This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Paul Krugman Is The Brian Williams Of Economics Bloggers
Submitted by Robert Murphy via Mises Canada blog,
Paul Krugman may (or may not) know a lot of economic theory and is a very clever writer, but you should never ever trust him to recount tales of battles between Keynesians and other schools of thought. His misrememberings in this realm are so astounding that they would impress Brian Williams.
For example, back in December Krugman informed his readers that “[r]ight-wing economists like Stephen Moore and John Cochrane…have some curious beliefs about history,” including their belief that “the experience of disinflation in the 1980s was a huge shock to Keynesians.” In contrast to this right-wing myth, Krugman explained, what actually happened is that “Keynesians came into the Volcker disinflation…with a standard, indeed textbook, model of what should happen. And events matched their expectations almost precisely.”
Now what was so astonishing about Krugman’s version of history–as I detailed here at Mises Canada–is that he conveniently ignored the fact that he himself had written a memo wondering if the U.S. were sitting on an “Inflation Time Bomb” in 1982. So if indeed the Keynesian textbooks of the day predicted the Volcker disinflation, Krugman must not have been reading them.
We’ve got yet another example of Krugman’s conveniently selective memory, this time concerning the earlier stagflation of the 1970s (rather than the disinflation of the early 1980s). On February 28, Krugman wrote a post in which he argued that the cohort of economists coming out of MIT in the late 1970s and early 1980s ended up wielding far more influence than their peers at Chicago. Krugman then went on to explain this dominance by the intellectual openness of the MIT group:
What I remember, then, was that the spirit of MIT economics in the 1970s was very much not one of intellectual imperialism. At Chicago they believed that they had The Truth, and all other views were nonsense to be consigned to the dustbin of history. At MIT, which had played such a large role in bringing Keynes to America, there was a lot of searching and self-doubt — my classmates would sometimes say things like “The rational expectations guys were right about stagflation, so might they be right about the rest?” There was almost a hint of an inferiority complex.
But not too much of one. Everyone was doing rational expectations in some version — Olivier and I worked out the geometry of anticipated shocks…But there was a generally shared view that perfect flexibility of prices was a bridge too far…
The result was that MIT macroeconomics was teched up — everyone learned how to write down and solve rational expectations models, everyone learned how to emulate Lucas disciples — but didn’t unlearn Keynesian insights.
I know plenty of economists who were bothered by this post from Krugman. (For example, David R. Henderson points out the bait-and-switch involved.) But what struck me in the above excerpt is Krugman’s offhand admission that the Chicago School crowd had been right about the stagflation of the 1970s, and that this indeed posed a serious challenge to the Keynesian school–it even caused soul-searching and self-doubt among Krugman’s classmates, with the solution that they had to amend the Keynesian apparatus they had inherited from the 1960s to incorporate the innovations of Lucas et al.
The reason this struck me as so odd, is that in other posts Krugman seemed to be saying that this type of intellectual history was a conservative myth. For example, back in 2009 Krugman wrote the following:
One argument you often hear from anti-Keynesians — it pops up in comments here — is that the experience of stagflation in the 1970s proved Keynesian[ism] wrong. It didn’t; what it did disprove was the naive Phillips curve, which said that there’s a stable tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. By the end of the 70s most macroeconomists had accepted some version of the Friedman/Phelps natural rate hypothesis, which says that sustained inflation gets built into price-setting, so that inflation can persist for a while even in the face of high unemployment. But that’s very far from rejecting the basic Keynesian insight that demand matters.
Still, many people continue to use the 70s to denounce all things liberal or activist.
What’s odd, though, is how little talk there is about the way the 70s ended — which I viewed at the time, and still do, as a huge vindication of Keynesianism.
Here’s what happened: the Fed decided to squeeze inflation out of the system through a monetary contraction. If you believed in Lucas-type rational expectations, this should have caused a rise in unemployment only to the extent that people didn’t realize what the Fed was doing; once the policy shift was clear, inflation should have subsided and the economy should have returned to the natural rate. If you believed in real business cycle theory, the Fed’s policies should have had no real effect at all.
What actually happened was a terrible, three-year slump, which eased only when the Fed relented.
