5 ms·

You seem to be missing the nuance. Krugman's over-arching point was that cutting taxes on the rich doesn't boost the economy. His point about Clinton wasn't to

You seem to be missing the nuance. Krugman's over-arching point was that cutting taxes on the rich doesn't boost the economy. His point about Clinton wasn't to say that raising taxes boosted the economy. All else being equal, it makes no sense to assert that raising taxes would provide an economic boost. Raising taxes removes money from the economy; the expectation would be that that would slow the economy. Krugman's point was that if supply-side economics were true, only cutting taxes should boost the economy and raising taxes should cause a disaster. Clinton raised taxes and what actually happened was that the economy did great. Therefore, the prediction of disaster was clearly, indisputably wrong.

icelancer 9y ago
The problem is that I agree largely with Krugman, not disagree. I think taxes should go up. I think rhetoric that is found in his columns does it very little justice, however.
- mtdewcmu 9y ago
  I think Krugman undercuts his credibility somewhat by being explicitly partisan. It makes it easier to dismiss his point of view, if you don't read his arguments carefully. Besides the fact that he writes lucidly about economics, what really impresses me is that, having followed his column for 15+ years, his assessments are consistently proved right by history. Most recently, he argued forcefully against austerity, when austerity was in vogue and people were making dire predictions of coming inflation. Bernanke was relatively in agreement with Krugman and favored cheap money (too timidly, Krugman thought). Krugman's predictions of long-term low inflation were borne out, of course. When Krugman strays from the topic of economics, I don't take him seriously. His opinions about politics are fairly worthless. You have to consider what his expertise is in.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    >his assessments are consistently proved right by history Wouldn't say that. His predictions about the Internet, specifically, are laughably incorrect. He's since tried to play it off like he was intentionally trying to be provocative, or was supposed to say something silly... which is a coward's way out. EDIT: His theories on Bitcoin are pretty devoid of intelligence, regardless of whether or not he ends up being correct. >His opinions about politics are fairly worthless. Yes, I agree. He should largely be banned from writing about them considering how much it undermines his areas of expertise.
    - mtdewcmu 9y ago
      The examples of bad predictions that you mentioned are outside his area of expertise. I usually skip those columns. He has to write two columns a week and I think he runs out of topics. His on-topic columns can be repetitive, too. The solution is not to force yourself to read the column if you know it's going to be bad. If it's not about pure economics, don't read it.

icelancer 9y ago

The problem is that I agree largely with Krugman, not disagree. I think taxes should go up. I think rhetoric that is found in his columns does it very little justice, however.

mtdewcmu 9y ago
I think Krugman undercuts his credibility somewhat by being explicitly partisan. It makes it easier to dismiss his point of view, if you don't read his arguments carefully. Besides the fact that he writes lucidly about economics, what really impresses me is that, having followed his column for 15+ years, his assessments are consistently proved right by history. Most recently, he argued forcefully against austerity, when austerity was in vogue and people were making dire predictions of coming inflation. Bernanke was relatively in agreement with Krugman and favored cheap money (too timidly, Krugman thought). Krugman's predictions of long-term low inflation were borne out, of course. When Krugman strays from the topic of economics, I don't take him seriously. His opinions about politics are fairly worthless. You have to consider what his expertise is in.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >his assessments are consistently proved right by history Wouldn't say that. His predictions about the Internet, specifically, are laughably incorrect. He's since tried to play it off like he was intentionally trying to be provocative, or was supposed to say something silly... which is a coward's way out. EDIT: His theories on Bitcoin are pretty devoid of intelligence, regardless of whether or not he ends up being correct. >His opinions about politics are fairly worthless. Yes, I agree. He should largely be banned from writing about them considering how much it undermines his areas of expertise.
  - mtdewcmu 9y ago
    The examples of bad predictions that you mentioned are outside his area of expertise. I usually skip those columns. He has to write two columns a week and I think he runs out of topics. His on-topic columns can be repetitive, too. The solution is not to force yourself to read the column if you know it's going to be bad. If it's not about pure economics, don't read it.