We’ll get back to health care tomorrow, but first I have several video clips to share.
Adam Smith is a best-selling author and for 14 years had a weekly show on PBS called Adam Smith’s Money World that won four Emmys and a Peabody Award. He’s a very smart guy. Smith was Tom Wolfe’s editor at Esquire, founded Institutional Investor and New York magazines, and somewhere in there about 25 years ago became a friend of mine. I try to collect heroes and this guy is definitely one of mine.
Smith lives in Princeton, NJ, next-door to Paul Krugman, Princeton professor, New York Times Op-Ed columnist and oh, by-the-way, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics.
I wonder how he invested that money?
On July 8th Smith and Krugman put on a little show for fewer than 100 folks at a meeting in Princeton of New Jersey Common Cause. Someone was there to take bad video of the event which I have here and intend to share with you over three posts today and tomorrow then we can get back to health care.
Krugman is a very smart economist working at the top of his game and explains things pretty well. In these clips (there are 17 in all) he presents what could easily be the contents of a dozen or more columns. And what I like is it is presented colloquially with us getting a much better sense of the man than from his very polished work in the Times.
I am not saying Krugman is right about everything, but I think these clips are very worth watching for a sense of our time and current thinking about it. And it is odd how little it has to do, really, with economics and how much with government and just the way things do and don’t get done in our culture.
I look forward to reading your comments.
Bob,
The last vid seems to be locked. It says “This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender’s friend request.”
M@
I was blocked too
Same problem as reported by M@: can’t watch the last video.
Will you upload the other 12 clips?
Do more with less.
The problem is not so much the surpluses in the Middle East and China, rather the deficits in the West. Thinking that the surplus is the issue is, itself, THE issue.
Rick, it is all a zero sum game. That’s what he is getting at. For the Middle East and China to run a surplus, we have to be running a deficit. We buy chinese goods, they take the dollars and buy our T-Bills. The national balance of trade for all countries has to add up to the production of every country participating in international trade.
*sigh*
I appreciate the neatness of video clips, but it’s far easier for me to deal with transcripts than videos. Particularly if the content’s more serious – hard to reread a video, etc. Takes less time for better comprehension, easier to save clips, …
Any transcripts for these things?
Oh good, I’m not the only one with that issue. There’s reasons I don’t “listen to this article in Bob’s sexy voice.”
Me three.
Me four.
If I wanted audio, I’d listen to the radio. If I wanted video, I’d watch TV. I’m on the web to *read*.
Plus, I can read a transcript in about 1/4 the time it takes me to listen to the real-time audio. I don’t have *time* for it … but in this case, I’ll make an exception.
-M(going backward)S
Ditto. I can read several times faster than I can listen. I don’t have time for this kind of media.
Even with my expensive hearing aids, I pick up maybe 50% of what’s being said. It would be nice to have a transcript available.
I wish intelligent people with something important to say would learn to articulate so that all of us can hear what they are saying.
Robin, it’s much more due to the PA system they’re using and the relative lack of quality of the audio, not the speakers’ abilities (or lack thereof) of enunciating.
I for one actually would prefer the videos, except that the bandwidth is so poor where I am. How I wish the market and technology would meet in the bandwidth space…
This is a growing problem on the web. Video for the sake of it. Video should always have an “Alternative Transcript” just like images have an “Alternative Text”.
transcripts: yes please! I like to watch video, but it’s much more valuable with text also. If asked to choose only one I’ll go with the text.
thanks.
If the money given to the banks by the Federal Reserve is not being used by the banks to make loans, doesn’t that mean that loans are harder to get and their interest rates will go up? Isn’t that inflationary?
If the banks then start loaning the money they got from the Fed., won’t that mean that prices will go up for the things being bought by the loans since money is now easier to get? So the interest rates of the loans is low but the amount being borrowed is rising. Isn’t that inflationary?
