I took some flak on liberal blogs for pointing out that Paul Krugman has been the voice of doom on the economy for nigh on a decade. But there was good reason to think that there might be a recession, my critics cried.
Here's the problem. What's the one time that Paul Krugman didn't forecast a recession? That would be when we actually had a recession. It just wasn't a recession that could be blamed on George Bush.
Given how many times you poke this particular Voodoo Doll, you must be about deaf from the screaming.
Ygelesias' response to your earlier post is worth addressing, no?
So some whiny cry babies got upset, so what? Chin up. Kinda like when they say "it ain't bragging when it's true", well, poking holes with Krugman's "facts" and flawed observation of data is nothing more than calling a spade a spade. That being said, picking on Krugman is WAY to easy, like shooting ducks in a barrel.
Megan: Read your article about Newark NY. I was born (1946)and raised there leaving only to go to college. My father, Milton H. Elzufon, was its Mayor from 1955-1959 and 1961-1972. I have nothing but fond recollections of a GREAT place to grow up. I still go to all my high school reunions (next one is July 2009). How did you chance upon it? Would really enjoy hearing from you. Thanks. My work number is 302-504-3221. John
This is an odd statement to make, given that in the column referenced, Krugman said this:
picking on Krugman is WAY to easy, like shooting ducks in a barrel.
Only the shooting part is easy. It's putting the ducks in the barrel that's hard.
ScentofViolets, there are disreputable, intellectually contemptible arguments, but the claim that the 2001 recession was caused by President Bush's "talking down" the economy in January and February of that year is a little beyond that.
ScentofViolets,
Krugman speaks about the "consumer funk" as an anomoly:
"The one really negative piece of economic news is that consumer confidence has plunged, to an extent that is hard to understand given the still relatively good news about jobs. Why should consumers suddenly have become so pessimistic?"
Everything else (he tells us) suggest good things to come.
He even begins his column by calling GWB "Chicken Little". In other words, he doesn't believe the sky is falling. He was wrong.
At this point I can't even tell who's ahead in the special pleading derby: Ron Paul's apologists or Paul Krugman's apologists.
I second y81's post above...
Anyway, it's quite amusing to see Mankiw take shots at his old Professor, once even comparing him to Jerry Springer. Not to be outdone, the Economist compared him to Michael Moore.
Jokes aside, it's really sad to see what's become of the man. He did some very good work in economics, but now he's making himself a laughingstock.
I don't think you really need to be an economist to say that we are entering a recession.
Perhaps the 43 trillion dollars in promises to Americans for SSA and Medicare doesn't seem like such a big deal today because hopefully we can keep things afloat long enough to pass along the obligation to the future generations. The obligations under Medicare (with the new prescription coverage) is 5 times larger than our Social Security crisis! National Health Care sure sounds like a great idea!
Our economy has survived longer than expected, but it is hard to face the reality that all of the signs of doomsday seem to be happening, in short order.
It all boils down to: who wants to get the shaft? Should it be the people who elected the government who made the promises? Should it be Genration X&Y, who will finance those promises with little hope of getting anything in return? Should it be Gen X & Y's children? I've heard of kids running up a parent's credit card, but I suppose parents will get the last laugh...sticking their kids with the 43 trillion dollar shaft.
Keeping things in perspective, if you took a stack of 100 dollar bills, it would travel around the entire earth 1.18 times (I'm not talking about end to end either, I'm talking about a stack like you get from the bank, only 29,380 miles high). (I remember joking about it when it was only as high as the empire state building?) A stack of 1 dollar bills would travel to the moon a mere 12.3 times.
I suppose you would say that David Walker, the head of the GAO is wrong also. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7461407498377956300
Thanks for trying to keep my hopes up though.
Yglesias picked apart Megan's previous Krugman-bashing post. The result - most of the quotes that were supposed to make Krugman look like a dope were actually pretty accurate.
