He's a great economist--a really great economist, though I have started to doubt that strategic trade theory is going to push him into the Nobel-winning category. Paul Krugman is about a zillion times smarter than I am, and also, grows a prety impressive beard. He was also, in the 1990's, one of the greatest economics writers in history, headed up there in the economics writing firmament with John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman in terms of lucid explanation of their ideas. (About the quality of JKG's ideas . . . well, we'll leave that for another post. But I think there's really no doubt that he was the finest prose stylist the profession ever produced.) His columns for Slate, his other writings in the popular press, were all first class . . . and unlike a lot of current economics writing, they made accessible a lot of Big Ideas on things like trade. I think his writings in the 1990s on trade should be required reading for . . . well, everyone.
That is precisely why I dislike his New York Times column. Or rather, I did dislike it, until they moved it behind the pay barrier, whereupon I mostly forgot about it.
I don't say that Paul Krugman never writes good economics; he does. But not so often, any more. Look at his recent column topics:
WMD in IraqFEMA and Katrina
An article on the Bush administration's lunatic decision to cut back S-Chip
Race and electoral demographics
Bank runs
The housing slump
Republican candidates are big fat narcissists
Liquidity in financial markets
Republican candidates also suck because they haven't said anything about policy--just like Paul Krugman in this column, except that he does like him some single payer health care.
Lower tax rates on hedge fund carry interest are bad. I agree, except that the economics of the competing proposals are abandoned in favour of arguing that Democrats are really awesome guys and gals, except when they happen to be Chuck Schumer.
S-Chip
Ordinary Americans haven't gained much from the recent expansion
France's internet is way better than ours.
At least half the piece he writes make little use of his economic expertise. For this we gave up writing such as the pieces found in Pop Internationalism, or the liquidity trap piece I linked yesterday?
Then there's the fact that in the new Paul Krugman's world, there seem to be only two explanatory variables for anything that ails you, me, or the economy: an unexplained secular increase in the general nastiness of rich people; and the Bush administration. This is not a very good model of the world. For one thing, where is Kathie Lee Gifford in all of this?
Moreover, while there are often pretty good reasons to thwack the Bush administration's economic and other policies, when there is a conflict between
1) proving that Bush is a monstrous amalgam of the worst excesses of Andrew Jackson, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, and Adolf Hitler2) writing in a clear and accurate fashion about the underlying economic principles and data involved
#2 is too often the priority that must give way.
I blame a number of factors. First, Paul Krugman clearly really, really hates George Bush. Okay, fair enough. Second, 700 words is a terrible length to write about economics: too short to say anything meaningful, but long enough that the temptation to provide filler (which for Paul Krugman, too often takes the form of vituperation about Bush) must be nearly overwhelming on those uninspired mornings when the column's due. Third, twice a week is a terrible frequency at which to write about economics. Coming up with two brilliant column ideas a week is beyond all but a few freak talents; even harder when the topic of the column is rather narrow, and all your fellow economists are waiting for you to be dazzling. And fourth, Paul Krugman undoubtedly gets a great deal of reinforcement from people whose familiarity with economics is only passing, but whose hatred of George Bush, and longing for "scientific" evidence to back that hatred up, is nearly bottomless. Meanwhile, enough of his critics are equally economically illiterate conservatives caught in the grip of some fringe economic scheme, that he can dismiss them all as Bush-worshipping (or market-worshipping) cranks.
But whatever the cause, I do not think that the New York Times column has done good things for him. He has gone from being the best popular economics writer of his generation, to being a mediocre political writer. This is a tragedy for us, though I presume he likes things that way.
Update: Ygglz misunderstands me; I didn't say that Paul Krugman never writes about economics; only that he has squandered a comparative and absolute advantage in writing extraordinary economics columns, in order to write not particularly interesting political columns that get taken seriously largely because he's a Very Important Economist. Even when he writes about things like health care, it's far too light on the economics, and far too heavy on the "Why do Republicans want babies to die?" rhetoric I could read from any 23-year old lit major interning at a left-wing political magazine. And when he writes about things outside his field, he makes what are (I am told) elementary mistakes on things like foreign policy, while his writing rarely reveals anything new. I don't devote my time to hating him, or anything; it's just that I wish he would write more novel an interesting things.
It's interesting, because it's his shift in the Bush years that has led many people to like him.
A few things.
First, in literary criticism, one pitfall is the tendency to criticize an author for not writing a different book than the one he wrote, rather than just evaluating the book he did. I think you're doing a bit of this here. I understand that you prefer his previous work to his current work. I don't have Times select, and I'm economically illiterate, so I don't have an opinion. I'm sure you have ample reason to feel the way you do. But I would just caution that you try to appreciate the columns he has written on their own merits, instead of only wishing for the columns he didn't write.
I mean, look at the forum. He's writing a column in the NYT for a general audience. As you say, the frequency and length of the column isn't well suited to serious economics writing. So doesn't it make sense that he would engage in some more general, more politically minded pieces? He's gotta bend somewhat to the format that he's been given at the Times.
As far as Bush-bashing goes, well, I suppose Krugman would say (and his supporters say) that he's just been forced to speak by the incredibly awful presidency of George W. I do understand that Bush-bashing can get a little boring, but it's hard to imagine objective criteria by which this administration has NOT failed. When you've got that much fuel, you might as well start a fire.
