3 ms·

Krugman's science is economics. Economics is pretty much the pinnacle of politics intersecting with science. His view on the science is that the Keynesian mod

by JPKab 14y ago

Krugman's science is economics. Economics is pretty much the pinnacle of politics intersecting with science. His view on the science is that the Keynesian model is correct, and he sees an entire political party which has embraced the Austrian model which most economists disagree with. This is why he writes passionately in support of government spending during times of recession/depression. He argues, correctly in my opinion, that we are in a depression due to a collective debt paydown period, which is actually a healthy activity by itself, but in a collective form can wreak havoc on an economy.

Create 14y ago
You being are mislead. It is pseudoscience. http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks_at_the_festival_of_economics_trento_italy/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks... http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw
CWuestefeld 14y ago
I don't disagree with the essentials of what you said, and in fact Krugman himself sits pretty near the peak of economics, but... 1. Krugman-cum-commentator occasionally contradicts Krugman-cum-economist. For example, [1] 2. Krugman falls into the same trap as most economic commentators, in assuming that one side of the Keynes/Hayek divide has been proven right (which side depends on the commentator in question), refusing to acknowledge the lack of predictive success that the entire spectrum of macroeconomics suffers from. The truth of the matter is that neither side should consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs. And since this is the case, they ought to be a little more humble in their assertions. 3. The role of economics is to help us understand choices. It cannot tell us what choices are correct, only how they compare. Making policy requires that we overlay some value system to weigh those choices. Yet Krugman (and others) continue to overlook this part of it, and simply assuming the values, acting as if policy follows directly. 4. It's false that the GOP has embraced the Austrian model. Both the GOP and DEM are corporatist, and love regulation -- just of somewhat different sorts. Despite their rhetoric, except at the fringes, the GOP does not actually follow Austrian, Chicago, or any free-market ideology. [1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/krugman-v-krugman.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/kru... EDIT: full disclosure: I'm frequently guilty of #2 myself. EDIT 2: change "frequently" to "occasionally"; don't want to be too hyperbolic.
- georgemcbay 14y ago
  "The truth of the matter is that neither side should "consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs." There isn't a science that can make reliable predictions if the model relies on inputs consisting of even a tiny bit of human decision making, and economics is completely controlled by human decision making.

by JPKab 14y ago

Create 14y ago

You being are mislead. It is pseudoscience. http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks_at_the_festival_of_economics_trento_italy/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks... http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw

CWuestefeld 14y ago

I don't disagree with the essentials of what you said, and in fact Krugman himself sits pretty near the peak of economics, but... 1. Krugman-cum-commentator occasionally contradicts Krugman-cum-economist. For example, [1] 2. Krugman falls into the same trap as most economic commentators, in assuming that one side of the Keynes/Hayek divide has been proven right (which side depends on the commentator in question), refusing to acknowledge the lack of predictive success that the entire spectrum of macroeconomics suffers from. The truth of the matter is that neither side should consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs. And since this is the case, they ought to be a little more humble in their assertions. 3. The role of economics is to help us understand choices. It cannot tell us what choices are correct, only how they compare. Making policy requires that we overlay some value system to weigh those choices. Yet Krugman (and others) continue to overlook this part of it, and simply assuming the values, acting as if policy follows directly. 4. It's false that the GOP has embraced the Austrian model. Both the GOP and DEM are corporatist, and love regulation -- just of somewhat different sorts. Despite their rhetoric, except at the fringes, the GOP does not actually follow Austrian, Chicago, or any free-market ideology. [1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/krugman-v-krugman.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/kru... EDIT: full disclosure: I'm frequently guilty of #2 myself. EDIT 2: change "frequently" to "occasionally"; don't want to be too hyperbolic.

georgemcbay 14y ago
"The truth of the matter is that neither side should "consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs." There isn't a science that can make reliable predictions if the model relies on inputs consisting of even a tiny bit of human decision making, and economics is completely controlled by human decision making.