None of this addresses the real problem, the large inventory of vacant/repossessed houses being held by the banks and other investment houses. They will be a drag on bank profit statements until they’re gone. They will produce reduced earnings statements for the banks once the profits they’re currently reporting from selling other assets goes away. This will cause a stock market slump just like the current profits caused the current stock market surge.
The last video was still not accessible at about 8:30 a.m. EDT July 30.
If money is harder to get and interest rates go up inflation is under check. That is how (by raising interest rates) the Federal Reserve has worked to keep inflation under control for the past 30 years. In fact, without enough spending we will fall into a deflationary spiral which is something the Fed has never dealt with and therefore far more dangerous. This is less of a problem now than it was last fall but it is still a concern.
The problem of the large inventory of vacant housing and the large numbers of bad bank assets is serious because so much of our economy is now made up of the real estate and financial services industries. We are not producing enough goods to make up for the losses on those segments of the economy.
The excess inventory of houses and the excess investment in the real estate and financial services markets were/are malinvestments. They were brought on by the market distortions of the past couple decades. Those market distortions were brought on by artificually low interest rates controlled by the federal reserve.
In other words, if the fed hadn’t been pushing down interest rates, less money would have been available for housing, less money would have been available to be made in the financial services industry, and people would have been forced to find work elsewhere. Specifically, people probably would have invested more in the manufacturing economy.
Had that happpened we wouldn’t be so dependent on the financial services industry today, and we wouldn’t be experiencing the current economic slowdown. All of this was brought on by credit markets that were too loose. It’s interesting that the federal reserve’s response to the slowdown is a further loosening up of the credit markets.
On the spending-leads-to-recovery issue, I don’t think Krugman or Smith addressed some of the problems with HOW the borrowing picture is moving forward.
Krugman’s assessment was that public borrowing is more than offset by a drop in private sector borrowing, and that net borrowing is actually down a bit. I’ll take his word for it. The question though is: how is the money raised by the borrowing being spent, and will it produce a positive return? We saw in Japan in the 1990s that government can spend an awful lot of money on highways and bridges, but unless there’s actually demand for that it’s money down the drain. Thanks to the limits of information available to any one institution (as described by Hayek more than 50 years ago now) the government of Japan’s poor investment decisions destroyed more wealth than General Motors ever did. There’s simply no way a Government can allocate resources more efficiently than a market of hundreds of millions of people. We’re now repeating that same mistake. How can there be a recovery if the Government insists on raising $1 Trillion of the nation’s savings and flushing it down the drain?
The second big problem with all that public borrowing is that the government is now allowed to default on its loans. Without bankruptcy we cannot admit our mistakes, wipe the slate clean and move on. That’s great for lenders (because they like risk-free investing) but it’s bad for economic growth (aka, recovery). Economic growth requires risk, loss and profits.
If the government really wanted to offset private borrowing losses with public borrowing, while encouraging investment and employment and taking advantage of superior market allocation of resources, there’s an easy way to do that. Set tax rates to 0% for a year or two, particularly any taxes applicable to business activity, and deficit spend a “normal” budget. Pass a seven year holiday on capital gains taxes. Tell everyone at the IRS to take a fully paid year off.
Thanks Bob. As the economy started to falter I was able to watch CNBC on a regular basis. They were one of the few news organizations that did any real original investigative journalism during the time. The main street press has done a really poor job reporting on what has and is happening. Most people simply do not understand how bad things became, or why the government did what it did. We now need good people like Mr Smith and Krugman to explain to us what happened and what to expect.
Again thanks Bob. Don’t work too hard. Be sure to enjoy those kids of yours before they start growing up on you.
John
Here’s my take in a nutshell;
tha American public lived a lavish lifestyle based upon “bubble-valued” real estate prices. For those who borrowed against that value, they have to pay back those loans or lose the assets. To pay back those loans, it will take a lot of time – and a job. It’s clear that people don’t do any new spending until they pay off their outstanding loans – mostly because all they earn is going to cover old money spent. That leave us with the fact that nobody has a job with which to pay for that old spending, let alone any new growth spending. So to sum it up, there won’t be a recovery in spending until America stops shedding jobs AND has sufficient time under it’s belt to pay off a good portion of those old spending loans still outstanding.
