More Krugman
Daniel Davies remarks:
And, of course, congratulations to Prof. Krugman himself, who might very well have believed that he’d done his professional status irreparable harm by taking such an aggressive line against the government of the day; he now gets the double pleasure of receiving the highest reward in economics, just as all of his detractors see their repuations ruined. There is probably some pithy epithet from Keynes or JK Galbraith to be inserted here on the general subject of honesty being the best politics, but I can’t think of it just at this instant.
I think the epithet of choice has something to do with revenge being a dish best served atop a Nobel Prize.
One hopes that this will open doors for a somewhat broader public understanding of what the field of economics is all about. In the public debate, my sense is that “economics” tends to be understood as mostly comprising a series of very simple models indicating the desirability of laissez faire (make it more expensive to hire workers by raising the minimum wage and the level of employment will go down — supply and demand, economics 101, QED) that leave it somewhat puzzling as to how this is even a field in which people do PhD-level research. That, of course, isn’t right as you can see from The Economist’s poll of economists or John McCain’s struggle to find 100 economists who’ll back up his campaign’s assertions.
Meanwhile, Krugman has become known to a wide audience as a left-of-center newspaper columnist. The fact that he’s a credentialed economist has always been well-known, but the point that he’s actually a really well-regarded economist is not all that well-understood. But a Nobel Prize is something people understand. It doesn’t make his political pronouncements the word of God, of course, and there are Nobel Prize winning economists on the right as well. But it does underscore the fact that very many people who really and truly know what they’re talking about think the progressive approach to economic and social policy is the way to go.
48 Responses to “More Krugman”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am
In the public debate, my sense is that “economics” tends to be understood as mostly comprising a series of very simple models indicating the desirability of laissez faire (make it more expensive to hire workers by raising the minimum wage and the level of employment will go down — supply and demand, economics 101, QED)
Yes, yes it is. Complex issues get boiled down to shibboleths that even the most reptile-brained wingers can understand. The winders then call this “economics.”
October 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I think you’re right, but I think that the main lesson from Krugman’s Nobel should be that it’s possible for economists to express their political views without politicizing their theories.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Now Cokie Roberts gets to tell everyone that a Nobel laureate told her she was full of shit on national television. Good times.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am
The Right will simply respond that Krugman got the Nobel for his support of Euro-socialism (nevermind those economists on the Right who’ve also received the prize) and BDS. Krugman, in their eyes, is just another “pointy-headed east coast elitist intellectual.” Hopefully these memes are too over-used to sway citizens receptive to the idea that Nobel prizes mean something, but I’m never that optimistic.
-TTm
October 13th, 2008 at 11:28 am
As Mankiw points out on his blog, more than 100 economists agree with McCain, but thought that this particular letter was a tad hyperbolic. See here for a much larger list of economists supporting McCain. And yes, the list is much larger and fairly respectable.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I’ve been reading Paul Krugman for years and he is one of the NYTimes columnists who I respect. However, I don’t think I was aware he was associated with Princeton University until they started using a Princeton backdrop behind him on MSNBC. I also didn’t know he has a PhD from my alma mater MIT until I looked at his biography page on the NYTimes website a moment ago.
It can be difficult to know how much weight to associate with a columnists opinion. Clearly, Paul Krugman deserves some attention when he writes on the economy. I know I will give him greater regard from here on out.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I like Paul’s economic columns, but when he veers into entirely political columns, he loses me much of the time, particularly during the primaries when he bent over backwards to defend Hillary.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:47 am
All well and good, but before we get too excited about how vindicated our opinions are by a Nobel Prize, bear in mind that the prize may go back and forth from year to year between economists across the spectrum. Next year it could be Chicago school.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Good points. THere are countless left-wing economists out there, in plain view, and yet most of us make the assumption that the field naturally skews right. It’s just as entrenched, and irrational as the idea that Republicans are better stewards of the economy, and the deficit.
