear at the rhetorical devices Krugman uses here. First, he sets it up as the “standard view” that extending unemployment benefits (in a depressed economy) will boost job growth, through Keynesian demand-side effects.
Then, Krugman racks his brains trying to figure out how somehow could possibly disagree with this “standard view.” He says “I suppose” you might worry about the larger budget deficit that this would cause. He doesn’t offer any other possible mechanism by which someone might oppose it.
Finally, Krugman says that that’s not the argument that opponents are using. Instead, they are relying on a supply-side argument, claiming that it would reduce the incentive to work if you paid people not to work. In the context, it is clear that Krugman thinks this is NOT a good objection to the “standard” Keynesian view.
Against this backdrop, then, Russ Roberts is simply astounded because we can turn to Paul Krugman’s own (recent) books to elucidate this very argument–the one that “right-wingers” such as Robert Barro are advancing, much to Krugman’s horror. For example, in the 2010 edition of Krugman’s Essentials of Economics he writes:
People respond to incentives. If unemployment becomes more attractive because of the unemployment benefit, some unemployed workers may no longer try to find a job, or may not try to find one as quickly as they would without the benefit. Ways to get around this problem are to provide unemployment benefits only for a limited time or to require recipients to prove they are actively looking for a new job.
And, in the 2009 edition of Krugman’s textbook Economics he writes: “Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment. So government policies intended to help workers can have the undesirable side effect of raising the natural rate of unemployment.”
So we see here, that the type of supply-side argument that Barro et al. bring up is one that Krugman himself endorses. Indeed, this is literally the “standard view on the topic.”
To be sure, a Keynesian like Krugman could argue that in the middle of a big economic slump that such supply-side issues are of only minor importance, and get trumped by demand-side factors. But that’s not at all the argument Krugman is making in this latest blog post. Instead, he is making it sound like Barro et al. are grasping at straws, and not even relying on a coherent argument (such as fear of bigger deficits) when trying to oppose extension of unemployment benefits.
Krugman does this in other contexts, too. To take just one other example: He has coined the terms “confidence fairy” and “invisible bond vigilantes” to mock economists who believe that investors might worry about rising government debt levels, and consequently favor faster action on bringing down deficits even though market interest rates are quite low for US government debt. Yet back in 2003 Krugman wrote:
With war looming, it’s time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.
My point in the present post isn’t to accuse Krugman of outright contradictions, or to say he’s forbidden from ever changing his mind.
Rather, my point is that Krugman frequently accuses his opponents of being stupid and/or evil, when they present a view that he himself advanced in other circumstances. His typical readers would have no idea that Krugman once worried about bond vigilantes, or that his books lay out the standard case for why generous government unemployment benefits might contribute to structural unemployment. No, Krugman has led such typical readers to believe that anyone espousing such views is either a complete idiot–immune to theory and evidence that we’ve had since the 1930s–or is a paid shill who hates poor people.
»
- 15892 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Not sure that anybody did ever believe in his beliefs apart from a few irrelevant brain dead WSJ readers ?
This guy is fucking irrelevant. Move along.
Thanks. I debated whether even to click on the thread, then figured it was worth it to give the Tylers some feedback.
Voted "1" on celebrity analyst coverage.
Hey now! Krugman is by far my most favoritest rabid weasel of a man. I just love watching a terrible human being debase himself.
Not that it is directly related to economics, but my personal "favorite" is when Krugman blamed the Tea Party for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
Sure, it seems that Loughner was really just an insane person overall, and his political views were all over the map...
...but at the time, his personal webpage (or Facebook page or something) listed his two favorite books as Mein Kampf and Marx's Communist Manifesto.
I'm not a huge fan of what the Tea Party has become (it was different early on), but I'm pretty darn sure that the Tea Party should NOT be blamed for the actions of anyone who lists those two books as their favorites. Maybe that's just me...
No, Krugman never apologized as far as I know.
Where do I apply for that "Paid shill who hates poor people" job? I think I could be a natural!
Some may have noticed by now that Krugman is a sociopath with economics training. Up, down, left, right.... doesn't matter. What he said last week or years ago doesn't matter. What drives him is that he always feels under attack so he is always ON the attack. And he is NEVER wrong. Ever.
