In the last two weeks, Huffington Post (to its credit) has published a 3-part takedown of the noxious New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, by the fetching economic historian, Niall Ferguson:
It’s long, but I found it a pleasure on several levels. Ferguson is a civil human being (see the video at the bottom of part I) and always an engaging and thoughtful writer. And Krugman merits the takedown, as a writer who habitually over-states his own rightness and denies his past mistakes (such as his 2002 call in favor of having a housing bubble). Krugman recently called himself “Krugtron the Invincible”, which Ferguson adopted as the title for his series.
Via Cyniconomics. Victory dance (and summary) from Ralph Benko at Forbes.
For fun, here’s Dilbert from June 3:
When will the public-at-large catch-on that being a Nobel laureate means you were thought to be correct about one thing, once….AND someone noticed. Herr Doktor Professor Krugman being a prime example.
Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences . . . for 2008. This prize . . . was given to Krugman for his work associated with New Trade Theory and the New Economic Geography. In the words of the prize committee, “By having integrated economies of scale into explicit general equilibrium models, Paul Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity.”
Ted, very true.
Interestingly, Krugman in earlier years was against deficits (both trade and budget). That’s one of the points Ferguson goes into. Krugman likes to claim that he’s lately won a stunning intellectual victory for his views, or something. Ferguson points out that, in addition to the falseness of that claim, if he did win such a victory then he won it over…Paul Krugman.
Naturally, I went to Wiki to read the liberal, sanitized version of this man. (Really, I know very little about him.) I found this curious paragraph:
Being a fan of Lewis Carroll and his ability to make logic stand on its head become even more “logical” in the process, this little arcane “insight” into the man at least tugs at the curtain.
Krugman is an ideologue on theory steroids. That could mean pumped up on theory or pumped up on theoretical steroids or on steroids, but only theoretically pumped up or just unable to keep his primary thoughts separated from his primal thoughts or just a windbag.
Yeah, I’ve seen a Krugman interview transcript where he said that, and it does give an insight into him. His fantasy is to live in a rationally planned society – where HE is the wonderful, rational planner – and, failing that, he directs the course of history with the superior knowledge born of his brilliant insights.
As a kid, I flirted with such fantasies (what sci-fi-reading kid doesn’t?). And I also studied economics. But in the end, I couldn’t buy it. Behavioral & micro econ provide some insights, but mainstream macro-economics is a junk science riddled with holes and populated by little Krugmans: wimps who fantasize about running society by their “good” advice and superior (but unreal) knowledge.
In becoming a grownup, I grasped that the fantasy is essentially fascist. It reflects badly on the one who nurses it. Within the limits marked by natural rights, people should be free to do whatever they want. As a very small-time commentator, I merely speak up for liberty and the world can agree with me “or not”.
Krugman seems to cling to the fantasy of directing history and, what with his fans and acolytes and their prizes puffing up his ego, he is probably never going to outgrow it. I thank God (and my own past choices) that I am not Krugman.
My impression of Krugman as I have wached an interview or him making a point is similar to the experience of a bunch of children at a petting zoo who come upon a pen where they house some donkeys, horses, goats and such. There is always one donkey in the middle of the group, or standing at the fence that is constantly braying the loudest. Funny though, at the end of the day, he is no different than all the other jackasses in the herd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROO7xSTxfY
Why he seems to be the loudest jackass is any body’s guess:
http://www.ask.com/question/why-do-donkeys-bray
Possibly he craves the attention!!
I would love to see Krugman debate Peter Schiff. They’d both bray, but Schiff has better facts/reason and would mop the floor with Krugman.
I think some of this is marketing and self-promotion. (If anything, this is more damning and not an excuse for less damnation, but I think it provides some context to his self-absorbed pronouncements.) Krugman is a deliberately famous economist, one who has worked very hard at becoming a popular theorist in what is for some an often dry, dreary science; specifically, it isn’t necessary to be a good economist if his fame especially and only benefits his own economy. Perhaps being wrong isn’t enough anymore when being spectacularly wrong is valued for the spectacle and not devalued for the lie. Hardship due to the very government intervention he advocates gives him a natural platform and he’s the kind of man who would no doubt claim to be able to do well in any economic system, anarchy to totalitarian. Who needs truth when a man like Krugman is chic?
As for Ferguson, I haven’t read all his books but my favorite thus far has to be Empire.
Jeff, of all your threads so far, this is my favorite. I have a visceral dislike of Krugman and his rantings, somewhat similar to radical leftists’ dislike of other people’s right to keep their earnings, own guns, etc. (full disclosure — I studied at U of Chicago, so I learned to see the world through a different lens and it influences my views of PK).
As much as I worry about the views he espouses, I find his abuse of people who disagree with him deplorable. Not to mention his complete lack of self awareness — he wrote a critique of Milton Friedman, wherein he said Friedman’s work in economics was seminal, but he was less rigorous in his writings for general public. He was describing himself (I am not qualified to comment on Krugman’s work in economics, but I am assuming it is good. His writings for general public are of questionable quality).
Thorougly enjoyed reading.
” I have three motives. The first is to illuminate the way the world really works, as opposed to the way Krugman and his beloved New Keynesian macroeconomic models say it works. The second is to assert the importance of humility and civility in public as well as academic discourse. And the third, frankly, is to teach him the meaning of the old Scottish regimental motto: nemo me impune lacessit (“No one attacks me with impunity”).”
