Why do people here hate Paul Krugman so much?
I don't read the NYTimes enough to have an opinion, but I'm curious to hear what Krugman has said that causes people on WSO to disagree with him so strongly?
Trending Content
| +167 | How to stop feeling like shit for not making it in IB? | 63 | 1h | |
| +121 | If Tik Tok is forced to sell, what banks do you think would be involved in the deal? | 59 | 7h | |
| +85 | Updated LA Banking Scene (2024) | 61 | 3h | |
| +40 | Ranking banks that went under | 24 | 4h | |
| +39 | Burnt Out M&A ASO | 20 | 5h | |
| +36 | Relevance of A-Levels for U.K. London recruiting | 25 | 1h | |
| +33 | A strategy for SA applicants late to the game like myself | 17 | 1h | |
| +27 | Series 79 Help / Tips to Pass The First Attempt | 11 | 2d | |
| +27 | Intern Ettiquette | 4 | 1d | |
| +23 | What are hours like at BBs in London? | 47 | 1d |
Career Resources
cant trust them beady eyes
In my opinion, he is just to far left. E.g. claiming that Hayek was not an economist, but a political pundit. (or something to that extent)
He is smart, nobody can deny that, but he's just a jackass.
He is insane. No, seriously.
Paul Krugman might just be the smartest guy ever. Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall and only proposes further spending binges because he wants the U.S. to go out with a bang.
If not for that, there is little promise in his views because the Austrian in me finds his views of Keynesian intervention in the economy to be uneducated and destructive.
His solution to everything is just spend more. Everything will work out in the end.
At this point, he is a politician with an economists tool set.
He's not terrible, but is too liberal for me.
Leftist partisan celebrity shill posing as an academic.
Even if he is right about something, his writing is unbearable. So much shit talking, name calling, and just whining. Used to like him briefly, but he is just a prick.
It doesn't even matter how smart others say he is, because he acts like a 5 year old when something doesn't go his way. (See what he wrote in his editorial the day after he had the debate with Ron Paul on Bloomberg TV).
Most people on here who bash him have a poor understanding of even the most basic concepts of economics. Economics is a science, not an ideological political debate (eg. Keynesians vs. Austrians, small government vs. big government).
You can't really blame them when Dr. Krugman himself forgets that.
While I understand the scientific theoretics, it is impossible to classify economics as a straight science. Unless you meant "science" in a different way, it is also very much an evolving subject which cannot be solved by the simple application of scientific solutions and formulas.
I majored in Econ, and I love to bash Krugman. I think that he has rightfully earned his Nobel, and his cred, even if he is more dogmatic than original in his thinking. The problem I have with him as a columnist is that he plays two games consistently- "I told ya' so!" and "gotcha!" By that I mean he offers little in terms of real value or feasible solutions, and quite often is just describing a real problem with well-worn, dogmatic quips of his wisdom.
And I think you are wrong about it being a science, yet totally agree with you about people lacking an understanding of even the basic concepts.
Economics is a 'soft' science, and has much more in common with Sociology, Psychology and Political Science than it ever will with Chemistry, Physics or any 'hard' science. Before it was called Economics, it was referred to as Moral Philosophy. Debating the need for small government, big government, etc. Or, more to the point, how do you handle the problem of Scarcity? Well....How do you most effectively plan production, distribution and consumption of goods and services for any size group of people- whether it is for a household, a company, a major economy, or the whole world? What factors go into creating the best possible society?
And how do you separate that from human behavior? You can't. It is the very nature of Economics to make attempts at modeling human behavior and provides the language with which to describe that behavior. That guarantees it will be an ideological, or politically- charged subject.
i was with you until you called economics a soft science
JDawg, I was told that you were a little keynesian fanatic. For now, I will give you a pass because I have to go out and get drunk.
However, someday, I'll deal with your keynesian brain.
I wasn't even expressing an opinion on Krugman. Just saying that a lot of people on here who hate Krugman are dumb college kids who hear soundbites of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff on TV and are subsequently convinced that they know more about economics than a nobel prize winning economist at Princeton. If you don't even understand the theory behind why the Fed does quantitative easing, then you have no business critiquing it. You'd think that that'd be common sense, but I've argued with a lot of people on here who have no idea what they're talking about and don't even realize it.
Yea it's not a hard science like physics, but it's also not one of those mushy issues where anyone can have an opinion on like the abortion debate.
Looking forward to it brah.
Reassigning our personal choices and intellectual decision making to experts in some cases can be self-fulfilling since there is tremendous opportunity cost in learning highly technical skills. However, to me, Paul Krugman is just simply not as convincing as a Friedman or a Hayek in economic/philosophical regards. All have won the Nobel and on all issues, each would have a very different opinion.