It was 79-82 that made me a convinced saltwater economist. And nothing that has happened since — certainly not the current crisis — has dented that conviction.
Now as with all things Krugman, I haven’t here shown an outright contradiction. But when Krugman in 2009 wrote “One argument you often hear from anti-Keynesians — it pops up in comments here — is that the experience of stagflation in the 1970s proved Keynesian[ism] wrong,” did he give the impression that he heard this argument from his Keynesian classmates at MIT in real-time during the stagflation itself?
Of course not. In that 2009 post, Krugman made it sound like this was ex post myth invented by bitter supply-siders who were distorting history. Indeed, he has a whole series of posts (example here) talking about the myths of stagflation in the 1970s, and how those events didn’t really impact Keynesianism the way critics suggest.
There are two Krugmans the Historian, depending on the situation. When he wants to explain why Keynesianism is a better model of the economy, it’s nothing but tales of successful predictions, especially regarding (price) inflation, without mentioning the spectacular failures of actual Keynesians (including Krugman himself) in this regard. Yet when he wants to explain why Keynesians are better scientists, Krugman is quite open about the weaknesses of the approach, and recounts episodes where the Keynesians were indeed bested by their Chicago School (or other) rivals. None of this would be too problematic, except for the fact that the first Krugman will often denounce his critics for recounting history along the very same lines that the second Krugman does.
»
- 16550 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If it's in print, on the radio or on TV its a lie......
Paul Krugman misremembers? No joke. Just go back and look at what he said about Nate Silver during the Obama campaign and then look at what he said about Silver in this last election.
Krugman is a hairy putz.
So what did that little cocksucker misremember forget lie about this time?
Doyenne of the Progressive Foreward Future.
Fuck Paul Krugman and the kitten he rode in on.
Chief Economic Op Ed contributor to the Progressive News Paper of Wreckord, the NYT
Right, the paper of record which pushes endless war and the neo-liberalization of everything from education, economics to war making is a progressive rag.
Jesus Christ! I promise you won't die if you think about things for longer than two seconds. These tired, tribal narratives are really useless.
It's all a big conspiracy, isn't it, Bob?
(Meanwhile, if it's found on some corner of the Web - or drooling out of a Zero Hedger's mouth - it's the God's honest truth.)
What makes you think anything on Zerohedge doesn't exist somewhere else beforehand? Especially since it says right above the article that it does.
Perhaps you should actually try reading some of these articles first.
paul krugman likes puppies and kittens
And nutella?
Reminds one of the olde saying "There are many ways to grease the cat"
paul krugman likes puppies and kittens
Only if purchaed on credit at an exponentially higher price than in years past. Speculation in the household pet market is the surest way to economic expansion and wealth creation.
Take one look at Krugman. You gonna pay attention to him? Guy looks like the poster child for pedophiles
Go read the comments on his blog. It's hilarious. They all address him as Professor or Dr. K.
(Don't bother trying to argue with them, though. It will just make you want to put a gun in your mouth.)
He probably pays a bunch of ball licking students to write the comments
He is probably a card carrying member of NAMBLA.
How'd ya like that to pop up on your next employment back ground check?
They lookatcha wrong about it and ya' simply tell 'em you're a Muzzie, all's OK with the Prophet
You subscribe to the 'science' of physiognomy, Bob? :-)
Krugman obviously knew jack shit in the 70's. In his ivory tower he belived that models and theories described the world. In the 70's as now, the world is run by oligarchs. Only today, he justifies the actions of oligarchs. What a piece of work his guy is. I hope a piano falls on his head.
That would be a waste of a perfectly good piano; though Krugman would probably try to argue that you would be helping the economy...
An anvil would be more expedient...
Slugman is a know nothing propagandist, who believes in his own bullshit.
Dupe
Never trust a guy with shifty eyes
Thats why I call him Blinky.
"None of this would be too problematic, except for the fact that the first Krugman will often denounce his critics for recounting history along the very same lines that the second Krugman does."
And thus is the fallacy (and the comfort of) statist neo-Keynesism, now called socio-economics. It can be whatever Krugman (or any other thug) says it is or was on any given occassion throughout history.
Just contort and/or adjust the facts to comport with the dogmatic modeling, easy peezy.
