5 ms·

The GIFs are clearly the product of some effort, but I would've preferred if the article itself were a bit more thorough. In particular, it mentions several de

by comex 11y ago

The GIFs are clearly the product of some effort, but I would've preferred if the article itself were a bit more thorough. In particular, it mentions several debates between Krugman and other economists that seem to have a basis in more or less factual allegations - whether switching to a different month as a basis for a comparison would indeed seriously undermine one of his arguments, whether he failed to predict such-and-such (really, in general whether he's been as spot-on over the years as he himself claims), etc. What I'd really like to read would be a Politifact-style third party analysis of the disputes. Of course, there is no such thing as a truly objective fact check, but an attempt would at least give me some idea of the reality of the situation. I could try to do the research myself, but I don't know the first thing about economics, so I expect it would be rather difficult... doesn't prevent me from taking a casual interest in the matter.

zurn 11y ago
Indeed. This sounds like they just gathered soundbites from his opponents without any attempt at even-handedness, even though many of the issues have been followed by a lot of back-and-forth in public fora. Followers of Krugman's blog can recognise many counterarguments in the article which have been specifically addressed in his blog (and in many cases credibly overturned). Also it would be fair to let his side pick a share of the debate points.
maxlybbert 11y ago
There are no GIFs, but I enjoyed the "Three Wrongs Don't Make a Right" article ( http://fee.org/freeman/detail/paul-krugman-three-wrongs-dont-make-a-right http://fee.org/freeman/detail/paul-krugman-three-wrongs-dont... ): "Krugman, armed with his Keynesian model, came into the Great Recession thinking that (a) nominal interest rates can’t go below 0 percent, (b) total government spending reductions in the United States amid a weak recovery would lead to a double dip, and (c) persistently high unemployment would go hand in hand with accelerating price deflation. Because of these macroeconomic views, Krugman recommended aggressive federal deficit spending. "As things turned out, Krugman was wrong on each of the above points: we learned (and this surprised me, too) that nominal rates could go persistently negative, that the US budget 'austerity' from 2011 onward coincided with a strengthening recovery, and that consumer prices rose modestly even as unemployment remained high. Krugman was wrong on all of these points, and yet his policy recommendations didn’t budge an iota over the years. "Far from changing his policy conclusions in light of his model’s botched predictions, Krugman kept running victory laps, claiming his model had been 'right about everything.' He further speculated that the only explanation for his opponents’ unwillingness to concede defeat was that they were evil or stupid."
- overgard 11y ago
  Yeah, but why engage in thoughtful debate when you can show a gif of him punching people?
- zurn 11y ago
  This guy doesn't seem very credible judging by the WP article about him or the one about his employer (He works for an oil money funded right wing climate-skpetic "think tank").
  - maxlybbert 11y ago
    Do you have any complaints about the article itself, or do you simply stop thinking once you find out that you don't agree with everything somebody says, or everybody somebody gets money from? Did Krugman claim that nominal interest rates couldn't go below 0%? Did Krugman claim that austerity would lead to a double dip recession? Did Krugman claim high unemployment would go hand in hand with spiraling deflation? Did Krugman claim that anybody who disagreed with him was evil or stupid? Has Krugman now decided that, even though interest rates went below 0%, austerity did not cause a double dip recession, and high unemployment did not accompany spiraling deflation that he was "right about everything"? Did the New York Times ombudsman say that Krugman has a "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults"?
    - zurn 11y ago
      I do change my default attitude toward the message once I find it is coming from someone working for a neocon think-tank. They have a history of being intellectually dishonest to put it charitably. For a hashing of the claims you might have a peek in the comments about this article on Reddit (spoiler: claims don't exactly get a free pass): https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/386ntm/paul_krugman_three_wrongs_dont_make_a_right_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/386ntm/paul_krug...
      - maxlybbert 11y ago

by comex 11y ago

zurn 11y ago

Indeed. This sounds like they just gathered soundbites from his opponents without any attempt at even-handedness, even though many of the issues have been followed by a lot of back-and-forth in public fora. Followers of Krugman's blog can recognise many counterarguments in the article which have been specifically addressed in his blog (and in many cases credibly overturned). Also it would be fair to let his side pick a share of the debate points.

maxlybbert 11y ago

There are no GIFs, but I enjoyed the "Three Wrongs Don't Make a Right" article ( http://fee.org/freeman/detail/paul-krugman-three-wrongs-dont-make-a-right http://fee.org/freeman/detail/paul-krugman-three-wrongs-dont... ): "Krugman, armed with his Keynesian model, came into the Great Recession thinking that (a) nominal interest rates can’t go below 0 percent, (b) total government spending reductions in the United States amid a weak recovery would lead to a double dip, and (c) persistently high unemployment would go hand in hand with accelerating price deflation. Because of these macroeconomic views, Krugman recommended aggressive federal deficit spending. "As things turned out, Krugman was wrong on each of the above points: we learned (and this surprised me, too) that nominal rates could go persistently negative, that the US budget 'austerity' from 2011 onward coincided with a strengthening recovery, and that consumer prices rose modestly even as unemployment remained high. Krugman was wrong on all of these points, and yet his policy recommendations didn’t budge an iota over the years. "Far from changing his policy conclusions in light of his model’s botched predictions, Krugman kept running victory laps, claiming his model had been 'right about everything.' He further speculated that the only explanation for his opponents’ unwillingness to concede defeat was that they were evil or stupid."

overgard 11y ago
Yeah, but why engage in thoughtful debate when you can show a gif of him punching people?
zurn 11y ago
This guy doesn't seem very credible judging by the WP article about him or the one about his employer (He works for an oil money funded right wing climate-skpetic "think tank").
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  Do you have any complaints about the article itself, or do you simply stop thinking once you find out that you don't agree with everything somebody says, or everybody somebody gets money from? Did Krugman claim that nominal interest rates couldn't go below 0%? Did Krugman claim that austerity would lead to a double dip recession? Did Krugman claim high unemployment would go hand in hand with spiraling deflation? Did Krugman claim that anybody who disagreed with him was evil or stupid? Has Krugman now decided that, even though interest rates went below 0%, austerity did not cause a double dip recession, and high unemployment did not accompany spiraling deflation that he was "right about everything"? Did the New York Times ombudsman say that Krugman has a "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults"?
  - zurn 11y ago
    I do change my default attitude toward the message once I find it is coming from someone working for a neocon think-tank. They have a history of being intellectually dishonest to put it charitably. For a hashing of the claims you might have a peek in the comments about this article on Reddit (spoiler: claims don't exactly get a free pass): https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/386ntm/paul_krugman_three_wrongs_dont_make_a_right_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/386ntm/paul_krug...
    - maxlybbert 11y ago