There’s also a pronounced tendency among those with a limited knowledge of economics to be seduced by the (seeming) elegant simplicity of the free-market in operation. I’m thinking of business-types, and conservative commentators whose background is in philosophy or the arts. This last category covers a lot of neo-con and libertarian bloggers and columnists (think Andrew Sullivan, a balanced guy who acknowledges his lack of expertise, but nonetheless has no trouble making economic pronoucements). For some, it’s an uncritical transplantation of naratives familiar in other areas (the state becomes a nannying do-gooder); while for others, it’s a convenient stick with which to beat the hated left.
On another note: I’ve been listening to a radio program that regularly checks in with a guy from The Economist. About as centrist as you can get. And he’s under no illusions: he’s predicting a major regulatory and philosophical shift.
And I agree. We just learned a huge, clear lesson about how markets actually behave. The implications will be undeniable. It’s going to take a while before this information trickles down, from academia, through political advisors, then down to pundit level and finally everyday discourse. It will be a few months, but it will happen.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am
My theory is that McCain is just too stupid to count to 100 but came closer than Palin would have. Or maybe mavericks and war heroes don’t have to know how to count.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:53 am
From what I can tell, the Right is just claiming that the board that awards the Nobel for Econ is a bunch of arab libruls. yes the same board that awarded Friedman, and countless others. Don’t tell them that.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Some months ago, a wingnut friend of mine described Krugman’s reputation as an economist thus: “somewhat legitimate but not really.” Oops.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Slightly off point, but coincidentally last weekend I noticed Evan Thomas, on one of the TV chat shows, rolling his eyes at Krugman’s views on the current crisis; some lazy dismissal along the lines of “he’s always predicting doom.” I don’t expect the Nobel announcement to make him think any harder. Is it possible there are elite journalists who’re just coasting, able to get by without giving any real thought to the judgments of people who actually know things?
October 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Congratulations to Krugman although I’ve disagreed with him over some things over the years – like Hillary vs. Obama. But it was good to hear on the radio that he had won.
The Nobel people have definitely moved left – Al Gore, some of the lit winners – but it shouldn’t detract from the award. I have definitely learned a lot from Krugman.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Explosions of heads at the Corner.. 100 99 98…..
October 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Well, yes. And congratulations to Dr. Krugman, who was right all along about Hillary’s healthcare plan for the American people.
Intelligent people should now completely ignore the morons at Daily Kos, who trashed Dr. Krugman when he didn’t “adore” Barak Obama.
Mr. Markos won’t be man enough to apologize to Dr. Krugman. Markos is too busy building his own “Village,” without any economic chops on his resume.
Congratulations, Dr. Krugman. You owe Markos and his ilk NOTHING. Head and shoulders above them all.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
It’s a travesty.
How can they consider this guy before considering Larry Kudlow?
October 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I didn’t agree with Krugman’s views on the primary, but I’ve always admired his columns on the economy.
At the last debate, I was actually hoping Obama mentioned Krugman when Brokaw asked who his Treasury Secretary would be.
Alas, that went the way of the Wes Clark as Veep idea.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Probably worth noting that the basis for Krugman receiving the Nobel prize doesn’t have anything to do with his left-of-center politics columns in the New York Times. Instead, the prize was based on analysis that’s mostly explanatory but to the extent that it has a normative bent, it’s in support of free trade:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/press.html
October 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Take that, Tom Friedman’s Pullitzer!
October 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
A few years ago the SF Chronicle had a gimmicky, anonymous columnist called the “Night Cabbie” who, despite claiming to have a master’s in economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_cabbie) showed up at a Krugman talk and pretty thoroughly embarrassed himself by showing he had no idea who Krugman was, while thinking he had embarrassed Krugman (http://tinyurl.com/4p5ulg). His column ended a few months later.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
OK, that was very funny. Thanks Matt.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The work Krugman’s being cited for looks similar to the phenomenon Jane Jacobs discussed in Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Is there a book Krugman’s written that lays out these concepts?