All this Krugman bashing is infantile - just stupid ad hominem attacks against a first rate thinker. So you guys don't like his politics; so you don't like the fact that he's been largely right about the Bush administration and you've been largely wrong; so you don't like the fact that he's a lot smarter and more analytical than you (or me).
Get over it. If you have something substantive to say about one of his arguments, then say it. If you're reduced to trolling the archives to find some prediction he made that didn't pan out, it looks like desperation.
At this point I can't even tell who's ahead in the special pleading derby: Ron Paul's apologists or Paul Krugman's apologists.
It all begins to make more sense if you imagine Ron Paul as L. Ron Hubbard and Paul Krugman as Joseph Smith.
So Megan has a belief - she links to what she thinks is evidence for that belief. The evidence is criticized. So Megan responds by moving on to a new argument. Never a good sign for the first argument.
Daniel then thinks this is a good time to write "some whiny cry babies got upset" and praise Megan for "poking holes with Krugman's 'facts'."
I am still hoping someone can explain to me why the quote below is evidence that Krugman is overly pessimistic. Is that too whiny?
"If housing prices actually started falling, we'd be looking at [an economy pushed] right back into recession. That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market ... is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble." — Paul Krugman, May 2005
best,
Tom
Sigh. Is english a second or third language for you folks. Read what Megan wrote, then read what I wrote. Then tell me exactly how my response is supposed to be construed as apologetics for Krugman.
Did I mention any names? If the shoe doesn't fit you needn't wear it.
Where are these apologists, then? I really don't see them in large numbers here.
In fact, the only reason I commented was because of the joke: Megan says he didn't predict the recession, probably because he couldn't blame it on Bush.
As the referenced article makes clear to the contrary, Krugman says that if there is a recession coming up, it will all be Bush's fault.
As I said, I thought it was kind of funny, but I'll admit to a sometimes odd sense of humor.
Tom G.
You fall into the same trap many of The Krug's apologists due... failing to see predictions as sensitive to time.
While in the long run The Krug was right aobut housing, which EVERYONE knew was a bubble, he massively jumped the gun on the "final, feverish stages" which really weren't to come from another 2+ years!!!
The US economy is cyclical, not regularly so, but eventually so. The man has been predicting a recession since we pulled out of the last one (which he didn't predict or even notice for a long time), and so of course he will eventually be right. But he has been consistently wrong, and stunningly so in some cases, for most of the last 6 years concerning the economy from a macro level.
A good example of this is here written right in the middle of a strong quarter wich preceded a scorching hot quarter. The Krug is a brilliant economist and a telented writes, but he is a partisan hack when he writes for the NYT, does the talk show rounds and opines on poicy. His stats are cherry-picked, his arguments simplistic and he lets his opinion trump his facts.
Tom,
Skullberg hit it with : You fall into the same trap many of The Krug's apologists due...failing to see predictions as sensitive to time.
I, perhaps we, are not taking THIS ONE SPECIFIC statement, but rather his endless "the sky is falling" routine. It is like someone who plays the numbers at the jai alai fronton, sooner or later his number will come in, but he's been at it for a while and still hasn't hit.
Skullberg,
Your timing is off. Check the Case Shiller house price indices. Prices began falling in mid 2006. One year after Krugman said we were approaching "the final feverish stage of the bubble", the bubble burst. That's excellent timing not poor. The use of that quote as an example of extreme pessismism indicates a lack of care in judging Krugman.
Some of the other cited comments clearly were wrong, but others were not. It's funny that Megan and many of her supporters can not even tell the good ones from the bad.
Your comment that everyone knew it was a bubble is ridiculous. Many people talked about a buble, but only a few individuals made significant bets on housing prices falling (and they are now reaping large financial awards). Most of the banks are taking staggering losses because they misjudged the market.
Tom
Daniel,
See my comment above on timing. I assume the list Megan linked to was meant to be a "best shot" list. I chose to attack the most egregious inclusion because I know how hard it is to convince anyone of anything. But several other examples are also sketchy. I do think Krugman was too pessimistic, but as for biased, I think critics are far worse.
Tom