Will the real Paul Krugman please stand up?

Originally posted by kmax87
We are not allowed to grow and mature in our beliefs anymore? Should all the prognostications any of us ever make, be writ large in stone so that we may be forever held accountable to even the slightest deviation or contradiction we may utter in any subsequent statement?

Deities find it hard to meet that standard and you would have mere mortals exemplify that?

And you believe the inconsistency is a matter of "growth" and not a function of who was in power at the times of the respective statements?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Maybe we ignore all the scientists and just start asking the politicians to gather data and make their thesis on the data, hmm, how would things be any different... hmm let's see...

Or maybe ask some internet forum and see how things would change. 😀

Originally posted by sh76
And you believe the inconsistency is a matter of "growth" and not a function of who was in power at the times of the respective statements?

Is it possible that he may have revealed an underlying truth that while tempting to dismiss with political spin, nevertheless underscores a vastly more interdependent international realm where America no longer rules with as much hegemonic advantage as previously exercised. From this perspective its internal dynamics are less important than how it is balanced and counterbalanced against external markets and forces.

Krugman never says he changed his views (becuase he did not) or that he believes his criticism of the prior administration is wrong. In fact Krugman never bothers to mention the consistency issue but has no trouble going back in time to criticize Bush. Krugman is merely an applogist for the Obama administration; it is a shame that the New York Times is proud of his trash column.

Originally posted by quackquack
Krugman never says he changed his views (becuase he did not) or that he believes his criticism of the prior administration is wrong. In fact Krugman never bothers to mention the consistency issue but has no trouble going back in time to criticize Bush. Krugman is merely an applogist for the Obama administration; it is a shame that the New York Times is proud of his trash column.

There's no contradiction in those two statements. He clearly refers to the economic climate as not being bad enough to justify earlier deficits and being now bad enough to justify the current ones. In fact, he even claims that it's not perfectly benign without an exit strategy because the future outlook is worrying.

Krugman may miss some and hit some, but this is not a contradiction at all.

And Krugman's Nobel is justified by his academic research, not his political commentary.

He was at the frontier of research in international trade for a long time and spawned new branches of literature. His qualities as a political journalist are way below his quality as a researcher.

Originally posted by Palynka
And Krugman's Nobel is justified by his academic research, not his political commentary.

He was at the frontier of research in international trade for a long time and spawned new branches of literature. His qualities as a political journalist are way below his quality as a researcher.

So is there some political motivation, rather than incompetence, behind his absurd claim that the UK economy is in the best shape of European economies?

Originally posted by Palynka
In the first statement he explicitly says the cycle at the time didn't justify the depths of the deficit and in the second he says the current cycle justifies a large deficit.

Unless you want to argue that the economy isn't more depressed now than in 2004, then you don't have a case.

When Krugman uses "cyclical" in the 2004 statement, he's talking about the general tendency for government deficits to rise during a recession and drop during a boom -- due to changes in revenues and entitlement payments that occur without any changes in government policy.

Krugman in 2004 was concerned because of the deficits that were occurring during a boom - a time when there should be surpluses (or very small deficits). He was concerned about these "structural deficits" because they were essentially permanent - which is a definite concern when combined with the forecast for larger deficits due to rising medical costs and the impending Baby Boom retirements.

Now - much of the current deficit reflects temporary increases in spending on things like stimulus programs and bailouts. I would not expect Krugman to be concerned about these sorts of things. But looking further ahead to after the economy gets back on track, I WOULD expect that Krugman would be concerned about the lingering "structural deficits". If these deficits are in the order of $800Bill per year, that would be a lot higher than what they were under Bush.

So it appears that Krugman's economic philosophy has fundamentally "changed" since 2004. I would definitely suspect ideological biases are involved here.

All of this illustrates why I don't like to rely on one person's viewpoint, no matter how much of an expert they may be. Everyone has a bias of some sort.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So is there some political motivation, rather than incompetence, behind his absurd claim that the UK economy is in the best shape of European economies?

I don't see what political motivation could lead him to say that.

Personally, I think he meant to praise the response to the crisis and got carried away into superlatives. During a on-the-fly interview as long as that one, I'm not really expecting precision.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
When Krugman uses "cyclical" in the 2004 statement, he's talking about the general tendency for government deficits to rise during a recession and drop during a boom -- due to changes in revenues and entitlement payments that occur without any changes in government policy.

Krugman in 2004 was concerned because of the deficits that were occurring during oint, no matter how much of an expert they may be. Everyone has a bias of some sort.

Krugman in 2004 was concerned because of the deficits that were occurring during a boom
Is that why he says the economy is depressed?

Now - much of the current deficit reflects temporary increases in spending on things like stimulus programs and bailouts. I would not expect Krugman to be concerned about these sorts of things. But looking further ahead to after the economy gets back on track, I WOULD expect that Krugman would be concerned about the lingering "structural deficits".
Yawn. He clearly mentions the long-term outlook as worrying, which indicated the need for an exit strategy. You clearly say that much of the current deficit is about stimulus and bailout. Surely then you think that this is not the time to worry about cutting structural deficits? This must be part of the exit strategy, not now, which would be counterproductive regarding the stimulus packages.