You'll win more arguments with your spouse than you ever will against him.
A couple of years ago, I read the book "Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson. It's a quick and entertaining read, if anyone wants to give it a go. It sparked an interest on the subject for me, a lot more reading, a bunch of documentaries and lots of thought. Simple conclusion; clearly the world is run by sociopaths. At the highest level of a vast majority of institutions you will find sociopaths in charge... government, media, academia, industry, military, religion. The characteristics of a psychopath are self selecting for that level of success. Not success as in, "I'm a competent individual who does his job well"... those guys don't become Senators or Fed Chairs or the President of Harvard or GE or Enron. Success as in doing the things that ultimately propel people throught the clutter of honest people. There are dozens of "things" they can do consistently, but the central tenant can be summed up by the axiom "the ends justify the means".
krugman is probably the best sock cooker on the planet. i want him to cook my socks. bernake has clean socks, obama, yellen will too.
my socks stink, clean my socks, not my stocks. but mrtouchdown, i misread your comment, i saw:
"my most favorite rabbi weasel of a ?"
he is shameless, but, he is richer than i am, as are jamie and lloyd. don't begrudge them that, but it's not because
they are smarter than us. or harder working. or lucky. there is more to it and it has to do with what i would or wouldn't accept to do
and what the repercussions would be for others.
thank most of the others at ZH, because they aren't dummies either and have made choices.
Krugman deserves to die in a fire
Buried alive under a mountain of printed fiat money while telling him that demand for the money will free him is more suitable.
Perhaps buried under bricks of $100 dollar bills dropped from helicopters.
He's never bread has he. The damage is just limited to his brain isn't it.
crushed under a stack of trillion-yellen platinum coins...priceless
He's never bread has he.
He's never breed has he?
Fixed it for ya.
Actually "bred". Missed the type. You're a gentleman.
May he be warm for the rest of his life.
Light a fire for a man he stays warm for one day.
Light a man on fire he stays warm for the rest of his life.
Quick correction: Krugman writes his op-eds for the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal.
ZH user TruthInSunshine has a really great summary post that outlines the many times that Krugman flip-flops on a position when it's convenient (especially politically) for him to do so. It includes this, written by a former NYT ombudsman, in his final column for the paper:
"[Krugman has] the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."
WSJ NYT SAME SHIT ........
Written on my shitephone.
What did you expect? This is coming from the same guy who said the internet wouldn't affect the economy that much (compared to a fax machine) and that an alien invasion is just what we need to boost GDP.
hey Pal, when you win a Nobel, then you may attack me.
---Professor Krugman
Keynesian, Ivy Leaguer, Writer, Genius, Economist, and all around Douche Bag
hey pal< Please discuss the massive increase in the cost of living? Krugman, or your minion, at least you have the nuts enough to debate the lynching.
Let's see, Krugman gets a Nobel in economics, O gets one for Peace.
Something's very wrong here.
Transformer
It means the Nobel is no longer a credible award.
It is now a political award given to those who tow the Looney Tunes Left Wing viewpoint.
-30-
Maybe with the emergence of 3D printing the nobel awards are just printed like fiat is. Is there anything printing doesn't devalue?
OH FER FUCKS SAKE, JESUS MARY MOTHER OF GOD, FOR THE LAST TIME, THERE IS NO NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS.
Nobel wasn't even born when Jesus walked the earth.
Keynesian, Ivy Leaguer, Writer, Genius, Economist, and all around Douche Bag
You forgot paid Enronhack.
hey Pal, when you win a Nobel, then you may attack me.
---Professor Krugman
Keynesian, Ivy Leaguer, Writer, Genius, Economist, and all around Douche Bag
I notice you show up on the Krugman posts like how fonestar shows up on the Bitcoin posts? What gives?
He must fucking hate KrugFuck as much as you love bitcoin
Disclaimer: I also love bitcoin.
Written on my shitephone.
Is there an app for that?
No, but i heard they are coming up with an ETF for it.
Do you always refer to yourself in the third person?
I was against the dangerous Bush Defecits, but am all for Obama's ruinous debts.
What fucking Nobel ? The fraudulent Non-Nobel issued by the Swedish Academy of Sciences ?