Also...I wouldn't dare challenge Krugman on certain things, but to dismiss all criticism of him because he has won a Nobel or is heralded as an expert is as equally foolhardy as the simpleton who knows nothing and challenges everything. The laureates aren't gods...hell, if you'd have relegated your financial decisions to the laureates, Myron Scholes and Robert Merton in 1994...you would have been taken to the woodshed.
I understand your point. I think it is something that is always very debatable because of its lack of an exact scientific structure. However, this is one of the things that makes it most interesting.
To echo another poster, Schiff accurately predicted the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, where was Krugmann on that? I couldn't give two shits about his nobel prize, Barack Obama won a nobel peace prize and he pushed America deeper into war.
Krugmann always talks about increasing demand, but that's nonsense. There is unlimited demand, the key is to increase supply at lower prices through innovation, which creates true wealth.
And why haven't you responded to the more cogent arguments presented in this thread?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29krugman.html
Also, he wrote Return to Depression Economics. He admits that he underestimated the negative effect of the burst housing bubble on the economy.
Roubini predicted financial crisis - he is part of the Keynesian school.
Because he looks at what's happening in Europe and says he was right all along about austerity. Sure, Mr. Economist, because there is absolutely nothing else that is wrong with the Eurozone.
Yes, because he is mainly right and it is confirmed by the experience in several countries. If you imply that Krugman is ignorant of the structural problems of Eurozone - the reality is that he have expressed negative view about the Euro before it was even introduced - so did other economists.
If you want to see proper criticism of Keynesian policy prescriptions, check out Kenneth Rogoff - he is also Keynesian economist - and he emphasizes the increased costs of Keynesian policies when the public debt is substantial.
Keynesian policies are bipartisan - Republican presidents have used them.
Can't argue with that- Reagan was a great Keynesian (I wonder if Krugman would agree?). The market would lose 100 points every time Nixon opened his mouth. Cheney quote- "Reagan proved that deficits do not matter" That applied very well when those deficits were lining his retirement fund.
Boy, that's not true. He's looked at austerity measures in the past and some current such as here in the UK and deemed them a failure. Rightly so. There's plenty of prosperity across Europe in spite of the Euro.
Krugman and other economists were never proponents of the Euro to begin with so I'm not sure how thats relevant. The austerity measures were introduced to stimulate the Euro and the economy in the first place and with the results they way they are, its no surprise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/opinion/krugman-apocalypse-fairly-soo…
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/cameron-to-critics-shut-up/
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/krugman-labour-weak-…
Our failure as economists / financiers is that we have become reliant on the idea of continuous economic growth and arrogant enough to believe that we can manage for it. The pattern is more likely to be "two steps forward, one step back"
Austerity recognizes this and sets out to conduct painful structural reforms that pave the way for the next growth period. Think of it like CapEX: it takes an initial outlay of cash (economic pain) to realize future benefits (growth).
He is a political shill who moonlights as an academic. He writes more op-eds than he does research papers.
I am fine with professionals (financial, academic, political) publishing opinions. But Krugman doesn't distinguish between the two. He is willing to ignore facts to strengthen his argument. Seedy Underbelly gave a perfect example: Europe & Austerity.
Because he's not on the "cut taxes and deregulate" cheer squad.
.
I think he himself stated it best:
"I'm Ellsworth Toohey!" -Paul Krugman
Holy shit, I've often thought he was, but I never thought he would say that.
The Economist states the obvious:
"Lyinginponds.com, a website that tracks partisanship among American political columnists, rates Mr Krugman second in the overall partisan slant of his columns, behind only Ann Coulter, a fiercely (and often incoherently) conservative polemicist. As the site documents exhaustively, the vast majority of Mr Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans; almost none criticise Democrats. Unsurprisingly, this has made him a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left—a thinking person's Michael Moore."
This is just phenomenal. +1 for finding that.
The article is a bit dated - it's from 2003 where he is criticizing the Bush Administration. You can check more current info below:
http://www.lyinginponds.com/pkrugman.nyt.html
You will see that Krugman has more negative than positive references with respect to Democrats and he was quite critical of Obama Administration in his blogs.
he is an insufferable douche.
I hate him because a bunch of my shitty Econ textbooks are by him. Asshole.
Quite interesting new clip with Krugman
A lot of WSO posters are ideologues so their approach to intellectual discourse usually takes the form of hate / intimidation... Krugman is a target because he often take a different view of capitalism from the ideology so tightly held by these posters.