Maybe what you really want is not to have someone who knows what they are talking about telling the truth to power.
I remember Krugman's columns in Slate. He was absolutely dazzling in his defense of Clinton's free trade agenda.
I was really pleased when the New York Times hired him on. But once Bush became his favorite target, he quickly became unreadable.
Not necessarily because he was wrong. But because he was repetitive, hyperbolic, and redundant. How many Bob Herberts does one paper need?
Reflecting back on the Slate columns, the thing that was different then was the respect Krugman showed to those that disagreed with him. Krugman was defending centrist Clintonian policies against friendly adversaries -- liberals of the Robert Reich variety. Not willing to demonize his friends, he was lucid, thought-provoking, and very persuasive.
Now he knows no such restraight. As a result he persuades no one who isn't already in his camp.
The following excerpt from an interview with the famously fair-minded Greg Mankiw gets to the real problem with Paul Krugman:
Q: So you often read the paper and slap your forehead?
A: Let me give you example. This is as I was arriving [as the new chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers]. Glenn Hubbard, my predecessor, was leaving. I read one of Paul Krugman’s New York Times columns, and he said something like, 'Hubbard said he was leaving to be with his family, but you could see the knives sticking out of his back.' The suggestion was that he’s being kicked out. I knew that wasn’t true. I knew I got the job in large part because Glenn recommended me. So here we have Krugman sitting in some office in New Jersey making a supposition about what’s going on in Washington and then writing for the New York Times, with readers presuming that he knew something.
Q: Krugman is a very respected economist. What are your thoughts on his transformation into a columnist?
A: I had Paul as a teacher at MIT. And when I was at CEA in ‘82 and ‘83, he was there as well. I was a junior staffer in the Reagan administration. Two members of the senior staff were Krugman and (former Harvard economics professor, Clinton Treasury Secretary and current Harvard president Lawrence) Summers. At that time he was a brilliant economist. I thought he’d win a Nobel prize. I think there’s a good chance he still will. His early work on international trade theory deserves it.
It’s strange what’s happened since then. When he became a New York Times columnist, he decided to abandon writing about economics as an economist does. He’s very liberal, which is fine most of my friends at Harvard are liberal, but whenever someone disagrees with him, his first inclination is to think that person is either a liar or a fool. It’s amazing to me that an academic would behave that way. The one thing that I value about academia is open-mindedness, the premise that all ideas and different points of view should be considered. No one has a monopoly on the truth. The one defining characteristic of a good professor is to be open to all viewpoints.
Q: How do you explain what you describe as this change in Krugman?
A: I guess if you’re a columnist, you want to be widely talked about and be the most e-mailed. It’s the same thing that drives talk show hosts to become Jerry Springer.
If the problem is that the Times's columns are too short for economics, what prevents him from writing multi-part pieces? Some columnists do this when they feel the space limitations are too confining for a particular subject.
This, of course, is the beautiful thing about on-line blogs- no space limitations, even if your desire is to write one long political rant, which is what actually makes Krugman unreadable these days-the sheer monotony of it all.
You might have added that Krugman is, like most academics, dazzlingly ignorant about any number of real world phenomena. For instance, he wrote a set of columns about 5 or 6 years ago (just before I stopped reading him), claiming that Bush's payout from the partnership that owned the Texas Rangers must have been a disguised bribe. Because--get this!--Bush only put up 1% of the capital of the partnership, but he got 5% of the profits. Hopefully, by now, Krugman might have learned what a carried interest is, but whereas any number of lawyers, bankers, etc. already knew that six years ago, Krugman didn't.
Megan, an excellent summation of Krugman's descent -- which I guess is just a fancy way of saying that's what I thought, too!
Freddie, the problem is not that he's writing the wrong columns and should instead be writing other ones we like better. Or that's only indirectly the problem. Krugman's a great economist with a knack for writing well about economics for the general audience. Speaking for myself, though, he's a poor political analyst, and on top of that he goes into frothing fits when he writes about politics. He is unpersuasive and unentertaining, and adds no substance to political discussion.
By way of contrast, Molly Ivins was a great writer on state-level politics, often with much to say about national affairs as well. She didn't try to write much about economics (for which, given her views, I'm thankful). I think she declined as a writer around the same time Krugman did, though I've always attributed it to her cancer rather than BDS. Still, though, whether I agreed with her or not on political issues, she was both entertaining and insightful. Krugman on politics ain't.
The constant Bush bashing would be much more tolerable if it were empirically grounded. Too often, however, Krugman's mania is little different than, say, R. Emmett Tyrell's worst days during the Clinton Administration.
I gave up on Krugman after he wrote a piece several years ago which took up the manner by which our intrepid President earned his fortune. Now, for someone like Krugman, this is the equivalent of a poor fastball right over the middle of the plate for Barry Bonds in his prime. The story is replete with taxpayer subsidies for the wealthy, abusive eminent domain, and the widespread nature of these practices in municipalities across the land, often sold to the public via transparently phony arguments about subsequent economic benefits. Krugman should have been able to write the definitive piece on the topic, with President Bush's participation as the hook.