This is a follow up question to Sandy’s post for those, like me, who have no idea…
So what would happen if we all just lived within our means? Does that equal zero growth? If so, what happens then?
Living within your means would be a good thing. Spending everything you earn would not necessarily mean zero growth, but also, spending more than you bring in doesn’t mean positive growth without repercussions. Simply put, you can’t just live on borrowed money forever. Some day the borrowings have to be paid back… unless you’re a government… then a healthy dose of voodoo economics should bring the gov’t back to good health. – Not!
I get that bit, I think. But when I hear people (who claim to know) say things like “… until consumers start spending again…” I wonder what happens if we collectively decide not to do that?
Sure we need food and clothes and the occasional iPod, but what if we keep it within bounds. What does that world look like?
@Sandy:
tha American public lived a lavish lifestyle based upon “bubble-valued” real estate prices.
Not quite. The American’s who weren’t getting all that growth income (about 99%), used the unearned equity in their housing to make up for the fact that median income DROPPED during, and thanks to, Bush. Now that the equity is burned, no more consumption, and all that real estate worth less than it was then. The top 1% are happy to see deflation, since this increases the purchasing power of their retained incomes. Money, as age and height and IQ, is RELATIVE. It is just as sufficient to make The Others poorer in order for You to be richer; there is no requirement for You to increase your income. Deflation is the wealthy’s best friend. Same thing happened in the 1930’s. Marx was right.
So how are the Marxist economies doing these days? Are there a lot of happy Marxists? Do you know some of them?
Yes
“a lavish lifestyle based upon “bubble-valued” real estate prices. ”
That’s a very large part of the problem, but the damage that the Fed has done goes rather beyond that. We’ve also blown trillions of dollars on maintaining an empire that we can’t afford, and that was also financed by inflating the money.
-jcr
Then look for WW3 and not the relatively minor police operation going on in now.
By mobilizing the country in a united effort that would soak up all available underutilized manufacturing, create jobs and war always speeds up innovation. It worked in WW1, WW2 and to a lesser extent Viet Nam.
An outcome I don’t necessarily agree with.
You are more than a bit off with regard to WW!.
The Great Depression and WWII were the result of WWI
Vietnam was LBJ’s “guns and butter” doctrine where the government spent both on defense and
social programs. Bill came due in the 70’s. Remember “WIN”, whip inflation now buttons.
I like David Kennedy’s piece in Time “FDR’s Lessons for Obama”
https://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1906802_1906838_1906745,00.html
May pick up his book, “Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945”
Except for one problem: the US economy doesn’t have manufacturing capacity, idle or otherwise, to soak up for a war effort. In 2007, 40% of corporate profit was from financial services. There is nowhere to put us to work. Boeing assembles most of its aircraft with parts subcontracted out of the country. And so on. Ain’t capitalism great?
I’ve been glued to Krugman’s blog since sept. 2008. He’s been right more than wrong about the economy. Short of affordable desktop fusion or extraterrestrial tourists, nothing is going to replace consumer spending and exports but federal spending. If the feds have to pay one group of people to dig ditches and another group to fill them up, then so be it.
BTW, Krugman is warning about the bounce we’re currently experiencing. It’s a balance sheet recovery caused by massive downsizing. It’s not driven by new demand. Boo.
I was saying that before Krugman, but he’s more famous. If I’d dumped my cash into a few stocks in March, I’d have enough to live out my days in peace. Oh well.
I can’t believe you seriously think that paying people to dig ditches and cover them up is a good idea.
How is that any different, from the point of view of the macro economy, then having us build F-22’s and nucular submarines? Neither has any utility or benefit to our economy or society. They are just as much make-work projects as digging and filling ditches. Digging/filling ditches consumes fewer resources, though.
The really tragic thing about the money we waste on weapons for the cold war like the F-22, is that besides the direct damage they do by sucking money out of the productive sector of the economy, they tie up some of our most highly skilled engineers, who could be working on technologies that would actually improve our lives.