It works on practically everything ;-)
“Here's what we're not taught [about the Declaration and Constitution]: Those words at the time they were written were blazingly, electrifyingly subversive. If you understand them truly now, they still are. You are not taught - and it is a disgrace that you aren't - that these men and women were radicals for liberty; that they had a vision of equality that was a slap in the face of what the rest of their world understood to be the unchanging, God-given order of nations; and that they were willing to die to make that desperate vision into a reality for people like us, whom they would never live to see. ”
? Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot
Don't be so hard on Krugman.
When Krugman and his ilk finally destroy America, he will feed several families.
The man is 270 pounds of marbled deliciousness.
I would slow cook him over Apple wood and Cherry wood with a molasses and pepper rub.
Now that is tasty Keynsian eatin.
Don't be so hard on Krugman.
When Krugman and his ilk finally destroy America, he will feed several families.
The man is 270 pounds of marbled deliciousness.
I would slow cook him over Apple wood and Cherry wood with a molasses and pepper rub.
Now that is tasty Keynsian eatin.
It is said eating the flesh of an animal absorbs the karma of that life. I would suggest vultures before the funeral pyre.
I think even the maggots could find a better meal, but hey, they aren't picky.
Krugman isn't the idiot.
The people who listen to him and buy his books are the idiots.
Brian Williams was the tail gunner on the space shuttle and Krugman the bombardier on bens money copter
And both were transported to Mars with O'Pj's on a TRB-3 just in time to reinforce Base Alamo and win the Galactic Battle against the Returning Annanuki form Nibru, thereby single-handedly saving all mankind, forever. Brian even has a picture of the three of 'em being decorated and congratulated by God, his very self. Fuckin' impressive. If God was thanking and decorating me, I'd a probably shit my pants.
So thats what I saw with my gen 3 night vision that evening . And I tought it was the burbon
And kiddie fiddling, don't forget kiddie fiddling...LMAO!
And kiddie fiddling, don't forget kiddie fiddling...LMAO!
Now you're just reaching....
Not for little kids I hope! You're already on the register in Georgia, USA. Or maybe not. The in-bred thing permits it.
The Krugster know what he is talking about. He is just doing his job.
He always looks batshit crazy on Coke like shia leboef
I had to search that one, but they both just look like brain dead idiots to me.
Sorry I haven't posted a lot this evening. I've been smoking the Devil's Lettuce the government says I'm not allowed to have and listening to Paul Simon. Every time I hear this man's music I get closer to understanding
Krugman needs a punch in the face..
When asked who he thinks is the greatest character in all of American cinema, Krugman replied "Eddie Haskell."
He misremembered that he'd previously nominated Lumpy Rutherford
Paul Krugman lying about John Maynard Keynes and eugenics http://www.paulkrugman.org/
Krugman is fucking fool that that they shove down our throats as an act of spite.
Paul Krugman is proof that a Nobel Prize in Economics is the moral and intellectual equivalent of a Nobel Prize in Cow Pie Frisbee.
Raul Krugerman ....just as I said of Ellen Greenspin .... you, sir, are no Milton Friedman !
Krugman knows he lies. He is pathological. The comparison to Williams is sound. Hey though, how about Brian Williams' daughter? Huh? HUH?
Dr. Krugman is a shill, say all here, including Mises Canada. fine... but when it comes to the EUR, suddently the same Krugman bashers just repeat his lines. hilarious
here a small rebuke to the last Mises Canada piece on the EUR: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-26/austrian-solution-greece#commen...
Even a stuck shill is right twice a day.
Good ole Blinky Krugman again.
I was not aware that ANYONE paid ANY attention to ANYTHING spewing from the Krughole.
HACK THE ATM MACHINE AND GET FREE CASH
You can hack and break into a bank's security ATM Machine without carrying
guns or any weapon.
How is this possible? a trusted hacker NEILSTON THE WORM has developed the special blank ATM Card
which you can use in any ATM Machine around the world. this card is been
programmed and can withdraw 2000 USD daily in any currency in any atm machine in the world.The card will make the
security camera malfunction at that particular time until you are done with
the transaction you can never be trace. get back to me for more info on how to obtain yours contact (NEILSTON@USA.COM).