Also, it’s worth noting that my wife just finished a Master’s degree in Pharmaceutical Economics at USC. Contrary to the right-wing’s bugaboo about leftist professors indoctrinating all their students, the majority of the professors in her program were conservative, the students were largely liberals, and judging from discussions at faculty-student parties, neither side seems to have been having much luck convincing the other of anything political beyond some free-market principles.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Calderon: In more recent work, Krugman went on to modify his earlier positions, noting that much of what is called “trade” today is really a process by which a particular corporation breaks its labor processes up internationally, taking advantage of low wage nations for lower skilled / repetitive parts of the manufacturing (etc) process and frequently maintaining higher skilled / less repetitive aspects in the higher wage country.
Thus, much, maybe most of what is called “trade”, whether you call it “free” or “awesome” or whatever, is no such thing.
It may be any number of things when one corporation divides its own production between various nations, but it isn’t “trade”.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Congratulations Dr. Krugman on a well-deserved honor.
The thought of your detractors gnashing their teeth absolutely makes my day!
October 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
All those mad MY typos over the years, and yet here he demonstrates correct usage of “comprise.” Come home, Matt, all is forgiven.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Congratulations to Paul Krugman. An award well deserved. Unrelated to his writings for which the Prize was given, he has shown guts and intelligence in cogently slicing and dicing the Bush administration when the President was very popular in 2001 and 2002 and 2003. He called it like he saw it, calling them radicals rather than conservatives (even citing Henry Kissinger’s Phd thesis). He even took on O’Reilly in a debate on Meet the Press, O’Reilly showing his meaness, lying, making up thins, playing dirty, like a big, dumb left tackle, trying to put one over on the short, bearded Krugman, acting like a good torah student, high pitched voice and all, civil and polite whose intelligence demolished the O Man (g-d forbit, maybe it’s Billo who is the secret Muslim).
October 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Hey Andy, #5 post. That is a nice list but there are so many that are not economists on there. Michael Porter is a great management professor, but he is not an economist for example. And I love the job title of “Republican.” But I am sure he can find “economists” that add up to 100. Hell, even University of Phoenix online university might have a few supporting it.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
El Cid — thanks, can you give a cite to Krugman’s books or (hopefully) something online where he discusses what’s in your post?
October 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
First of all, some economists might quibble and say that the John Bates Clark Medal is the most prestigious award (or at least the hardest to get). Krugman got that too a while back. But, for all the joking about how McCain couldn’t even get 100 economists on his list of “100 economists that support McCain” it must be stated that on the list of people who did sign are some extremely well-respected economists. Barro, Becker, King, Prescott, Rogoff, Taylor, etc (and I could name many more). Many of these people’s works are taught in nearly every Ph.D. program in the world. They are serious economists and not just a group of crackpots McCain roped up.
Of course, the letter itself is a bit dishonest. It says something about how raising taxes now would be bad but doesn’t mention that most Americans would actually see a larger tax cut under the Obama plan. The other point of the letter is that free trade is good. Even Krugman, who basically founded New Trade Theory, which questioned that basic assumption is, overall, quite a free trade economist.
The letter conveniently ignores any issues like health care, social security, balanced budgets, etc. inherent to either candidates’ platform and how those things might affect the economy.
In short, the letter is, “if you look at ONLY these two subjects, and if we misrepresent one of them, then, theoretically, McCain’s plan is better, ignoring all other things which shouldn’t be ignored.” So, intellectually dishonest, yes, but a group of shoddy economists? No. These are serious people on this list, and considering that economics is ALL ABOUT drawing conclusions from bad assumptions, it is not surprising that they can justify this, “given the assumptions of this letter, we support this plan”.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
As Mankiw points out on his blog, more than 100 economists agree with McCain, but thought that this particular letter was a tad hyperbolic. See here for a much larger list of economists supporting McCain. And yes, the list is much larger and fairly respectable.