I don't mind the Krugman bashing (or celebrating), but it would be nice if people took time to make coherent arguments against his views rather than just saying that he's wrong (or right). The dialectic approach only benefits when the debaters are coherent and the judges (audience) is knowledgeable of the topic. Otherwise, its just a matter of agreeing with someone's style or liking them if they pander to our particular interests/ideology...
This. I don't even have an opinion on Krugman b/c I don't read his column. I was just pointing out that most people here on WSO who constantly bash Krugman have a piss-poor understanding of even the most basic concepts in economics. Worse, they don't even have any interest in learning. Guess it's more fun to call someone a stupid liberal cunt than debate actual issues.
Why would anyone need to debate Keynesian economics? Its a god-damn failure. Can you point towards a single success from running large deficits? Can you point toward a single success of printing money to pay for those deficits?
Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted the financial crisis to a T. Paul actually predicted the crisis in the early 2000s. Krugman didn't predict any aspect of it. You can't compare real economists like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff to Paul Krugman. Also, Peter Schiff talks about how government intervention is bad because... it is. Can you name a single thing the government has done well? Is it schooling? Is it retirements funds? Whatever the government touches, it destroys.
He's a Commie.
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/group/austrian-economics-monkeys
Colc coca said it well. You have to respect (or at least I do) the work that got him a Nobel, but it's a far cry from the hyper partisan stuff he spews. It's as helpful as listening to Rush if you're trying to learn anything.
Abdel I haven't watched those videos, but based off what I've seen of Paul Schiff, his entire ideology can summarized by: "The GOVERNMENT is the root of all problems. It's the GOVERNMENT'S fault for interfering with the free markets." I don't really have any interest in further listening to a guy who doesn't know what an externality or monopoly is.
1 - Paul and Peter were able to PREDICT everything that happened in precise details years in advance because they understood the role of governement in creating the crisis. Why then the grand majority of keynesians were clueless?
2- Watch the videos and see what he has to say, don't be scured baby. =)
Krugman is like all our wives/girlfriends/mistresses. Spending is never enough of them nor him.
I wouldnt say Krugman is a commie. He is a copout in the eyes of leftists/liberals/keynesian economists. For example, he admits that "IN THEORY" there is reason to believe that state intervention can lead to a better equilibrium than purely free trade. BUT, in Krugman's view, the state (in reality) is corrupt and rentseeking and thus even though state intervention is good in theory, it is not advisable in practice. For more info, take a look at the Krugman and Obstfeld 'International Economics' text book.
Which is why I believe Hayek has the stronger argument here. He claimed that an economic theory is essentially useless if it cannot be actualized. I tend to agree, which is why I cannot understand how Keynesians can proceed in making policy without at least discounting the potentially destructive nature of aggressive rent-seeking activities by some huge bureaucracy.
The Keynesians have had decades to prove their theories in multiple countries and what do we have to show for it? Numerous recessions, an imploding currency, and one of the highest non-wartime debts in this nation's history. Clearly, Keynes had it right when he said that we're all dead in the long term, because it's a theory that doesn't discount technological change, increased bureaucracy, political independence/freedom or the business cycle. I know this sounds dismal, but it hardly matters how much we decide to nurture this economy, nature/rational thinking is a bitch and will catch up with it eventually.
Also, thanks for the textbook drop, I'll have to check that out. Most textbooks I've used have been written by Mankiw.
Economics is not a hard science, there are too many variables, most of which can't be controlled. You can't force people to create innovative businesses by simply increasing money supply, businesses don't necessarily hire more people just because interest rates are low, and you can't control the price of goods without disastrous consequences. Krugman gives no solid metric for which to measure the success or failure of further stimulus. Q: The first stimulus didn't work Mr. Krugman what do we do now? A: The first stimulus wasn't enough. More is needed. Q: What happens when t-bills are near zero and the ten-note is under 1.5%? A: More stimulus. Q: What happens when we start seeing inflation and high unemployment. A: More stimulus. Q: What happens if it works and the economy takes off? A: Increase rates. Q: What administration in their right mind would raise rates and put the brakes on the economy? A: ...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/G8ZHYhKV0Wo
People in Hollywood are fuckin liberals thats why.
