Nobel Prizewinning Economist Paul Krugman Spanking Opponents Again?

[oldfart]

That's nice spin and all, but where is the recovery Krugman predicted? Where is the failure he predicted for Germany?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=3&

"That '30s feeling" is happening right now with sluggish growth despite record spending.

I wonder if you actually read the stuff you link to, or if you just copy the link from some nutjob blog. The Krugman article never predicts an American recovery or a German recession. If you read Krugman on a regular basis, you would know that he basically predicted the opposite. Would you care to quote an entire sentence from the linked article that says what you claim?

 

[oldfart]

It starts with the credibility of Krugman, and I don't think he has any outside of his field. There's a reason he's not conducting economic studies, he's just giving opinions.

You really are clueless as to what economists do. Prof Krugman teaches and publishes regularly in the academic literature; that's what economics professors are supposed to do for a living. He also writes books for the general public explaining current economic conditions, and a popular basic economics text, also things commonly done by successful economists. If you ever read his blog, you would know that he presents reasoned arguments. To state that he is "just giving opinions" indicates your total ignorance of economics on any level. Go back to your sandbox; you're not ready to discuss economics with adults.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's nice spin and all, but where is the recovery Krugman predicted? Where is the failure he predicted for Germany?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=3&

"That '30s feeling" is happening right now with sluggish growth despite record spending.

I wonder if you actually read the stuff you link to, or if you just copy the link from some nutjob blog. The Krugman article never predicts an American recovery or a German recession. If you read Krugman on a regular basis, you would know that he basically predicted the opposite. Would you care to quote an entire sentence from the linked article that says what you claim?

Krugman said we should pretend we are being invaded from outer space and thus have an excuse to employ people building weapons that could be thrown into the sea. This, he seriously believes, would end this depression the way WW2 ended the Great Depression.

Now even you know how slow Krugman is. He's not really an economist as much as a man using economics to justify more and more liberal welfare which of course the hated rich would pay for since they are the ones with the money to pay for more and more liberal welfare.

 

[oldfart]

Krugman said we should pretend we are being invaded from outer space and thus have an excuse to employ people building weapons that could be thrown into the sea. This, he seriously believes, would end this depression the way WW2 ended the Great Depression.

And Bernanke was nicknamed "Helicopter Ben" for suggesting that when a central bank runs out of better ways to inject liquidity, it can always drop currency out of helicopters. These are called "thought experiments" because it makes a point about theory when a real-life trial is impractical.

Now even you know how slow Krugman is. He's not really an economist as much as a man using economics to justify more and more liberal welfare which of course the hated rich would pay for since they are the ones with the money to pay for more and more liberal welfare.

Ed, when you answer my little matching quiz about economists and their ideas, you might begin to have some credibility. Since you don't know Pareto optimality from Ricardian distribution theory, and couldn't put either in the right century if your life depended on it, I suggest you refrain from playing economist.

 

[oldfart]

No, what happened is that Krugman doesn't know head from ass on macro econ and has proven so every time he opens his mouth. The paritsan LOLberals love him because he is a true proponent of Keynesian theories of totalitarian central planning. In reality, his opinions are about as useful in macro econ as any other partisan ideologue with an agenda.

Since you claim to know so much macro theory, perhaps you could enlighten me with an example or two where Krugman's macro theory was wrong?

 

[oldfart]

The truth, oh fragile Dainty, is that the Nobel Committee awarded peace prizes to a hate monger like Yasir Arafat, an incredulous ideologue like Al Gore, and a swindler like Obama who told them what they wanted to hear right before he ratcheted up Bush's wars and provided support for military action in Syria.

They have no credibility anymore.

And you are clueless. The economics prize is the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". The Nobel committee has nothing to do with awarding it.

BTW did you trash the award when it was given to Milton Friedman or Ludwig von Mises?

 

[asterism]

That's nice spin and all, but where is the recovery Krugman predicted? Where is the failure he predicted for Germany?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=3&

"That '30s feeling" is happening right now with sluggish growth despite record spending.

I wonder if you actually read the stuff you link to, or if you just copy the link from some nutjob blog. The Krugman article never predicts an American recovery or a German recession. If you read Krugman on a regular basis, you would know that he basically predicted the opposite. Would you care to quote an entire sentence from the linked article that says what you claim?

German hawk: “We must cut deficits immediately, because we have to deal with the fiscal burden of an aging population.”

Ugly American: “But that doesn’t make sense. Even if you manage to save 80 billion euros — which you won’t, because the budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues — the interest payments on that much debt would be less than a tenth of a percent of your G.D.P. So the austerity you’re pursuing will threaten economic recovery while doing next to nothing to improve your long-run budget position.”

The budget cuts did not hurt Germany's economy.

 

[asterism]

It starts with the credibility of Krugman, and I don't think he has any outside of his field. There's a reason he's not conducting economic studies, he's just giving opinions.