Instead, Krugman writes a screed which barely addresses the most important part of the story, in terms of public policy, and instead spends paragraphs to insinuate without basis that there was some type of criminal behavior involved, clearly ignoring that the real scandal is how this type of wealth generation is perfectly legal, and extremely common. So common, in fact, that the people who sign Krugman's checks, the management of the NYT, engaged in the very practice themselves. Not that Krugman saw fit to mention that, of course. It was then I decided that Krugman had become a common hack, and I haven't read anything by him since.
That was the one, y81, except I still don't attribute that unbelievably poor column to ignorance. I think it likely he knew very well what he was doing. The man is not a naif.
Will Allen, you and I are on the same page, but as I recall it was more than one column on this topic. On the eminent domain point, Krugman advanced the rather bizarre claim that Bush didn't deserve to get paid, because it doesn't take any ability to get deals done using state power. Alas (as an economist should know), rent-seeking often requires considerable ability and effort: the problem is that the ability and effort don't produce commensurate social benefit.
Incidentally, the Democrats whom Krugman adores babble incessantly about "public/private partnerships"; somehow the whole enterprise is only corrupt if a Republican does it.
So I guess the theme in this post and the ensuing comments is, basically, that Krugman is too 'shrill'. That he just won't shut up about all the things this administration is doing to this country. Or that he chooses to write about what interests him and he thinks will connect to his readers, not about what interests you.
As an assessment, those last two sentences are probably accurate. But are they a criticism?
Krugman was right about Dubya from long before November 2000 - when his editors wouldn't let him use nasty words like "lie" - and he was right after 9/11 and in the early Iraq bamboozelment while McArdle and her echo chamber were convinced that Dubya was some pure distillation of the best that Churchill, Truman, Jesus, and Superman had to offer. Krugman was a lonely, derided voice in the wilderness, and now your complaint is that he always sings the same tune.
I grant you, if you read blogs Krugman is repetitive and predictable. But, two points to consider: (1) Do a majority of his readers peruse blogs? and (2) Repetitive he might be, but is he wrong on the major points?
P.S. Also consider whether there is a comparable full-voiced liberal with a major regular op-ed slot today. Bob Herbert is mentioned above, but he is much more interested in personal stories and society, as opposed to Krugman's focus on politics and policy, and though Herbert has become more outspoken he is unsually considerably less vociferous than Krugman. I can't really think of another, though I'm open to suggestions.
Do you think Krugman will become an economist again on 1/20/09, or do you think he's permanently broken?
-dk
In other words, you don't agree with him. Instead of saying the Krugman shouldn't be writing about the things he's writing about, you can tell us where he's wrong. Or, with all due respect, you can shut up.
Matthew Yglesias has delivered the best response to McArdle's Anti-Krugman blast, but I would add that Krugman turned out to be correct on George Bush, and back in 2003, when he was very popular, this was an unusual position to take.
Warren,
For me, personally, I just find his columns monotonous. Of course, this is true of a lot of columnists unfortunately, and blogger columnists are usually even more monotonous, especially the most popular ones. The problem with Krugman is that he has all but abandoned writing about the economics in which he could easily find (and, in the past, had found) a rich diversity of topics to discuss, and I would read him even if I disagreed with his analyses for the most part. The best political writers can find a rich diversity of subjects to write about, and do so with insight and originality. Krugman simply lacks this kind of understanding of politics.
Most of his political columns could be written just as well by any number of shrill commenters to be found on any leftist blog site. There are commenters here that write with such a political bent that are more interesting to read than Krugman by a significant degree.
Apparently, Warren, you were somehow unable to read my comment, which pertained to Krugman making stuff up. Perhaps you think making stuff up is an admirable quality in a pundit. I differ.
Y81, yeah I think he did write more than one piece on the topic, with nary a peep that his employer, the Sulzburger family, engaged in the very same practice he derided (alas, in a dishonest fashion) when Bush pursued it.
Ikram et al., people like Megan (and even Matt Yglesias, though not as much) have some chance of changing people's minds, because they look at both sides fairly, weigh the evidence (or at least pretend to do so), and explain their conclusions. People like Krugman are only good for riling up partisans who already agree with them. Now I suppose if you think the nation lacks adequate shrillness and polarization in its political discourse, you might think that was a good thing, but I don't.
Iraq is a perfect example. Since Krugman wrote such ignorant columns on Bush's management of the Texas Rangers, I would never believe anything he says (indeed, I never bothered to read anything he wrote) on Iraq. No matter what Bush did, Krugman would be against it, so unless you share that basic premise, nothing he writes is convincing. Megan is quite different. I often disagree with her, but I always listen, and she sometimes changes my mind.
In other words, you don't agree with him. Instead of saying the Krugman shouldn't be writing about the things he's writing about, you can tell us where he's wrong. Or, with all due respect, you can shut up.
Bam! JJF hits it out of the park!
Perhaps Ms. McArdle ought to ask herself, in between thoughts of hitting people with 2X4's, is who has been more correct, more often, about a wide range of subjects: Professor Dr. Krugman or herself.
At that point, she can post a retraction to this post... and then beat some war protesters with 2X4's.
We just need to look at the topics he has been unusually prescient:
1. GWB will be bad president
2. GWB is a really bad president
3. GWB is a liar
4. GWB has horrible economic policies
5. GWB is lying about his tax cuts
6. GWB was lying about WMD
7. The war will be horrible for the US.
There are lots more, look at the list that he is writing about now, that Megan has conviently listed. On which of these topics was he correct? On which of these is he correct?
