4 ms·

He uses his "intellectual" status to make political commentary and pass it off as fact. He contradicts himself again and again to whatever stance aligns with hi

He uses his "intellectual" status to make political commentary and pass it off as fact. He contradicts himself again and again to whatever stance aligns with his political allies. I'm on my phone now so I can't find the best examples but just take a look: https://twitter.com/kevinwglass/status/818465909996134400 https://twitter.com/kevinwglass/status/818465909996134400

leereeves 10y ago
That's certainly one example in which he clearly drifts from economics to politics: > [Republicans are] going to blow up the deficit mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy. ... Meanwhile, it will make the rich richer, even as cuts in social spending make the poor poorer and undermine security for the middle class. But that, of course, is the intention. [emphasis added] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-again.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-a... And as that tweet pointed out, he's now arguing that deficits matter (conveniently, at the same time Republicans took power), while just a few months ago, predicting Hillary would win, he argued that deficits don't matter. > The good news is that elite discourse seems, finally, to be moving in the right direction. Five years ago the Beltway crowd was fixated on debt and deficits as the great evils. Today, not so much. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.ht... Has the economy really changed so much in a few months - or have only the politics changed?
- ericdykstra 10y ago
  Here's a paper on economists that change their position based on the political winds. Krugman is by far the biggest offender: https://econjwatch.org/file_download/430/BarkleyMay2010.pdf?mimetype=pdf https://econjwatch.org/file_download/430/BarkleyMay2010.pdf?... The conclusion on Krugman is as follows: > To my knowledge Krugman has not addressed his overt partisanship. Until he does so, it is difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt. Krugman has changed his tune in a significant way regarding the budget deficit when the White House has changed party.
- gpawl 10y ago
  He's loose with his wording, but he makes a clear distinction between "borrow and invest in infrastructure" vs "borrow and refund wealthy people" > Now, government borrowing can still be justified if it serves an important purpose: Interest rates are still very low, and borrowing at those low rates to invest in much-needed infrastructure is still a very good idea, both because it would raise productivity and because it would provide a bit of insurance against future downturns.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    While I agree that we should spend more on infrastructure, that too is a political argument (deciding what's "an important purpose"). Krugman has every right to express his political views, but it should be clear that he's doing so.
    - jdietrich 10y ago
      We know to a high degree of confidence that investments in infrastructure give a good return on investment. The trickle-down theory has remarkably little evidence to support it. It's a perfectly reasonable economic argument that deficit spending on infrastructure is sensible, while running a deficit to fund tax cuts is a bad idea.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        Every time a factory moves to a new location with lower taxes, or a wealthy person transfers assets to a tax haven, or a company refuses to repatriate earnings because of taxes, we see evidence that lower taxes have economic benefits.
        croon 10y ago
        I honestly have never seen that evidence. I've heard it used as an excuse the last 40 years to lower high income taxes though. Any sources/links/examples?
gd1 10y ago
Why the fuck have you been downvoted?
sgustard 10y ago
The links below are all clearly marked "opinion." You are going to distrust the paper's news-gathering process because of who they invite to write op-ed pieces?
- baursak 10y ago
  It's more subtle even for news-gathering. Here's a similar perspective from the Left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp69gKVe9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp69gKVe9o I highly recommend watching the whole thing.

leereeves 10y ago

That's certainly one example in which he clearly drifts from economics to politics: > [Republicans are] going to blow up the deficit mainly by cutting taxes on the wealthy. ... Meanwhile, it will make the rich richer, even as cuts in social spending make the poor poorer and undermine security for the middle class. But that, of course, is the intention. [emphasis added] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-again.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/deficits-matter-a... And as that tweet pointed out, he's now arguing that deficits matter (conveniently, at the same time Republicans took power), while just a few months ago, predicting Hillary would win, he argued that deficits don't matter. > The good news is that elite discourse seems, finally, to be moving in the right direction. Five years ago the Beltway crowd was fixated on debt and deficits as the great evils. Today, not so much. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.ht... Has the economy really changed so much in a few months - or have only the politics changed?

ericdykstra 10y ago
Here's a paper on economists that change their position based on the political winds. Krugman is by far the biggest offender: https://econjwatch.org/file_download/430/BarkleyMay2010.pdf?mimetype=pdf https://econjwatch.org/file_download/430/BarkleyMay2010.pdf?... The conclusion on Krugman is as follows: > To my knowledge Krugman has not addressed his overt partisanship. Until he does so, it is difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt. Krugman has changed his tune in a significant way regarding the budget deficit when the White House has changed party.
gpawl 10y ago
He's loose with his wording, but he makes a clear distinction between "borrow and invest in infrastructure" vs "borrow and refund wealthy people" > Now, government borrowing can still be justified if it serves an important purpose: Interest rates are still very low, and borrowing at those low rates to invest in much-needed infrastructure is still a very good idea, both because it would raise productivity and because it would provide a bit of insurance against future downturns.
- leereeves 10y ago
  While I agree that we should spend more on infrastructure, that too is a political argument (deciding what's "an important purpose"). Krugman has every right to express his political views, but it should be clear that he's doing so.
  - jdietrich 10y ago
    We know to a high degree of confidence that investments in infrastructure give a good return on investment. The trickle-down theory has remarkably little evidence to support it. It's a perfectly reasonable economic argument that deficit spending on infrastructure is sensible, while running a deficit to fund tax cuts is a bad idea.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      Every time a factory moves to a new location with lower taxes, or a wealthy person transfers assets to a tax haven, or a company refuses to repatriate earnings because of taxes, we see evidence that lower taxes have economic benefits.
      - croon 10y ago
        I honestly have never seen that evidence. I've heard it used as an excuse the last 40 years to lower high income taxes though. Any sources/links/examples?

gd1 10y ago

Why the fuck have you been downvoted?

sgustard 10y ago

The links below are all clearly marked "opinion." You are going to distrust the paper's news-gathering process because of who they invite to write op-ed pieces?

baursak 10y ago
It's more subtle even for news-gathering. Here's a similar perspective from the Left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp69gKVe9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp69gKVe9o I highly recommend watching the whole thing.