Okey Dokey. Krugman makes mistakes. Let us accept that fact–the Euro has not broken up yet. Greece has stayed in the Euro–at the cost of what would be to folks in this country, unimaginable pain. The question is–does he have it both ways theoretically, as Ferguson claims?
The reason Krugman isn’t addressing this foofaraw is that Ferguson, as an admitted non-economist (though economic historian) doesn’t appear to acknowledge that Krugman is talking about situations in different contexts–one before the meltdown; the other after the meltdown. One based on his models qua economics (liquidity trap); the other as speculation qua NT Times columnist (Greece withdrawal, Euro break-up). Krugman has acknowledged when he has gotten things wrong from his modelling perspective; clearly, this is not good enough for Ferguson. What is most fun about this is that the results of Ferguson’s first motive do not touch the central result of Krugman’s theoretical model–the liquidity trap. Because–that is the theoretical underpinning of Krugman’s views on this. And he has been very consistent about this, once the danger of the liquidity trap became apparent. Ferguson even appears to grant this underpinning in Pt III of his piece. Yet, I also think that Ferguson’s strengths as an historian plays in here–he is more willing than Krugman to weigh the power of history in Greece’s and other countries’ willingness to accept being miserable IN Europe, as a better alternative than being better off outside an unified Europe–based on European historical perspectives. The jury is out on that one, but history matters–a lot. As an historian, Krugman makes an excellent economist.
As for motive two, I think these are worthwhile goals; and I think Ferguson is right to point out that we can all be helped if we do as he suggests. This is one area where Krugman gets it wrong, I think. Krugman is too willing to attribute bad motives to those who disagree with him, Ferguson included.
As for three, he could just as easily have said: “Don’t tread on me.” I don’ think that he has succeeded in his core mission, but it was an entertaining read. I am slowly making my way through Empire at the moment, Ignatius. Interesting read.
JA: Anytime! Glad to entertain 🙂
As to Friedman, I might say the reverse of what Krugman said about him: Friedman’s writings for the general public are excellent in espousing freedom, but his explanation of the Depression was not. He seems to have over-emphasized the Fed’s contractionary role and under-emphasized the role of Big Government in blocking what should have been the economy’s natural recovery. Since Friedman’s view educated Bernanke and Yellen (producing today’s Fed hubris), perhaps it would be better if Friedman had not won that particular argument.
PB: Krugman’s list of mistakes is longer than that one, or even the two that Ferguson especially focuses on. And in view of some of the things Krugman has said about Ferguson, for the latter to leave his response just at “Don’t tread on me” and nothing more would, I think require the patience of a saint.
P.S. I also figured the Euro wouldn’t fall, at least not right away. Because for either Greece or Germany to leave the Euro would have required the common people of those countries to rise up and overthrow their political and bureaucratic elites (and probably their criminal elites as well), and for the latter to yield power. In other words, it needs a whole bunch of people to do the right thing.
“According to Krugman, his interest in economics began with Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels, in which the social scientists of the future use ‘psychohistory’ to attempt to save civilization….”
More accurately, the social scientists use their science to predict the future course of events (the fall of the galactic empire) and to manipulate events in order to eventually establish a second empire run by a secret cabal of super-competent, super-wise social scientists.
Rather creepy.
Since Asimov socialized with the far-left (commie, in many cases) New York Futurians science fiction society, I wonder how much their extremist utopianism influenced him.
“Because for either Greece or Germany to leave the Euro would have required the common people of those countries to rise up and overthrow their political and bureaucratic elites ”
I agree.
Greece, Portugal and Spain are the “sick men” of the European Union. England is only a partial player. How long the European Union will carry Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and even Italy is a great parlor game of speculation.
However, I suspect that the Lion of Strasburg has lost some of its most important teeth. The European Union has become less about the strength of unity and more about hanging on and surviving. It is, in my opinion, ripe for a banking/industrial takeover in which it is more about the global economy than it is about a unification of Europe.
I have not yet arrived at the position of favoring US isolation, but I am well past having any enthusiasm for NATO. It would be interesting to see what would happen to the EU if the US were to dismiss itself from any military presence in Europe.
The Brits don’t have the wherewithal to rebuild its once mighty military, but they would be the strongest remaining power countering a militarized (and groaning) Russia.
If the European Union had to foot the bill of EU defense, it is highly doubtful that they could do it.
Since the US is already printing $85 Billion(+) a month of funny money to keep the US economy afloat and to prop up the EU banking system, it is highly likely that the Progressives and conservatives in the US could agree on cutting the EU free to handle its own self defense system. Then the French and the Belgians could sell military stuff to themselves on a 24 hour work week doing armament jobs that can not be eliminated and from which workers can not be fired. The socialization of weapons build up worked miracles in Germany in the thirties and it can do it again all across the EU. The only thing left to figure out is for them to decide who to attack.
Jeff,
Agree Friedman did over-emphasize Fed’s role. It sursprises me that he did not discuss the negative impact of Big Government intervention during the Great Depression. Sowell repeatedly discussed the negative impact of Smoot-Hawley tariff and all the subsequent actions by Hoover+FDR. In fact, he said it did not turn into the Great Depression until the intervention started. I thought Friedman was on the same page. Hmm… interesting.
I notice that Thomas Sowell is beard-free.