JJF wrote: In other words, you don't agree with him. Instead of saying the Krugman shouldn't be writing about the things he's writing about, you can tell us where he's wrong. Or, with all due respect, you can shut up.
So basically, you don't agree with Jane, but can't say where she's wrong, except that you don't like what she wrote.
And then you tell her to shut up for doing it?
Meanwhile, it looks like fasteddie is buddying up to your turf, such as it is, so at least you'll have some company. Maybe you and he can meld your cognitive dissonance into a new Philip Glass composition?
I bet if you looked at Krugman's work over the past 7 years, it would hold up quite a lot better than that of any other NYT columnist or Megan McArdle.
People like Y81 and Will Allen-- why do you write him off as partisan instead of examining his arguments on the merits? I've never heard of the Texas Rangers business you're both going on about. I do remember Krugman's work on health care, Iraq, Social Security, and media criticism quite well-- and he's been more right on all of those things than any other major pundit that I can recall.
SavageView wrote: At that point, she can post a retraction to this post... and then beat some war protesters with 2X4's.
I'd be careful about bringing that up. Rumor has it she maintains an entire clandestine lumberyard, and sometimes switches to 4x4s when the 2x4 just isn't thick enough to penetrate the mental faculties of your garden-variety numbskull. And when a very, uh, special type of idiot turns up, then she breaks out three 6x8s bound together with carriage bolts. Affectionately known as "The Trifecta", this particular cluebat is one of the most effective tools known to man.
You don't want to be that special, ever. Suggest dropping the topic and moving away quietly. It's for the best.
Algernon, my life is short, and people who want me to buy their newspapers don't get too many chances, but if you get me a link for all Krugman's columns on the Bush administration's prescription drug program, I promise to read them, and reconsider my judgment that he is a shrill partisan.
I'm still waiting for either the hyperinflation or asset price deflation that Krugman predicted would follow from Bush's "horrible economic policies." While I've waited, my income has tripled during the past six years, so I'm pretty skeptical.
I don't care about reading columnists who are right about everything. I want to read columnists who are good writers, and do some original reporting, and offer insightful analysis. Krugman's OK at these things, but Megan's right, he used to be better.
Given the hierarchy you've listed, she must reserve California Redwoods for you.
Ya' see, Algernon, when I read a prominent columnist, and see that he is making stuff up out of thin air, is order to insinuate criminal activity by people the columnist differs with politically, I then pretty much start ignoring that columnist. I did the same thing in the Clinton years. I know, I know, I'm crazy to actually set a standard that a pundit should not, ya' know, lie about alleged criminal activity by the political opposition, in order to be worthy of my attention. Yep, that's me, loony as ever!
mickslam... looks like Krugman was wrong about all but 1 or 2 on your list.
EI
Rumor has it she maintains an entire clandestine lumberyard, and sometimes switches to 4x4s when the 2x4 just isn't thick enough to penetrate the mental faculties of your garden-variety numbskull.
Unbind the fasces, huh?
jenny
SavageView wrote: Given the hierarchy you've listed, she must reserve California Redwoods for you.
Don't be silly, nobody needs a redwood to attack a mouse. It just ain't sensible.
Meanwhile, since you're apparently not one to consider munificient advice, I abandon you to your fate. Ta!
Megan McArdle:
"Worst Affirmative Action Hire In History"
-Atrios
Heh. Indeed.
Atrios unleashes a deadly strike of pre-emptive snark back in 2003:
Jeebus, Megan. It’s one thing to recycle stale winger talking points from four years ago.
It’s quite another thing when a four-year-old parody by a Dirty F***ing Hippy expresses those talking points more concisely and precisely than you do.
"...it's just that I wish he would write more novel an interesting things."
Like, for example, your powerful and devastating critique of Krugman's foreign policy gaffs:
"... when he writes about things outside his field, he makes what are (I am told) elementary mistakes on things like foreign policy..."
Uh-huh. And when was the last time a magazine as prominent as the Atlantic took the right side of the press to task for repetition of conservative themes? (Silence.) Thought so.
Worse, for every Krugman there are two or three Mark Steins, three or four Charles Krauthammers, five or six David Frums and more than a few David Brooks. (There is only one Maureen Dowd, thank God.) It was like this during the Clinton administration at is has in many ways become worse under Bush.
Ms. McArdle stands as a stunning example of a prominent conservative position in America: only conservatives are allowed to speak, even regarding matters of which they know nothing or on which they have been consistently proved wrong. Anybody who writes something contrary is to be chided for even speaking. It's not enough that conservative viewpoints dominate almost all corners of the mainstream media, they must be the sole voice therein.
I like to think that at least half of my columns will still seem worth reading ten years from now. It seems to me that Krugman's columns almost always carry a near-term expiration date. It is hard to imagine that in 2015 there will be any reason to want to read a collection of Krugman's NYT columns from the last several years.
In fact, I wonder what he will be doing in 2010. When the rest of the country has moved on to the H. Clinton Presidency (or what have you), will he still be writing about the evils of Bush? He may have lost the ability to produce columns on any other topic.
What is Megan's basis for this claim: "I have started to doubt that strategic trade theory is going to push him into the Nobel-winning category."