Why don’t we have flying cars yet? Because the men and women who could build them are pissing away their lives inventing fighter jets to blow tribesmen on donkeys into smaller and smaller bits from further and further stand-off distances.
-jcr
” He’s been right more than wrong about the economy. ”
Guess again. He cheered for the bailouts and the nationalization the automakers. He subscribes to all the Keynesian fallacies about “aggregate demand”, and even backs the asinine claim that a falling dollar doesn’t hurt us.
-jcr
Krugman’s recent LSE lecture, which Smith refers to, is available by podcast. The LSE podcast is worth keeping an eye on in general.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/podcasts/publicLecturesAndEvents.htm
The deep point I took from these videos was.. how big should the economy be? Do we really want to be crack addicts searching for the next bubble or scam? Do we really have to monetize more and more of our lives to keep “the economy” growing bigger, because a bigger economy drives us to work harder and getting more stuff makes us happier?
Blogs like this one are a fascinating example of economic efficiency- doing more with less. Doing great things practically for free. Will the economy of free downsize our overall economic prospects, as more of what we love and do is free rather than costly? Has the internet brought us ultimate economic efficiency in some sectors, resulting in zero cost and the ability to deploy labor elsewhere, except that the labor wants to work for free (blogging, open source) and refuses to enter the competition to find and fill new economic needs? Perhaps the economy of free will end up motivating people to keep minimal jobs for sustenance as they pursue their real lives and loves elsewhere. If money can’t buy happiness, why do we need a bigger economy?
Good point. It is an information economy and “information wants to be free.” BTW, the next bubble is H2O as in fresh water.
If the government would get out of our economy, put us back on a gold standard and reduce it’s size by 90%, we’d all be better off. You can’t support a massive group of people who essentially create no wealth. How hard is that to understand? Why is it we all did so well up until about 1913. Nobody lobbied the Feds for anything until we went off the gold standard (fiat currency) and started Federal taxation. The Austrian school of economics has always been right, but too many people want a hand out so they can get ahead of everyone else at another’s expense.
I don’t believe any of them. Except Dr. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. Hey, Feds! Leave us alone!!! We will do just fine without you.
I agree with what you’re saying except the point regarding gold. All “currency” is ultimately fiat because we’re substituting -something- for the direct bartering of goods and/or services. Currency or money is the device that we all agree represents some type of value. Gold, diamonds, silver, etc. are all things that we agree, or I should say “place” value on by themselves. This works until we all decide that these clear little rocks aren’t really that pretty or worth our time.
When push comes to shove, will you “work for food” or work for some little piece of paper that someone has agreed to accept so you can eat a hamburger?
There is a reason gold is money and nothing else, actually there are several.
1) Gold is actually the most abundant material available as it pertains to use. This may come as a surprise to most people, but there is currently about 80 years worth of annual production in storage. So if we stopped mining all gold across the planet today, we’d have enough to last us another 80 years. Silver is in 2nd place with 3 years. Copper, 3 months. And it gets less after that. So any commodity backing a currency must be valuable and plentiful. Gold fits the bill.
2) Gold wasn’t just arbitrarily picked as a random metal to back currency, it arrived in that position spontaneously after thousands of years. The reason is because it holds its value better then any other substance. So for early traders, when given the choice to get paid in gold or cattle, they took gold every time knowing they would have an easier time offloading it.
3) Gold is the cheapest of any substance to store. Its solid, has a high value per density, and won’t rust. a 1 ounce gold coing fits in your pocket. Try storing the equivalent in oil!!! $1000 worth of oil!!!! Expensive and flammable!
There is no substitute for gold
In addition, a gold back currency would certainly NOT need to be FIAT. No one would need to force you to accept the gold backed money, this should never be the case. Instead you remove legal tender laws (FIAT) which FORCE people to pay contracts in Federal Reserve notes, and allow them to write contracts in whatever form they wish. Allow the mints to start minting gold coin again, and allow banks to issue gold backed money again. The federal reserve notes will be gradually discounted and phased out of existence for the “real money” and no compulsion from the government will be required.