Now now. Don’t puncture Matthew’s cherished fantasies. We should just ignore the 533 economists who signed that letter in support of McCain’s economic plan.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
That, of course, isn’t right as you can see from The Economist’s poll of economists or John McCain’s struggle to find 100 economists who’ll back up his campaign’s assertions.
Er, the letter in question (attacking Obama’s economic plan) has 333 signatories so far.
As I mentioned above, the other letter (expressing “enthusiastic support” for McCain’s economic plan) has 533 signatories.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I am almost as happy as he is.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Paul Krugman “left of center”???
Well, if Friedman was “center”, Krugman is left of that.
Actually, Krugman has been “right” on target most of the time.
The bull’s eye is the center of the target.
He’s hit it, dead center, lots and lots of times.
The coolest thing to me, since I read his columns and blogs…is that that he very recently had to deal with his mother’s stroke, a visit to an emergency room in New Jersey, and her “transition” to a “long-term health care facility”.
NOW he has the money to give her the best of care…but she may be too far gone to even realize that her son’s got a Nobel
prize.
Mazel tov, Mr. Krugman. Nazel tov.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I’m not impressed. This isn’t a real Nobel prize, and the prize is nearly always awarded to one variety of interventionist (Keynesian or Chicago School) or another.
I’ll let Lew Rockwell explain it:
Unlike all the real Nobel prizes, which were established and funded by Alfred Nobel, the economics prize was established and funded by the Swedish central bank. With the sole and shining exception of F.A Hayek, who was forced to share his prize with a Swedish communist, every other Nobel econ winner has been a shill for central banking.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Krugman’s actual research work in economics is a lot more pro-free-market than you might think from reading his New York Times columns.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:33 am
There is no way to get away from questions about politics in this award. Not in whether he deserved it — of course he did (I trust — like I’m informed enough to really judge)! But the Committee’s practice of choosing recipients long after they have published the work for which they are honored makes their decision about the timing of who receives the honor when entirely arbitrary. Given Krugman’s prominence both as a general critic of Bush and as a critic of the administration’s response to the crisis, the idea that the Committee would be so clueless as to be oblivious to the obvious appearance of politics being involved in their decision about the timing of Prof. Krugman’s award is difficult to credit. If they were aware of an inevitably not-politics-free appearance of managing the timing of Prof. Krugman’s award in this way, and they went ahead nevertheless, it becomes hard to see where politics didn’t in effect come into play somewhat in the timing.
I guess that assumes that the Committee in general prefers their selections and timing to be perceived as non-political. If we decide not to assume that though, this award’s timing would seem to be evidence to justify that decision.
Which is not to say I have a problem with either scenario. I don’t.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:41 am
I’m always amused by the “not real” business, since the people who say that are just as eager to lay into the “real” Nobel committee whenever some pinko novelist gets the nod.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:47 am
There is a problem with your assertion that Krugman’s politics will lead to a rethink of economics – and that is the basic disagreements that exist in the field of study itself. While I was working at the Reserve Bank of Australia (equivalent to your Fed), the joke going the rounds was:
“Economics is the only field of study where two people who completely disagree with each other have shared a noble prize.” (This is true.)
The joke goes on to say, “Economics is also the only field of study where two people have shared a noble prize and both have said the other is correct but did not go far enough in their theories.”
What this probably proves is how bad in-jokes are…
January 11th, 2009 at 5:10 am
http://www.batteryfast.com/
http://www.batteryfast.co.uk/
March 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 13th, 2009 at 5:58 am
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:45 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 8th, 2009 at 4:57 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Hi guys. We owe something to extravagance, for thrift and adventure seldom go hand in hand.
I am from Jordan and also now teach English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Provides discounted business class airfares fare quote cheap last minute airline tickets and low all inclusive family vacation packages.”
Thanks
. Wendi.