This isn't from Megan's empirical and detailed economic research, so why doubt this?
meh.
These particular criticisms of krugman seem like pure time wasting. you'd rather he wrote about economics, ok, and you find his columns simplistic and repetitive.
Criticizing someone for not writing what you'd rather he write is dumb. Your opinion about what he should be writing isn't of any value at all - it's his column, he'll write what he wants.
And frankly you're not his intended audience, so i'm not surprised you don't like his columns.
He's not talking to you.
That's the way editorial voice works.
Get over it.
Further, i'd just like to point out that most of the rest of punditry is busily lying us into another war as we speak. just like they did just a few years ago. so why not critique someone who was then and is now both factually wrong and morally repugnant? leeden, podhoretz, kristol, etc., etc., etc.
Golly, all the people are so concerned that Krugman will lack for subject matter once he isn't spoiled for choice with only two columns per week to cover an administration that seems to be doggedly trying to wreak havoc and destroy our country in every possible way it can. I'm sure their heards just bleed.
Strangely, some of these same people wish Krugman would write about economic issues more often, as he do before he assuming his current role as Cassandra.
Again, I submit that Krugman's main offense is to have been right. And I haven't seen anything in this thread that argues against this theory.
Will Allen and y81's similar complaints about Krugman's coverage of the Rangers deal ring a bit hollow. I recommend that they read Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose on the subject of Dubya's earnings from the Rangers. The idea that Dubya benefitted corruptly from the Rangers deal - as he did at every previous point in his business career (and arguably in his federal political career as well) - hardly seems an inconceivable one.
This was lame. I'd rather he write about my canceled TV show, The Nine, but he doesn't. Is that something to criticize him for?
Egan, out.
Reflecting back on the Slate columns, the thing that was different then was the respect Krugman showed to those that disagreed with him. Krugman was defending centrist Clintonian policies against friendly adversaries -- liberals of the Robert Reich variety. Not willing to demonize his friends, he was lucid, thought-provoking, and very persuasive.
Now he knows no such restraight. As a result he persuades no one who isn't already in his camp.
Actually, Henry, he wasn't any more respectful back then; you (and I) just agreed with him then, so he seemed more palatable. Also, he was generally writing on topics where he really was an expert, so his arrogance was more justified. But if you followed his debates with the Reich crowd, et al., he was just as snotty, saying that none of them were economists so they should shut up and listen to him.
And he was just as snottily wrong once he ventured outside the realm of economics; for instace, his coverage of the Clinton health care plan involved him making stuff up about the politics of the situation because he was too lazy to pick up the phone and call people to find out what happened. (You don't need to pick up the phone to be an economist, but you do to be a journalist.)
He really doesn't know anything beyond the average editorial page reader once he tries to discuss politics, so his columns are no different than the average liberal blogger: conservatives are evil and want poor people to die; liberals care.
"Then there's the fact that in the new Paul Krugman's world, there seem to be only two explanatory variables for anything that ails you, me, or the economy: an unexplained secular increase in the general nastiness of rich people . . ."
Of course, that's not at all what he's saying: rather, in Paul Krugman's world, rich people behave exactly like rich people do in a favorable political climate, which is try to get richer. We've seen it in the Gilded Age, in the 20s, and now again in recent decades. That this tends to involve the dismantling of important regulations, the shredding of social safety nets, increasing insecurity, the redistribution of income upwards, growing inequality, etc - all these are merely the means to that end. Our modern-day robber barons aren't laughing gleefully at any of these things - well, except their ever-lessening taxes - that's just how it goes. They're an interest group after all - a very special interest group - and like other interest groups, in the absence of countervailing forces they will play a grand game of capture the politicians/agencies/etc. until the conditions produced by this imbalance spark (social) revolt or (economic) collapse.
So in a way this fan mail (albeit from a rather disappointed fan) rather than hate mail.
Maybe he got tired of writing things important to economists (but largely ignored in policy decisions) and feels he is doing something more significant now. That doesn't mean his old fans can't beg for him to please come back!
A sincere question:
I have never read any commentary by a libertarian that convinces me they know more than a smart 14-year old. They can manipulate abstractions but, like the young teen, they have (it seems to me) no experience in the real world--with adult emotions, with personal failure, with the exigencies of providing for a family, with a personal history of which they are both beneficiary and victim.
But I've never read a primary text of libertarian theory. So: seriously, what do you all recommend?
I would also say that I got more out of Krugman's old Slate columns than most of his NYT op eds. But practically any criticism of his NYT work pales into insignificance when you compare it with the simple fact that Krugman was pointing out basically all of the most fundamental mistakes that this Administration has made: usually before they were made, and, in many cases, when his views were highly unpopular.
There's no-one else who has a remotely comparable record as a pundit in the last eight years.
I was going to go on to make the obvious comparison, but it's laughably self-evident.
Yeah, MrWonderful, guys like Milton Friedman had no experience in the real world. Yep, that's the ticket.
Yes, Warren, I know they ring hollow to you, because you are a Krugman worshipper. He could write tomorrow that Bush had his minions build a weather machine, for the explicit purpose of re-flooding New Orleans, and you would likely just nod your head in agreement.