Well they nearly fucked up bigtime because it was Bernie Madoff who was the favorite to get that one.
Madoff was pipped to the post by Krugman........
The Nobel Prize in Economics is actually issued by its central bank (Sveriges Riksbank).
In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden's central bank) established the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize.
The Prize is based on a donation received by the Nobel Foundation in 1968 from Sveriges Riksbank on the occasion of the Bank's 300th anniversary.
So, when it comes to proclamations and theories expounded by "economists", and knowing that the ultimate shareholders of financial wealth are the owners (secret shareholders) of the central banks, is it any wonder that none of these guys will bite the hand the feeds them?
Need we say more?
But the strange thing about KrugFuck is that he actually appears to beleive his own bullshit.
Written on my shitephone.
That is not strange.
Oh, you poor little fucker. Did you find independent thinking out weighs the lemming views of society?
The standard view is that true believers can never, ever be wrong.
At this point in the soap opera, all he needs to do is a little twerking for Keynesian Theory ;-)
Maybe Richard Simmons can teach him how.
Oh hell yeah!!!
Two mental midgets (as well as stature) twerking in competition for the affection of the general public. Throw in Obozo the Clown taking selfies at funerals and we've got a genuine, live and in color mad capped three ring circus!
Whats not to love? ;-)
Will be good to watch him wiggle when his bullshit finishes boxing him in completely. But we will have other more entertaining distractions available when that happens.
"Krugman Can't Understand How Someone Could Be So Stupid As To Believe What He Used To Believe"
WE CAN.
I checked, his house isn't made of glass. So what gives?
http://www.celebrityhousepictures.com/paul-krugman.php
Nice lawn... looks like he's as good a gardner as he is an economist.
He's so close to Trenton that when the SHTF the African tribes will be on the rampage and will likely ransack his house.
That was yesteryear's bearded potato.
This is the new and improved bearded potato!
C'mon you spuds! Debt is good! TBTF is good! Break a window!
He deserves to be rubbed out
<----------Krugman meet fate of Afghani IMF'er
<----------Krugman spend rest of life locked up with Richard Simmons
Hey, wasn't he one of the guys in the Richard Simmon's video?
when Mad Max time arrives, and it will, what this guy has got comin' is gonna be worth the price (blood) of admission.
Krugman looks like the type of bitch who would break down in tears if somebody called him on his shit and stuck a finger in his chest and told him to knock it off.
Someone must be having nightmares about lamp posts, hemp nooses, or whether an alien society will abduct him from planet Earth.
/sarc
I told that MoFu a year ago... to create a new monetary system that leverages the system of the Federation.
Back the Money by a Precious Energy and a Precious Material. For us it's Dilithium Crystals + Latinum, and for you Earthlings (of the 21st Century) it's Tera-Watts of Power and PM.
Kirk out.
p.s. I insist on getting my share of the next "Sveriges Rikbank Prize in Economics" (aka Nobel Prize in Economics), and not just that plagiarizing, bearded clam. Or he'll get a second Bris that he'll never forget! [waves phaser]
not really much point in arguing with krugman or people like him. When everything muddles along, and it looks like things are going to be ok, its because keynesian theory works. When it doesnt work, such as now, he says that its because we didnt do enough stimulus, QE wasnt big enough, etc. Not saying its right, but, thats the way it it. It would literally take a currency collapse followed by mad max to get him to admit the fallacy of his ways. And if it gets to that point, the last thing you would care about is arguing with retards like paul krugman.
We know that advanced economies with stable governments that borrow in their own currency are capable of running up very high levels of debt without crisis. Paul Krugman
"What saved the economy, and the New Deal was the enormous public-works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy's needs." - Paul KrugFuck
Written on my shitephone.
I wonder what economists of that day would say about the situation today with the welfare state, the enormous twin structural deficits, and krugman's espousal of the QE-Airblown Christmas Snowman Eternally Inflatable global eCONoME?
World War II destroyed all of Europe and Japan, creating huge demand due to rebuilding.
The US was the only viable superpower with the industrial capacity to products for the
He thinks killing 6 million innocent poles hungarians romanies jews and others was a fucking 'public works project' ?
Jews usually don't believe in their own fairy tales.
Speaking of Krugman .......I just left a giant Krugman in the toilet bowl.