You really are clueless as to what economists do. Prof Krugman teaches and publishes regularly in the academic literature; that's what economics professors are supposed to do for a living. He also writes books for the general public explaining current economic conditions, and a popular basic economics text, also things commonly done by successful economists. If you ever read his blog, you would know that he presents reasoned arguments. To state that he is "just giving opinions" indicates your total ignorance of economics on any level. Go back to your sandbox; you're not ready to discuss economics with adults.

Publishes regularly huh? Show me.

Pontificating is not what practicing economists do, and that's virtually ALL Krugman does now. He spins facts to fit his agenda - to be fair, that's what many economists do.

Joke told in college by Dr. David Denslow:

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist are all asked, "What do two plus two equal?"

The mathematician replies "Four."

The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

The economist gets up, locks the door, draws the the blinds and whispers, "What do you want it to equal?"

 

[oldfart]

I hate to interrupt a very entertaining flame war to return to the original post, but I have trouble with one thing.

First, do you believe interest rates soaring?

I see no evidence of interest rates soaring. The last couple of months show T-bill rates declining and notes, bonds, and TIPS all lower.

Recent Bill Auction Results and Recent Note, Bond, and TIPS Auction Results

 

[asterism]

I'm not the only one who has this criticism of Krugman:

Here's what an Economist has to say about him:

So what is Krugman up to? Why become a denier, a skeptic, an apologist for 70 year old ideas, replete with well-known logical fallacies, a pariah? Why publish an essentially personal attack on an ever-growing enemies list that now includes practically every professional economist? Why publish an incoherent vision for the future of economics?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Krugman isn’t trying to be an economist, he is trying to be a partisan, political opinion writer. This is not an insult. I read George Will, Charles Krauthnammer and Frank Rich with equal pleasure even when I disagree with them. Krugman wants to be Rush Limbaugh of the Left.

Alas, to Krugman, as to far too many ex-economists in partisan debates, economics is not a quest for understanding. It is a set of debating points to argue for policies that one has adopted for partisan political purposes. “Stimulus” is just marketing to sell Congressmen and voters on a package of government spending priorities that you want for political reasons. It’s not a proposition to be explained, understood, taken seriously to its logical limits, or reflective of market failures that should be addressed directly.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/krugman_response.htm

 

[oldfart]

Publishes regularly huh? Show me.

In addition to five published textbooks in the last ten years, editing three NBER publications and 16 journal articles, as well as books for general audiences, he hasn't done much. Are you too lazy to look this stuff up or do you not know how?

Oh, and about being a practicing macreconomist,

A May, 2011 Hamilton College analysis of 26 politicians, journalists, and media commentators who made predictions in major newspaper columns or television news shows from September 2007 to December 2008 found that Krugman was the most accurate. Only nine of the prognosticators predicted more accurately than chance, two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were no better or worse than a coin flip. Krugman was correct in 15 out of 17 predictions, compared to 9 out of 11 for the next most accurate media figure, Maureen Dowd. Krugman's result was found to be statistically significant at the p<0.001 level.

Pontificating is not what practicing economists do, and that's virtually ALL Krugman does now. He spins facts to fit his agenda - to be fair, that's what many economists do.

Again, what do you know about what practicing economists do? And why do you resort to ad hominems when you could criticize his ideas with counterarguments? I suppose you don't know how to.

If your cute story is an indication of your economics training, it appears your instructors spent more time working on their stand-up comedy routines than in imparting an education to you.

I'd love to debate economics with you, but you avoid making any actual argument. You know, where you explain economic theory and use evidence; that kind of stuff.

 

[oldfart]

I'm not the only one who has this criticism of Krugman:

Here's what an Economist has to say about him:

So you can dig up someone who wrote a hatchet piece? I'm impressed. Krugman has at least had the class to not use this kind of whining tripe when he attacks the work of an intellectual opponent.

 

[Toro]

I like how he conveniently began the conversation regarding deficit/debt starting with FDR.

Krugman is a fool.

Yeah right, Nobel Prizes in economics go to fools and only fools in teh filed of economics desire a Nobel.

okie dokie

Deficit spending and stimulus is a topic of macroeconomics. Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for his theory on trade and geography, not macroeconomics.

Ed Prescott is also a Nobel laureate. However, he did win the Nobel Prize for his work in macroeconomics, the topic at hand. Here is what he had to say about Krugman

Nobel laureate Edward Prescott of Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business, argued that "no respectable macroeconomist" believes stimulus works. Prescott said 2008 Nobelist Paul Krugman, the Princeton University professor and Times columnist who advocates stimulus, "doesn't command respect in the profession."

Economists Rush to Disagree About Crisis Solutions - Businessweek

Reasonable people can disagree, but in terms of who has the macroeconomic chops, Prescott > Krugman.