Well gee, Will, it's nice that you have so perceptively deduced my ovine qualities, and even my theology. I'll have to take your word for it, as you are clearly an expert when it comes to mindless following, doubtless as a result of your having amassed extensive experience.
P.S. Your response to MrWonderful's dismissively prefaced but seemingly sincere question just oozes class.
Yes, Warren, supposing that several million people with whom you disagree politically are devoid of real world experience is an action which typically demonstrates sincerity. Yessiree. And saying that someone else's claims ring hollow because of something Molly Ivins wrote does the same.
It was a sincere question which I thought I was prefacing with my own assumptions.
Given the eighth grade-level sarcasm of the first answer, my assumptions are one for one.
Next.
Well, MrWonderful, I apologize. It never once occurred to me that a grown adult would adopt the attitude that several million people with whom one differed politically were devoid of real world experience. My presumption was that such a stance was only adopted by "smart 14 year olds". You mean it isn't?
1. GWB will be bad president - possibly true. Not the worst by far, though. Carter was much worse.
2. GWB is a really bad president - Not true.
3. GWB is a liar - Not true. He's a politician and probably more honest than most.
4. GWB has horrible economic policies - Not true. Reducing taxes has been good for the economy. Some policies have been good and some have been bad.
5. GWB is lying about his tax cuts - Not sure about this one.
6. GWB was lying about WMD - This one is just wrong. He MAY have been mistaken (along with everyone else) but I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam's WMDs were shipped out of the country prior to the invasion. Oh, and that ignores the WMDs we have found in Iraq to date.
7. The war will be horrible for the US - Not a given and I doubt it will be. In fact, I suspect it will be good for the US in the long run.
Bush could have been better but hasn't been terrible. I strongly suspect that Kerry or Gore would have been worse. So Krugman's record looks pretty bad to me.
EI
EI, words fail me. I just don't know what to say. The idea that points 1 to 5 and 7 are even debatable is just insane. Point six is harder, as lying would mean he knew he was wrong, rather than just didn't care whether he was right. But that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Ten years from now - or even three - Republicans will be trying to pretend there never was a President George Walker Bush, just like Democrats typically avoid referring to the Carter presidency. The idea that the bunch of corrupt, lawbreaking, dishonest, secretive, incompetent, uncurious, sanctimonious, unrepentant nincompoops running this country basically has your seal of approval just shakes my faith in humanity.
Warren... I feel the same about you and those who are arguing that Bush is like Stalin and/or Hitler, that the War in Iraq is lost, etc...
I'm pretty sure you all aren't insane and your ability to construct grammatically correct sentences and read and generally understand what others write means that you are fairly intelligent. So I'm at a loss to explain the difference in opinion.
I have a very good friend who would agree with you on most things... and I know that he's smart and a good person.
EI
McCardle writing about Krugman is like Carrot Top opining on Steve Martin, Pee Wee slagging The Rock or Hannah Montana knocking Annie Lenox.
And really, shouldn't the Atlantic assign a literate intern to help McCardle with her comma and spelling problems?
"Paul Krugman is about a zillion times smarter than I am, and also, grows a prety impressive beard."
Mr Wonderful: it depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a sort of a pragmatic economics argument, I'd look either at Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson or Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom or Free to Choose (that last is the book that converted me to libertarianism). If you want something more abstractly philosophical, the classic is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. If you're looking for the arguments pushed about as far as they can go in a radical direction, but still fairly reasonable, I've heard really good things about David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, though I've never read it myself and so can't truly recommend it.
If you're looking for something snotty, arrogant, and empirical/economic, go with Rothbard. If you also want it fascinating but totally impenetrable, Mises' On Human Action. If you want a combination of rare brilliant insights with an amazing load of self-important adolescent hauteur, Rand.
But I would suggest something from the first list, not the second.
1. GWB will be bad president - possibly true. Not the worst by far, though. Carter was much worse.
2. GWB is a really bad president - Not true.
3. GWB is a liar - Not true. He's a politician and probably more honest than most.
4. GWB has horrible economic policies - Not true. Reducing taxes has been good for the economy. Some policies have been good and some have been bad.
5. GWB is lying about his tax cuts - Not sure about this one.
6. GWB was lying about WMD - This one is just wrong. He MAY have been mistaken (along with everyone else) but I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam's WMDs were shipped out of the country prior to the invasion. Oh, and that ignores the WMDs we have found in Iraq to date.
7. The war will be horrible for the US - Not a given and I doubt it will be. In fact, I suspect it will be good for the US in the long run.
Bush could have been better but hasn't been terrible. I strongly suspect that Kerry or Gore would have been worse. So Krugman's record looks pretty bad to me.
EI
El, anyone who would say any one of the above is an idiot. That you would say all of them indicates that you are too stupid to remember how to breathe on your own.
Again with the sarcasm.
You don't know that I'm a grown adult, but let's say that I am.
The fact that "several million people" believe something is neither here nor there. I can (and probably you can) cite the religious beliefs of several million people whose ardent agreement with which prompts me to think of them as fantasists who embrace ignorance and superstition.
One's economic philosophy may be just as religious, but at least we all agree there are objective facts and data to help at least marginally prove them more or less accurate.
As I originally said, I've never read a professional work of libertarian thinking. I've only read libertarian opinions on blogs. If that explains the quality of those opinions and accounts for my bias, go be surprised.