Just don't clog the system with paper and it'll be fine ;-)
TMI
Krugman is plural for Krugmanite.(small krystal/christal in hell)crystal.
Krugmanite is an prion holder. Long lost in the "Middle Ages", makes such recipients vulnerable of cranial malficence!
Hitler's plan for Global Domination
I am beginning to think Krugman is suffering from Alzheimers and simply can't remember what he used to believe.
It's a common enough ailment that plagues the US population, it seems. Judging by the sheeple around us.
I would love to see Krugman's retirement account. With his mad skills in economics, he must be worth tens of millions by now.
This krugman guy is just like a little insect, actually, a tapeworm
I'm getting so tired of seeing that ugly face of his.
Really can't believe that people would actually listen to him or give him the time of day.
What?. Enron wasn't enough?
I know one thing for certain! The Sheep are awakening. Shephards need to fleece their flock, before they move forward to betteer pastures.
You're in the process of being Fleeced.
Quick, someone send Lagarde, Krugman's resume for the post in Kabul.
more welfare can both increase and decrease joblessness
economists for some reason fail to see what it depends on
and the answer it is dependant on availability of resources and tools to produce more goods the welfare benefits will stimulate the demand for.
limit case is when we have unlimited capacity to produce - then just give the people money so they can buy it and production will pick up
another limit case is when we have no resource to produce the type of goods then no matter how much money in benefits you give it will not increase production
and since welfare recepients may decide to buy all sorts of goods (some are not possible to produce more easily and some are readily available) so no economist can predict will increase in welfare produce more jobs or not (will produce in some sectors and will drag capital out from other sectors and so total net change is questionable)
That Krugman and Obama could both be recipients of a Nobel Prize (nevermind the absurd IPCC) only demonstrates recent members of the Swedish committee are simply daft.
Krugman is worshipped at the Huffington Post. That alone is sufficient.
Krugman is the ultimate fascist shill.
'Krugman`the diabolical thief', synthesizes into an incarnate Prometheus, giving the humanities, the`Keynesian God's... Philosopher Stone? Turning the air we breathe into Fiat`Manna! Whence the Machiavellian Faustian is dispatched early to reap the Krugmanite theft... ones soul is quite the bargain for civilizations reprieve than a pound ole flesh fom ole Shylock, eh?'
'Pepe Escobar does a forlorn Sancho Panza 'fox trot' through history, reminiscing the 'great one' (it is good that we burn the underbrush so that the ashes can feed the ecosystem below,... smothered by a ill-gotten prosperity?)!
"Reliving Machiavelli in Florence" by Pepe Escobar 1/14/14 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-140114.html thankyou, Tyler
What Krugman believes is irrelevant -he's arguing from the viewpoint of fantasy land; where money trees grow and math doesn't apply. He makes money pushing that agenda and he'll push it until the wheels fall off and no more money can be made, and he has no stake in the outcome. If the economy tanks he can flee to another country, so he isn't worried.
We shouldn't pay attention to people who say stupid shit but have no stake in the consequences when they happen.
Hey Paul
psst, down here..
Maybe some offsets? does Montana really need that new tank?
does anyone in congress really need all that pork?
C'mon Paul, give me a reason to bring your toilet-paper back to the throne for the morning read.
all the pulp thats fit for wipe.
ouch.
Krugman should go jump off a bridge....
If that is necessary, the invisble hand of mr market will accomplish it.
Rather, my point is that Krugman frequently accuses his opponents of being stupid and/or evil, when they present a view that he himself advanced in other circumstances. His typical readers would have no idea that Krugman once worried about bond vigilantes, or that his books lay out the standard case for why generous government unemployment benefits might contribute to structural unemployment
Having studied under Professor Roberts, I agree.
Paul Krugfuck is an economic ignoramus, which explains why he was fired from CEA under Larry Summers for shitty rate forecasts.
Paul Krugman is the Jim Cramer of pseudoacademic economics, only worse.
Krugman is an idiot.
INTEL LAYS OFF 5000 5%
Perhaps the economic sage of the NYT can explain HOW GLD/SLV can add Tozs to their stash(s) on the day(s) when Ag/Au rises, yet their Tozs fall in quantity when Ag/Au prices (in FRNs) fall?