I guess because he is dead wrong and is applying Keynsian economic theories in a wrong situation. The magic of multiplier effect only comes in when household's balance sheet is able take on more loans, and thereby consume more. The large spending binge came to an end with obvious reasons and with painful consequences. But as a result, the saving rate is finally edging toward its historical norm, enabling the household sector to have a fresh start. But opposed to letting the natural correction to evolve, he advocated the U.S. consumers to spend more. The monetary scheme he highly supported, namely the QE, was built around the notion that if the central bank lowers it's nominal interest rate to near zero, and, at the same time, send a clear message to the market that the expected inflation will be positive, then the household's savings will engender a financially repressive outcome; an attempt to penalize those who saves. And this could be achieved through not only affecting the short-term maturitiy Treasuries, but also through buying long-term maturity Treasuries or spread products as well. This partially, or to a large extent, shored up the ailing banking sector and provided lifelines to firms that were having difficulties securing enough amount of liquidity to conduct their normal operations as they used to. But his focus was not on how it will ensure the safetiness of the broad financial system. As I just mentioned, he backed this theory to support his stance on monetary policy, which was expected to extend copious amounts of credit to the consumers all across the region. But contrary to his belief, banks hoarded cash and even large corporations are stacking up cash, delaying large capital expenditures in face of future uncertainty.
I won't touch on the fiscal front, because I agree with his views that Medicare and Medicade needs serious revisions in order to make it as a viable tool ensure the seniors in the country.
.
@hnic No. Economics relies on mathematical methods, but it still cant make basic predictions. The ability to performe controlled experiments, repet the experiment and still get the same result. That is an indication of a 'hard' science.
Soft= Too many variables that are hard to quantify. Causative variables. Hard= Few variables and easy to quantify. Quantitativ variables.
Agreed. It doesn't take a MS in Econ to realize that because there are many useful mathematical tools that help in both fields, there are parallels between Econ and 'hard' sciences or engineering. Yet, it is not really possible to adequately predict an economic outcome in a controlled experiment. You must put the plan in action before you can realize the benefits or witness its failure. Whereas, a failed physics experiment is very unlikely to result in a coup d'etat.
Krugman used to be very well respected in the academic community. He got his ph.d. with a legendary class at MIT that included Bernanke and several other all-stars. Today, the academic community doesn't take him seriously at all. His opinions are no longer based on reasoned economic thought, but are really politically motivated. I don't think history will remember him (or Bernanke for that matter) very fondly.
Et est officia recusandae occaecati dolore ipsa omnis. Et est porro mollitia veniam sint.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ducimus quos provident facere qui tempora rerum amet. Et neque accusamus et.
Magni aliquam et quis autem nesciunt praesentium omnis. Fugiat non consectetur in commodi dolorem magnam praesentium. Sapiente alias rerum animi delectus dolorem sit. Explicabo est et minus.
Harum non ad voluptatem suscipit. Inventore recusandae ut distinctio quaerat voluptatum sint. Consectetur quasi unde facilis dignissimos vitae est.
Placeat illum neque consequuntur. Voluptas sed tenetur cum velit maiores optio quam. Ex amet ut laudantium nihil dolorem necessitatibus.
Non ea quia aperiam architecto. Deserunt et fugiat dolor quo eligendi. Dicta quis voluptas et ut. Ut sit voluptatem id voluptatem sint. Totam ea qui pariatur nihil ut nesciunt eligendi maiores. Quia modi enim dolorem et.
Qui quas architecto dicta quidem esse ipsa. Qui nemo odit eos odit asperiores saepe. Maiores soluta sit eveniet adipisci reprehenderit commodi consequuntur. Corrupti earum at architecto architecto vero provident enim reiciendis. Porro animi expedita vitae. Aliquam deleniti quasi necessitatibus corporis minus eligendi.
Qui impedit blanditiis id nihil voluptas illo beatae. Dicta cum temporibus necessitatibus et et. Molestias omnis sed quo qui. Repellendus magnam ut voluptate ratione deleniti. Laboriosam laborum sequi voluptas unde et id dicta.
Enim perferendis consequatur voluptatem in. Rerum voluptas ipsa esse molestias repudiandae perferendis expedita voluptate. Expedita minima enim perspiciatis ad nesciunt sint omnis. Quibusdam suscipit est est. Commodi libero ullam dolor amet. Aspernatur qui quo possimus nostrum facere.
Velit quibusdam mollitia labore odit neque neque. Ab enim molestias dolorem. Necessitatibus dicta dignissimos similique enim excepturi architecto. Hic est libero aspernatur in quaerat ipsa et. In sed accusantium ipsam nemo fugiat. Ut et hic sit et. Et reiciendis sequi omnis tempora dolores.
Tenetur in neque iure tempore accusamus qui molestias. Minima a deleniti magnam qui nam est. Fugit esse tenetur qui atque dolorum. Fugit nostrum quas maxime consequatur nulla et neque. Ea cum provident dolorem enim error fuga. Sapiente dolorem eius eius id enim in quia.
Officia sapiente dicta magni rerum. Quidem quibusdam eius ut iste esse. Aut nihil illum accusamus nisi voluptate quia magnam voluptas. Qui odio qui itaque nostrum.