>> Why is it we all did so well up until about 1913.
What make you think we did so well???? There were panics/depressions about every 10 years from founding. There were 5 year olds working in mills. Life expectancy was minimal. Native Americans and African Americans were killed as needed and/or their land was stolen because white Christians said their Book told them it was destiny.
We found obscene deposits of coal, iron ore, wood, petroleum, and arable soil. Which we then depleted at an obscene rate. It is no coincidence that we are 5% of the world’s population, and still attempt to consume 25% of its resources in order to sustain our God Given Lifestyle.
Would you also like to fly your winged unicorn over the strawberry sea to visit the yogurt princess in the land of marshmallow?
Libertarians and their gold standard. Meh.
I can’t see the last video either (its locked).
Yes the housing bubble collapsed, but I’m always surprised by economist’s ability to overlook big things going on. Our society is aging and people’s spending habits differ through the years of their lives. Did aging first world economies drive the bubble up and pop it quicker? It seems to me our demographic profile is a big part of the picture too.
Remember, Krugman is the guy who advocated we create a housing bubble to, you know, help the economy.
This guy is not an economics, and is peddling long discredited political propaganda as if it was “economics”— the only thing that bring more disrepute to the Nobel Prize than his, is the one given to Al Gore.
http://mises.org/story/3530
http://mises.org/story/103
The key thing about a SCIENCE is that it can make accurate predictions. Krugman ,an advocate of the long discredited “keynsian” school (aka socialism) is unable to do so accurately, while other schools, such as the Chicago and Austrian school predict well.
Why are we having keynsianism shoved down our throats at every media outlet by shills such as Krugman? Because governments love the idea they can spend as much money as they want without it having negative economic repercussions. Hell even Obama said “Some call this a spending bill, what do you think Stimulus Is?”
http://mises.org/story/3582
Bob,
Can’t imagine why you would give a forum to the nutcase and hater Krugman. He recently called people who opposed carbon dioxide limits traitors (and he meant it) although climate change is far outside his area of expertise. He also criticized the Bush handling of terrorism suspects in another column, another area far outside his area of expertise. As he keeps writing idiotic columns about matters of which he knows nothing, he is showing what a joke the Nobel prizes are.
One thing to ponder. Even if the US did want to further massively increase its debt, it would almost be impossible because creditor nations, such as China will not keep on buying dollars if they think that the US is ignoring the risk of inflation. I am sure that there are others who share viewpoints similar to Krugman who could argue his policies. However, Krugman, himself is an intolerant hater who should not be give a forum by the New York Times or your mostly useful website.
JD
Dear god, please stop posting any links about Paul Krugman. I am well aware that he has a nobel prize, but even more aware of how wrong he has been about almost everything,
time
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/krugman-in-need-of-remedial-education.html
after time
https://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods116.html
After time:
http://mises.org/story/3530
As that last story dictates, not only did he fail to predict the housing bubble, he actually CALLED for one. Paul Krugman is NOT the person who can help lead us out of this mess. Instead we need real economic visionaries like Thomas Woods, Antal Fekkette, or Peter Schiff. We need economists who stand against the grain and are proven right time and time again, not hacks like Krugman.
Please stop giving him press.
Inflation/deflation…who cares? The people in government who didn’t earn MY money and didn’t take MY investment risks are spending MY money. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Paul Krugman should have a public debate with Peter Schiff.
If it is possible, could a transcript be put on this blog page?
Thanks
I am pretty sure that Adam Smith has not been alive since the Revolution. Is this post a joke?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Goodman
Krugman sounds reasonable, and is a knowledgeable economist, but the problem is that he is a rabid partisan. One study found him to be 2nd only to Ann Coulter.
If the current president were McCain, you can bet his analysis of the same situations would be different, just like he went from Social Security is in big trouble, to say otherwise is foolish, when Clinton was President, to saying Social Security is just fine when Bush was President
Bob,
There’s another Nobel winning economist featured on PBS that you must have missed… Milton Friedman. You need to listen to him to get your thinking straight. You know, the safety in a multitude of counsel proverb.
