Has Paul Krugman Outlived His Usefulness?

I noticed this past week that for quite some time now, any blogger, right or left, libertarian, democrat or republican, that leads his or her story with:

Paul Krugman writes…

Get’s skipped and the story gets ignored.  To waste electrons on what an ex-economist has to say seems worse than sleeping with the lights on.

11 responses to “Has Paul Krugman Outlived His Usefulness?

  1. Except, pino, Krugman has been right. Just look back and you’ll find that – elvis-almighty – he was right.

    A month or so ago, David Frum (Bush economics speechwriter) looked back at the last decade and said it made him question conservative thinking about matters economic. He said:

    “Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause”

    Here: http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-enemies-right

    • Except, pino, Krugman has been right.

      The thing is Mo, he doesn’t agree with himself.

      I find Krugman and all people kneeling at his feet to be boring.

      • Certainly his views and projections about current issues change over time as circumstances change or new information becomes available. That’s true – or should be – of everyone.

        But his theories of how economics works don’t change. At least not that I’ve discerned, allowing for the fact that my own knowledge of things economic is absolutely minimal.

        So am I boring??? Sigh . . . .

      • But his theories of how economics works don’t change.

        Well, he used to think that if we extended unemployment benefits, we would increase unemployment. He no longer thinks that way.

        So am I boring??? Sigh . . . .

        Just when discussing Krugman 😉

      • That’s a new one to me. But I’ll go googling.

      • Just found this from 2010: “the kind of unemployment likely to leave workers permanently unemployable”. That’s not exacly saying to unemployment would increase, but that the long term unemployed would have difficulty being hired back into the work force. Which we know now is turning out to be tragiclally true.

      • That’s a new one to me.

        Here we have Krugman saying:

        Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.

        “What Democrats believe,” he says “is what textbook economics says”:
        But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

        Krugman scoffs: “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view–but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.”

        That’s the Liberal Democratic spokesman.

        Here is Krugman when he was actually an economist:

        Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

        The link:


      • I went to the google link (in the Nat’l Review article) The quote at NR is incomplete. He was pointing out what happens in Europe because of thier overgenerous benefits, and drew the distinction with what happens here. He wasn’t talking of course about policy during a deep recession, which of necessity would be different and would need longer than our usual 26 weeks.

  2. National Review has done various articles on Krugman. A few times in his life he has made intelligent statements. But more often he has come out with basically nonsense . Wasted potential .

    • Wasted indeed. Which is why he got a chair at Princeton and the Nobel for economics.

      • Which is why he got a chair at Princeton

        Indeed. However, from our point of view, getting a chair at Princeton for holding liberal beliefs is akin to getting a chair at the playboy mansion for liking girls.

        Nobel for economics.

        Given that Obama won the Peace Prize from Nobel BEFORE he was even elected President should shed light on what the vast majority of the world thinks about those crazy people up there!

Leave a Reply