 

[Toro]

It starts with the credibility of Krugman, and I don't think he has any outside of his field. There's a reason he's not conducting economic studies, he's just giving opinions.

He is battling opinion with opinion and while doing so he lays out facts as some of his opponents do.

Krugman has admitted when he was wrong and the why of it. The day a supply sider or other wingnut economist does we will have an honest and open discussion. But until hell freezes over (when right wing economists use truth and honesty) we will be left to arguing opinions

Name one economy that is better off by listening to Krugman. Germany's economy is doing well by doing the opposite of his advice.

Germany didn't have a housing bubble. It also has an economy that can best be described as being well to the left of what American Democrats propose.

 

[Toro]

When is Paul Krugman ever right about anything? The Nobel Committee is a complete fraud. The only qualification to win their prize is that you tout a radical leftist world viewpoint.

There are many Nobel Prize winners in economics who advocate free market solutions, including Ed Prescott mentioned above. In fact, criticism of the prize has tended to come from the left for awarding so many prizes to right-leaning economists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Keynesian Theory is the Man-made Global Warming theory of economics, the proponents so desperately want it to be correct and refuse to accept its 100% Fail Rate

 

[asterism]

Publishes regularly huh? Show me.

In addition to five published textbooks in the last ten years, editing three NBER publications and 16 journal articles, as well as books for general audiences, he hasn't done much. Are you too lazy to look this stuff up or do you not know how?

I was referring to the journal items you claimed and I couldn't find any recent.

Oh, and about being a practicing macreconomist,

A May, 2011 Hamilton College analysis of 26 politicians, journalists, and media commentators who made predictions in major newspaper columns or television news shows from September 2007 to December 2008 found that Krugman was the most accurate. Only nine of the prognosticators predicted more accurately than chance, two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were no better or worse than a coin flip. Krugman was correct in 15 out of 17 predictions, compared to 9 out of 11 for the next most accurate media figure, Maureen Dowd. Krugman's result was found to be statistically significant at the p<0.001 level.

And yet he was wrong about Germany, subprime lending, and plenty of other stuff:

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Pontificating is not what practicing economists do, and that's virtually ALL Krugman does now. He spins facts to fit his agenda - to be fair, that's what many economists do.

Again, what do you know about what practicing economists do? And why do you resort to ad hominems when you could criticize his ideas with counterarguments? I suppose you don't know how to. [/quote]

I'm not using ad hominem (although he likes to do that), I'm disagreeing with the appeal to authority he and his fans use. I also have criticized his ideas with counterarguments, and I stated that without any new study his ideas are old Keynesian proposals that have failed.

If your cute story is an indication of your economics training, it appears your instructors spent more time working on their stand-up comedy routines than in imparting an education to you.

I'd love to debate economics with you, but you avoid making any actual argument. You know, where you explain economic theory and use evidence; that kind of stuff.

I don't see much to debate here. Policies were enacted, the results have fallen short of expectations. A well-deserved Nobel award doesn't erase that. I'm sorry if you didn't find the joke funny, I used it as a light-hearted poke at the field of Economics. You are free to research the Professor I mentioned and make your own determination. I honestly don't care.

 

[asterism]

I'm not the only one who has this criticism of Krugman:

Here's what an Economist has to say about him:

So you can dig up someone who wrote a hatchet piece? I'm impressed. Krugman has at least had the class to not use this kind of whining tripe when he attacks the work of an intellectual opponent.

I didn't "dig it up," I read it when it came out. I'm a fan of Steven Levitt and Nassim Taleb, and a mutual fan introduced me to Cochrane's writing.

As for the "class" Krugman displays:

And in the wake of the crisis, the fault lines in the economics profession have yawned wider than ever. Lucas says the Obama administration’s stimulus plans are “schlock economics,” and his Chicago colleague John Cochrane says they’re based on discredited “fairy tales.” In response, Brad DeLong of the University of California, Berkeley, writes of the “intellectual collapse” of the Chicago School, and I myself have written that comments from Chicago economists are the product of a Dark Age of macroeconomics in which hard-won knowledge has been forgotten.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=all

Here he calls bringing up his past statements "ad hominem."

Krugman: Quoting What I Said in the Past Is an Ad Hominem Attack | NewsBusters

 

[Oddball]

Krugman is my favorite op-ed stand up comic.

 

[Oddball]

When is Paul Krugman ever right about anything? The Nobel Committee is a complete fraud. The only qualification to win their prize is that you tout a radical leftist world viewpoint.

There are many Nobel Prize winners in economics who advocate free market solutions, including Ed Prescott mentioned above. In fact, criticism of the prize has tended to come from the left for awarding so many prizes to right-leaning economists.

The Nobel Prizes for economics and medicine are pretty much the only ones with any credibility anymore.

Though Krugman is a hard leftist political hack and macroeconomic dunce, he was deserving of the honor his work on trade and geography.

There....I said something nice about old Ferret Face.