The current thinking seems to be that there’s this limitless money creation machine we can just tap into anytime we want to solve the problem du jour. But this notion violates basic arithmetic and common sense. This attitude and government policy puts our very currency at risk. It’s one thing when a few large companies go bankrupt but what if the U.S. dollar goes belly up? That’s where current policies are taking us.
Our inept federal government’s solution to the debt problem is more debt. This kind of thinking is fundamentally flawed.
Today is proof, Freidman was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Al Gore got a Nobel prize too…
What’s up with Krugman’s shoe? Surely he can afford some new shoes.
Economists are notorious for wearing crappy old shoes.
I’ve been a very active reader of “Cringely” for over 8 years now. I was on a “dot.com” start-up team in Austin that failed miserably because they wouldn’t take my advise based on the wisdom of Cringley – they had it coming and blew through $10M in 9 months. Oh well…
I’ve always put economists in the same box as tarot card readers, witch doctors, and snake shakers. Why? There are a million of them out there and none of them will agree on even the simplest thing. Economics is based on history – and no one, not even the best economist can, or will, predict the future and bet the ranch on it – there are always “caveats” so they can cover their collective butts.
Recessions are like farts – nobody likes them, some are worse than others, and some last longer than others. But recessions, like farts, dissipate in time. Just hold your nose and hang on – it will be over sooner or later. And recessions, like farts, are relative to your particular situation and location.
Are we in a recession? It depends on how you define “we”. America, yes – me personally, no. My business is absolutely exploding. If I sat around and listened to a bunch of whiney economists I would be scared out of my wits. I just turn the TV off and get back to work – I have better things to do with my time.
Rock on, Cringe! We luv ya!
Single payer healthcare, if it is not stopped, will provide the new bubble. The Chinese will quit loaning the US money, so that Chinese savers can buy more of their own production, and consequently reduce their surplus. With the destruction of private capital in the US and with no savings with which to capitalise investment, the new technologies will be very limited in their scope, to provide earnings and/or employment.
You forgot to mention the utility of aluminum foil deflector beanies in protecting us from orbital mind control lasers. That’s right! Fricking lasers!
Please provide just one example of single payor healthcare causing a bubble. Since there are none, I’ll even except some fantastically contorted, counterfactual, brain-addled rationalization.
Seriously. How do you come up with this garbage? Do you wingers use a talking points generator, similar to this.
It’s amusing to see the Krugman-haters come out of the woodwork…to accuse him of being a “hater”. A lot of their criticisms of the man seem to stem from hearsay rather than any familiarity with his work.
For example, it wasn’t “people who oppose carbon dioxide limits” he called traitors, it’s “global warming deniers”, and he makes a compelling case for his accusation.(see https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html).
Far from being a “rabid” partisan, Krugman has been critical of Obama…for making the stimulus too small for example. As for how Krugman would have criticized McCain had he won the Presidency; McCain isn’t President in part because he showed himself to be completely clueless when it came to economics…in the midst of an economic crisis.
Krugman’s current views on Social Security and Medicare seem to reflect the informed consensus – Social Security is in good shape to face the next few decades, Medicare is not – because healthcare costs are rising too much.
Patrick,
Apparently, you don’t understand the connection between the term “denier” and the holocaust. Using that term is a vicious form of McCarthyism that is supposed to silence people who have legitimate objections to being steamrolled by climate change proponents by comparing them to holocaust deniers. The climate change proponents assume that carbon dioxide will increase over the next 100 years, but they give no credence to the incredibly fast changes in scientific knowledge that will be caused by the Internet as well as the education of the Chinese and Indian peoples. There are so many strategic and scientific errors inherent in global alarmist thinking that it is ridiculous. The fact that Krugman thinks he can slur the opponents of climate change panic and compare them to Nazis in a field outside of his area of expertise makes him a hater. Oh yes, he has a blog today about birthers (another matter in which he has great qualifications) and several months ago he blamed Reagan for the subprime mortgage crisis that arose 20 years after Reagan left office.