MrWonderful, I agree with your assessment of Will Allen (who is signally failing to make friends in the related thread at Yglesias' place), but don't you think it was a bit churlish to respond to Will's most recent bit of bile while failing to acknowledge Jagadul's comment, which was added to the thread more recently and seems like a thoughtful response to your request?
I used to also like Krugman before he became the type of crank that he so viciously attacks. I am not necessarily against the attacks on Bush, even if some of them are stretched and embellished to meet his publishing deadline at the last minute. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but I’m not about to blame him, or anyone else for that matter, for things which they are not responsible.
He published an op-ed in May entitled “fear of eating” in which he commits slander against Milton Friedman for the failure of the government to do its job of inspecting food properly despite the fact that many outbreaks occurred in the Clinton years when Washington was run by the so-called “e-coli conservatives”. As a result, I sent the NY Times a rather scathing response using Krugman’s own quotes and material from his previous shrill writings. But the NY Times, nor any other media outlet, had the audacity to publish it.
Earnest asked itself and answered: "1. GWB will be bad president - possibly true. Not the worst by far, though. Carter was much worse.
2. GWB is a really bad president - Not true.
3. GWB is a liar - Not true. He's a politician and probably more honest than most.
4. GWB has horrible economic policies - Not true. Reducing taxes has been good for the economy. Some policies have been good and some have been bad.
5. GWB is lying about his tax cuts - Not sure about this one.
6. GWB was lying about WMD - This one is just wrong. He MAY have been mistaken (along with everyone else) but I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam's WMDs were shipped out of the country prior to the invasion. Oh, and that ignores the WMDs we have found in Iraq to date.
7. The war will be horrible for the US - Not a given and I doubt it will be. In fact, I suspect it will be good for the US in the long run.
Bush could have been better but hasn't been terrible. I strongly suspect that Kerry or Gore would have been worse. So Krugman's record looks pretty bad to me."
Krugman has had many critics, and some of them make valid points, but Earnest isn't one of them.
Earnest is an idiot. He has suspicions and he has impulses but he doesn't have a cogent thought in his repertoire.
He is a reliable member of the Republican base.
I don't agree that Krugman is not writing about economics anymore; he is writing about the effects of bad economic policy, and not only bad policy but policies that have depended on fundamentally dishonest propositions or false pretenses.
A thousand Krugmans writing every day for a hundred years could perhaps address every crooked and evil act undertaken by this administration; what is amazing is that only Krugman, out of all the major columnists in the major media outlets, has been able and in a position to criticize the administration outside the Colbert Report formulation of "Great or Greatest?"
And those who compare him to Coulter should honestly ask themselves if maybe an intervention is on the way. Coulter consistently and repeatedly makes goofy and histrionic statements that her deranged fan base allege are comical but frequently demand the death of some person, or that harm should befall some group or other. Krugman never once to my knowledge demanded the invasion and conversion of some foreign country, or wished that, say, Mankiw or Luskin were attacked by terrorists so that they would admit that he was right. This is such a fundamentally dishonest pairing that it makes the commenter look delusional or perhaps remunerated, or both.
Warren Terra-
Absolutely. I hadn't seen Jagadul's post. That's all I was looking for. Thanks for the note.
I don't agree that Krugman is not writing about economics anymore; he is writing about the effects of bad economic policy, and not only bad policy but policies that have depended on fundamentally dishonest propositions or false pretenses.
A thousand Krugmans writing every day for a hundred years could perhaps address every crooked and evil act undertaken by this administration; what is amazing is that only Krugman, out of all the major columnists in the major media outlets, has been able and in a position to criticize the administration outside the Colbert Report formulation of "Great or Greatest?"
And those who compare him to Coulter should honestly ask themselves if maybe an intervention is on the way. Coulter consistently and repeatedly makes goofy and histrionic statements that her deranged fan base allege are comical but frequently demand the death of some person, or that harm should befall some group or other. Krugman never once to my knowledge demanded the invasion and conversion of some foreign country, or wished that, say, Mankiw or Luskin were attacked by terrorists so that they would admit that he was right. This is such a fundamentally dishonest pairing that it makes the commenter look delusional or perhaps remunerated, or both.
Yes, Warren, when people ask if they can physically assault me, I tend to respond in an unfriendly manner. That you find this notable brings into question whether your views of what constitutes normal civil behavior are, well, entirely sound.
MrWonderful, here's a helpful hint. If you find sarcasm undesirable in a dialogue, don't preface your inquiry regarding philosophy about which you are ignorant with an observation that those who gravitate to a point of view that is congruent with that philosophy are like "smart 14 year olds". Are you normally so ignorant of simple human relations as well?
But could they write Shakespeare? That is an awesome quote. Can I take it to Cafe Press?
Oh, and Ezra is a poli sci major writing fellow, not a lit major intern.
I've always liked Krugman, but not enough to purchase Times Select.
I suspect his supposed decline as a writer has less to do with Krugman himself, and much more to do with the subject matter.
It's tough to exaggerate what an awful, awful President George W. Bush is. He truly has the Midas touch in reverse, where everything turns to a four letter word very different from gold. It's really quite stultifying.
Given the outrage fatigue that I feel, as a mere citizen and occasional blog commenter, I can only imagine what real writers go through.