Ain't gonna hold my breath...
I just hope this means that I don't have to read all of Krugman 's prior work. If what this present author says is true then reading Krugman would be time k I'll never get back. I'm too old for that shit.
No one really reads Krugman. They scan his written dribble or hear about what he wrote from others. A co-worker of mine thinks Krugman is a genius but can never recall anything Krugman has written besides a sentence or two from a recent Facebook page of some other Krugman lover.
The Leftish media continually presents Krugman as a genius so instead of thinking most internalize the message and go along. Call it sound bite thinking, if it can be called thinking in any sense at all.
krugman received the nobel economic prize for a rather simple paper on comparative advantage. it was a condescending screed that emerging markets would know something as sophisticated in concept as economies of scale in determining what goods would be exported. thus the quaint concept of comparative advantage, a country will export what it can make money with because it has some "unique" advantage that allows the price advantage. this concept was later to be modified into such things as allowing the free movement of low wage workers to high wage countries but not high wage workers to low wage countries(you cannot get a job in a bangalore call center but indians can come to the usa at will). in other words, the only real means of arbitrage(comparative advantage) is productivity. labor is a huge cost of productivity. keep labor costs low and everyone has a comparative advantage over the usa. the usa hedges the advantage with debt(fx reserves) allowed by reserve currency seignorage(sp).
this system is not soemthing krugman invented. it is simply something krugman observed and wrote a paper with a neat math model explaining "his" "ideas". mostly a bs paper but krugman needed legitimacy so there you go,
Did Krugman ever calculate the social cost of this exchange of competitive advantage? What is the entire cost of exporting jobs and importing polution? (such as China sees today) What is the risk for single point failure in a globabaly interconnected network of specialized producers? The notions that everyone benefits when production is shifted to the lowest cost producer is hogwash.
to be fair to the globalist view, which is the realist view, the location of the lowest cost producer is not necessarily an issue for many goods. so in a fully integrated global economy, the fact that the shirt you are wearing is made in india is immaterial just as it used to be immaterial that the shirt was made in north carolina and sold to you in wisconsin.
since the world is a single environmental system then does it matter that the pollution is in la or shanghai? only total pollution matters, thus the kyoto protocols.
interestingly, the only comparative advantage any country truly has are it's natural resources and some temporary tech advantage. the chinese are voracious tech thieves and have tried to corner the special metals market.
the last step in a truly globalized economy is free labor movement. only then will the playing field approach level. the .1% will fight that move to the end. they love labor arbitrage too much to give up on slavery.
Professor Krugman's articles are rife with ad hominem attacks, name calling, and other logical fallacies. Not what one would expect from a Nobel Prize winner. Would anyone pay attention to his drivel if he used a pseudonym?
Considering that greater than half of you tards think Krugman's suggested economic policies are what are in practice, it stands to reason that any argument presented here , no matter how reasoned, would be pointless.
As they say, it would be Pearls Before Swine.
Considering that you actually defend the hypocritical, flip-flopping, blatantly partisan, freedom-hating, pro-ultra-big-government Krugman, it is self-evident that any argument presented here against him, no matter how reasoned, would be pointless.
Pretty sure just one of Krugman's "suggested economic policies" was, instead blowing a paltry trillion dollars on "shovel ready...(cough cough)...jobs" for schools, bridges, highways , algae, Solyndra, A123, Fisker and assorted cronies (you know, infrastructure) he wanted to double that to TWO TRILLION...he apparently thought it was too small of a crime.
Are we really still talking about this Shill? I thought he died a long time ago. Is he really still alive? Is this the same Krugman that In 1999 was part of an Enron Corporation board that paid him $50,000. That same year, as journalist Andrew Sullivan has reported, Krugman wrote an article praising Enron's free-wheeling entrepreneurial structure. (Enron would later collapse amid scandal and charges of financial wrongdoing. Thereafter distancing himself from the disgraced company, Krugman in a 2001 column would describe the aforementioned board as “an advisory panel that had no function that I was aware of.”) Oh ya this is the guy that won that big fancy prize that the rich give out for doing the exact opposite of what the prize is meant for.. Didn't our very peaceful President win one of these fancy prizes as well for not killing thousands of people??