So it appears that Krugman's economic philosophy has fundamentally "changed" since 2004. I would definitely suspect ideological biases are involved here.
This doesn't follow at all. I suspect your and sh76's ideological biases are involved here.

All of this illustrates why I don't like to rely on one person's viewpoint, no matter how much of an expert they may be. Everyone has a bias of some sort.
Sure. And I certainly agree that Krugman is VERY biased in his political commentary. But there is no inconsistency in this case.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
He's an idiot.

Okay. I'll bite. Why is he an idiot? I mean it's one thing to dislike his conclusions or to point out the ways in which the field has surpassed him, but an idiot? Really?

Originally posted by quackquack
Krugman never says he changed his views (becuase he did not) or that he believes his criticism of the prior administration is wrong. In fact Krugman never bothers to mention the consistency issue but has no trouble going back in time to criticize Bush. Krugman is merely an applogist for the Obama administration; it is a shame that the New York Times is proud of his trash column.

While I agree that Krugman has become more celebrity than researcher in the last decade and that he was definitely anti-Bush, he hasn't exactly been giving Obama a free pass. Usually he gets upset with Obama for not spending more and for not coming down harder interms of regulation. Personally I suspect that he's offended that Obama hasn't made him a chief economic advisor.

As to the OP, the cyclical considerations make his argument consistent. I do think that you're correct that oversells the damage of the Bush deficits and underplay the costs the current ones. I believe this has less to do with party politics though and more
to do with his own personal convictions.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Krugman in 2004 was concerned because of the deficits that were occurring during a boom
Is that why he says the economy is depressed?

Now - much of the current deficit reflects temporary increases in spending on things like stimulus programs and bailouts. I would not expect Krugman to be concerned about these sorts of things. But looking furthe is VERY biased in his political commentary. But there is no inconsistency in this case.

[/b]Krugman did state that the economy was "depressed" in 2004 - not sure why - but this period was clearly not a major business cycle event such as the downturns of 2000 and 2008+ -- and Krugman's stated point was that the deficit was NOT cyclical (only a "little bit" was due to the so-called depressed economy).

In the 2004 statement, Krugman was taking a very alarmist position - calling the deficit "the worst we've ever seen in this country - it's bigger than Argentina in 2001" -- and regarding US' ability to sustain these deficits, he predicted that "we're looking for a collapse in confidence some time in the not-too-distant future"

But in the 2009 statement, he pointedly DISAGREES with commentators who consider a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion to be a terrifying number. And he says that the longer-term outlook is "worrying but it's not catastrophic".

It is quite clear that despite a longer-term outlook that is much WORSE now than it was in 2004, Krugman's tone has clearly moved from "imminent collapse" to "no big deal".

I agree that it's not a good time, at this moment, to be cutting structural deficits. And I would expect Krugman to agree. But Krugman's ho-hum attitude about the longer term is VERY perplexing in light of what he said a mere five years ago.

It is possible that instead of being motivated by "politics", he might simply be deliberately downplaying the gravity of the situation because he doesn't want to encourage the politicians to crack down on the budget before the economy has recovered. But once recovery has set in, he may well return to his alarmist position in say 2011.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Krugman did state that the economy was "depressed" in 2004 - not sure why - but this period was clearly not a major business cycle event such as the downturns of 2000 and 2008+ -- and Krugman's stated point was that the deficit was NOT cyclical (only a "little bit" was due to the so-called depressed economy).

In the 2004 statement, Krugman was taki ...[text shortened]... y has set in, he may well return to his alarmist position in say 2011.[/b]

Isn't this already entering pedantic nit-picking territory?

I mean, I could go back to his second statement and argue about that what he's ranting about is alarmism to the point that would defend "canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform" and that the first also requires Krugman's qualifier that the problem is that there's "not a hint [of a responsible solution] on the political horizon"...

Originally posted by Palynka
Isn't this already entering pedantic nit-picking territory?

I mean, I could go back to his second statement and argue about that what he's ranting about is alarmism to the point that would defend "canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform" and that the first also requires Krugman's qualifier that the problem is that there's "not a hint [of a responsible solution] on the political horizon"...

okay -- I will look at both statements in their entirety
First the one from 2004

"Basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course--it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world--but it's a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there.

It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. It's biggest than Argentina in 2001.

Which is not cyclical, there's only a little bit that's because the economy is depressed. Mostly it's because, fundamentally, the government isn't taking in enough money to pay for the programs and we have no strategy of dealing with it.

So, if you take a look, the only thing that sustains the U.S. right now is the fact that people say, 'Well America's a mature, advanced country and mature, advanced countries always, you know, get their financial house in order,' but there's not a hint that that's on the political horizon, so I think we're looking for a collapse of confidence some time in the not-too-distant future

Seems pretty clear to me that ALL of these statements have a very alarmist tone to them.


Now on to 2009

"So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, that's a terrifying number, requiring drastic action--in particular, of course, canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform.

obviously, Krugman isn't calling off healthcare reform - the commentators are.

The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but it's not catastrophic

the tone here is clearly NOT alarmist -- but rather ho-hum