And really, shouldn't the Atlantic assign a literate intern to help McCardle with her comma and spelling problems?
No. They bought it, they wear it.
I guess name-calling substitutes for debate on the Left. Wow. I don't even know how to respond. I see an interesting mix of dogmatic thinking and repeating baloney that's become entrenched among the Left as conventional wisdom mixed with logic and rational debate. But the lies that have been repeated until they are accepted as truth sort of taint the logical conclusions.
It seems like the comments here are being sucked into the Lefty echo chamber and anyone who disagrees is "too stupid to breathe."
*gasp*
Y'all keep shouting and then you won't have to hear anything you don't want to hear.
EI
This comment deleted for profanity and personal attacks
Maybe what you really want is not to have someone who knows what they are talking about telling the truth to power.
FAIL.
Sorry, but using phrase like "truth to power" automatically disqualifies you as a serious person. It's like saying "vast right-wing conspiracy" or "let's go Yankees!".
Shorter McArdle: Krugman writes about things I don't understand, but my basement dwelling right-wing pals assure me they're smarter than him.
Even shorter McArdle: (drools)
And I *have* been churlish in not thanking jagadul for those recommendations. I'll read the Friedman.
Rand you can have.
Many thanks.
Anybody could have Rand.
For free, but the penicillin was extra.
1. GWB will be bad president
2. GWB is a really bad president
3. GWB is a liar
4. GWB has horrible economic policies
5. GWB is lying about his tax cuts
6. GWB was lying about WMD
7. The war will be horrible for the US.
Okay, so Krugman has written those seven columns. About 500 times each.
Life is short.
Megan is annoyed when Krugman repeatedly and vigorously tells the truth about the Bush administration -- the highly embarassing truths which she tries to avoid ever mentioning.
Oddly, she sort of liked Krugman back when he said things she agreed with. Who would have guessed?
Megan's going to have to deal with her reputation as a head-in-the-sand Bush apologist at some point. The sooner the better, though it already may be too late for her.
NOTE: Will Allen has been ranting about Krugman's Texas Rangers articles continuously ever since they first came out. Don't let him get started.
Yeah, John, it's "continuous" to mention that Krugman is dishonest, when the topic of Krugman is raised. I'd be happy to never mention it again if people like yourself would stop being dishonest in defense of Krugman's dishonesty.
PK had the temerity to point out that one of America's political parties systematically lies to the American public to implement policies that hurt the vast majority of Americans.
For this simple insight he must be discredited, defamed and destroyed, less anyone listen too closely and act on this reality.
Wouldn't be good for the base you know.
PS- I like the irony of libertarians denouncing "leftists" for dogmatic thinking.
I'd echo Jadagul's reading list suggestions; knowing the risk of mentioning this author's name, I'll add this book anyway: Charles Murray's What It Means to be a Libertarian is a good quick, short intro for someone who has never read anything libertarian before. Virginia Postrel's Future and its Enemies is another good one.
Neither author is a fundamentalist libertarian, and neither book is heavy into either philosophy or economics; both provide some insight for a novice into libertarian attitudes and mindsets. (Nozick is probably your best bet for a more academic source. Hayek's Road to Serfdom is definitely worth a read, also.)
(And Rand is good if you want some reassurance; if you read her works before you read some of the ones mentioned above, they'll sound much more moderate to you.)
Mr Wonderful,
John Stuart Mill isn't usually thought of as a libertarian, but for an introduction to libertarian principles, you can't go wrong with "On Liberty."
It's certainly not illogical to think that the serious issues this country is facing is not economic. Once you get there, I think the only thing that needs to be said has been written by Freddie in the very first comment.
"Hayek's Road to Serfdom is definitely worth a read, also."
Cartoon version is here.
Dear Northern Observer-
I would have to agree with your quotation that "one of America's political parties systematically lies to the American public to implement policies that hurt the vast majority of Americans.". I fear that you and I would probably disagree on which party that is. I venture to say that welfare, bi-lingualism, and Vietnam have been demonstrably bad for their victims and "whole word" reading and "fuzzy math" are not exactly successes.
As for libertarian books, I strongly recommend Bertrand de Juvenal's , "The Ethics of Redistribution", and Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit".
I'm just glad you used 'while' in your last sentence. I expected a 'whilst'
Did you read Krugman's Monday takedown of Petraeus, O'Hanlon and Pollack? The greatest concentration of truth on the subject yet to appear anywhere. Krugman dares to say the emperor has no clothes when the rest of the media kowtows in deference to the Bushies.
Krugman should be lauded for the hero that he is, and yet, the mainstream media, mostly concerned with covering their own backsides, and those of their Beltway patrons, ridicule him.
I know it is fashionable among the media in crowd to sneer at Krugman, just like they sneer at Gore. It's too bad, the Atlantic Monthly has to join in too.
Was it Krugman or someone else who tried to link Bush to the Enron scandal by mistakenly claiming that the Bush-owned Texas Rangers had played in Enron Field, then, when told the Houston Astros played in Enron Field, misunderstood the nature of the correction and thought that meant Bush owned the Astros? The columnist in question (whether it was Krugman or someone else) did get it right on the third try.
For those wanting to credit Krugman for his presicence, a quote:
McArdle, thou art Goldberg.
Epic fail.