The fact that you would say that his referral to “deniers” as evidence of his competence when it only strengthens the argument in favor of the hateful nature of his columns shows how insular and uniformed the left is. Krugman’s looney columns about matters beyond his field would cause any careful person to seriously question his economic competence.
JD,
Or perhaps I understand too well.
Peter Sagal wrote an excellent synopsis on Holocaust Deniers in his “Book of Vice” – it’s right in the middle of the chapter on Lying.
And I say to you in all honesty; you’ve got Krugman beat when it comes to looney arguments.
Thank you for confirming my point about Krugman (and apparently you) as haters. If Krugman and the left could scientifically support their arguments about climate change and remedies, they wouldn’t need to engage in name calling. They can’t so they engage in McCarthyism. I take it as a badge of honor to be criticized by someone as intolerant and insular as you. I would suggest that you and the left audit the personal energy use of Krugman, Pelosi, John Holdren and the IPCC scientists. I am sure that we will find out who the real hypocrites and liars are just as Al Gore has been exposed.
Economics 101:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiE1VgWdcQM
Krugman is well-credentialled, so his twisting of facts and cocksure utterances will be artful, at least. His best work in economics is some decades ago, and the current situation is not within his specialty. But gosh, he’s a professor and NYT columnist, right?
Anyway, after his creeping forth after the death of Milton Friedman to attempt start rending the corpse, I can only consider him a hyaenoid.
Sorry, sorry, I know. That should be “Nobel-prize winning hyaenoid.”
“Krugman is well-credentialled, so his twisting of facts and cocksure utterances will be artful, at least”
That does not actually follow.
“His best work in economics is some decades ago,”
Yes, as it must be for any economics Nobel prize winner. That sort of recognition just doesn’t happen quickly.
“and the current situation is not within his specialty.”
That’s just not true.
Krugman got the prize for “trade and geography — economies of scale, differentiated products and transport costs” as the citation puts it. While he does not maintain a webpage at Princeton, the main thrust of his efforts seems, I gather, to have been in international trade.
But you’re absolutely right in your first point: even if an excellent knowledge of a field generally allows for strong statements without being seen for a loudmouth (or worse), not all of Krugmans utterances will therefore be artful.
Hi Tom.
I’m so pleased that you continue to venerate Milton Friedman. He was awarded the Nobel prize in 1976 for work done in the ’60s. Great stuff.
As you are well aware, history ended just after that prize was awarded. It’s true! All scientific progress, cultural development, the arts, human achievement, pretty much everything, stopped at that very moment. In fact, even time stopped.
Which explains why Friedman’s economic thought is the very pinnacle of human achievement. There is no more to learn. All that can be known is now known.
You’re right to defend Friedman’s legacy. What better way to honor a life-long scientist and humanist by utterly rejecting rationality. Bravo.
Please resume shouting down any one who would dare to try to improve the human condition. That kind of behavior should not be tolerated.
Geessus Mr OsGood…..you have your collectivist / statist / authoritarianism head so far up your arse you need that Obama care so you can be put in front of the death panels and mercifully terminated.
Only the cool in the crowd get Friedman so its not surprising he flies so far over your head.
Actually, he’s not a Nobel prize winner. There is no Nobel prize for economics, there’s a Swedish bankers’ prize that they try to pass off as a Nobel prize.
-jcr
Krugman’s been all over the map lately, my current reading of Kevin Phillips Bad Money has put my outlook on our economy in it’s proper perspective.
Elizabeth Warren does a excellent job also.
“Krugman is a very smart economist working at the top of his game and explains things pretty well.”
Boy, he sure snowed you. Krugman is a Hari Seldon wannabe, whose purpose in life is to invent rationalizations for counterfeiting and power-grabbing, just like Keynes. He is on the record calling for a housing bubble to avoid the reckoning for the dotcom bubble.
-jcr