Head Firmly In Place
By Mitch Berg
Conservatives heads exploded simultaneously at the announcement of political gadfly Paul Krugman’s Nobel
Nah. Head is firmly in place. Being a conservative, I look at issues on their merits, using actual data and facts.
King, who has a vocational reason to remember Nobel Economics Prize trivia, has the inside poop:
If you’ve read here before, you know that I think Paul Krugman is an excellent economist … and a lousy political observer…They indicate that “netting out” bad research is not part of the process, so all the things we might disagree with Krugman about are not part of the record the Nobel Committee looked at…
…His prize is rather obviously…”for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.” This is a single analysis. Basically, before Krugman trade theory was simply a matter of factor endowments. To take an example I use in class, in the old trade theory we had manhole covers made in India and in Michigan. India had cheap labor, so focused on making them using a technology that used lots of labor. In Michigan capital was comparatively cheaper, so the covers were made in a more automated process that minimized labor. Trade patterns were based on who had more labor or more capital, more land and natural resources, etc. Krugman changed all that. Some people have tried to say it’s both trade and economic geography, but I read both as coming out of a single research agenda, one of many he’s had.
Krugman is an example of someone who is perfectly capable – indeed, brilliant – in his actual field; he’s also an example of how excellence doesn’t always translate between fields.
Sort of like how “being on the Harvard Law Review” doesn’t necessarily mean “great leader”.
Congrats, Krugs (as all of us pals of his call him). Someday, we’ll teach you how to write a coherently-reasoned column.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Mitch,
Goodness… Expounding upon the economic impacts of the administration is PRECISELY his field. You just don’t like his politics, nuff said.
“Nah. Head is firmly in place. Being a conservative, I look at issues on their merits, using actual data and facts” – presents facts not in evidence. Perhaps you mean like saying Juan Cole is an anti-semite, like anti-semitism is a key tenet of the American Left, or a host of other whoppers you’ve trowelled out?
Anyway, Krugman is the finest columnist I know of – he is clear, well-argued, brilliant (wish I was). I know of no one on the right who is his peer, certainly not Krauthammer, nor Kristol. You may not like him, but attempting to say his ability to observe economic patterns and define the consequences is somehow outside his field when he does it in relation to macro effects in the US economy is silly, and of course, wrong. His Prize is precisely for this kind of observation, and is entirely within his feild.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Krugman is the finest columnist I know of – he is clear, well-argued, brilliant (wish I was).
Daniel Okrent, NYT ombudsman (and no conservative), had his own take on Krugman:
October 14th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Having “acolytes” doesn’t provide the power-mad high that having “lilliputians” imparts.
Mitch can speak with some authority on this.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Pernicious Peev might not have read Walter E. Williams… not the socialist, but the conservative.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Goodness… Expounding upon the economic impacts of the administration is PRECISELY his field. You just don’t like his politics, nuff said.
Yep. Don’t like his politics, his reasoning, his writing, his command of facts outside his immediate field…
…so no, I guess ’nuff was not said.
Perhaps you mean like saying Juan Cole is an anti-semite, like anti-semitism is a key tenet of the American Left, or a host of other whoppers you’ve trowelled out?
In each case, I’ve presented supporting evidence.
Anyway, Krugman is the finest columnist I know of
File under “praise by faint damnation”.
I know of no one on the right who is his peer, certainly not Krauthammer, nor Kristol.
Since they are not really comparable, it’s not much of a comparison.
You may not like him, but attempting to say his ability to observe economic patterns and define the consequences is somehow outside his field when he does it in relation to macro effects in the US economy is silly, and of course, wrong.
As usual when you say I’m wrong, Peev, I’m right. Indeed, you calling me “wrong” is sort of like Nihilist in Golf Pants betting on a team; smart observers bet the opposite.
The problem with Krugman is that while he’s a capable economist in his area, his column is basically just half-baked propaganda, the type of thing that his drooling minions – the people who think “he’s on the NYTimes, he must be good!” – will buy; the more discerning and literate, not so much.
My favorite kicktoy among many in his oeuvre; his infamous column claiming red states took in more government “aid” per capita than blue states. Which is true, if you completely sodomize context (or what we now call on this blog “Peeving Reality”). Krugman counted overall dollars, without bothering to tell the reader that…:
* Red states tend to have disproportionate amounts of federal land. Their budgets are considered “aid” by Krugman – which is more than a little disingenuous.
* Red states have disproportionate numbers of military bases and installations.
* Red states have disproportionate numbers of employees for the above – whose salaries are considered “aid” (not that Krugman bothered to tell anyone).
* Against all of this federal land, Red states have generally-low population densities – so federal spending on anything – on everything from air force bases to extension programs – has a disproportionate impact, especially considering that…
* …they also have lower per-capita incomes.
Krugman’s little bit of social defamation left all of that out in a fraudulent effort to try to depict red-staters as “welfare queens”. It was a scummy, defamatory bit of partisan legerdemain – a lie.
THAT is Paul Krugman’s legacy as a columnist. Nothing more, and nothing better.
His Prize is precisely for this kind of observation, and is entirely within his feild.
It’s “Field”.
And as King noted (not that you could be bothered to read something from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about – an actual economist), his prize is precisely NOT for “that kind of observation”. It’s for his work in economics.
You missed the point; your reading comprehension remains in negative numbers.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Krugman, of course, knows the truth about the reasons why red states tend to get more per capita fed expenditure, but that works against the argument he’s trying to make so he leaves it out. That’s purposeful deception.
Krugman is given, what, 800 words a few times each week in what is the most influential newspaper in the world. Rather than use his expertise in economics to instruct, he engages in shrill polemic.
What a waste. Of course, his masters at NYT allow and even encourage this misuse of resources.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
BTW , Mitch,
As for your ‘conservatives are involveed in facts and details’… you mean like this from John McCain?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/13/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4518056.shtml?source=mostpop_story
Yep.. sure am glad you gots all your facts.
Terry – shrill polemic complaints coming from a fan of this blog are something like someone complaining about the noise of the ducks at the lake as they rev their jet ski.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
And Mitch, no, as usual, you are wrong.
Just as you were about the economy (it’s not in bad shape, it’s just cyclical).
Just as you were about the deficit (it will be cut by cutting taxes)
Just as you were about the war in Iraq.
Just as you were about the Domestic spying and FISA.
Just as you were about Heller.
Just as you were about WMD.
Just as you were about the coming banking crisis.
Just as you were/are wrong to define Naziism as leftist because well, it’s totalitarian, and Hitler liked Lenin, ipso facto, Hitler was leftist because of some tiny fraction of his initiatives were psuedo-socialistic – of course they were intended to get his nation ready for war, and were again, one of the hallmarks of Naziism, hyper militaristic in their intent… which is in fact what Naziism espoused, hyper nationalism hyper militarism, and the abuse of ‘undesirables’ as slave labor – real leftist traditions, providing slave labor to corporations.. yep… I mean, Obama is calling for massive growth in the military and unbridled imperialism isn’t he???
It’s revisionist bullshit to mouth things like that Mitch, but that doesn’t stop you I see, just like saying you’re always right, or as usual blah blah blah.
In fact, you were about virtually EVERY MAJOR ISSUE at hand, outside perhaps abortion and capital punishment, and on those, you are only NOT wrong because you don’t mouth the traditional hate filled neo-con line. That list is nearly endless. Now, unlike you, I won’t say that I’m never wrong, that’s the mark of a pompous, self-denying … well, let’s just say it makes you look even more silly, ok?
Mitch, on balance, you are almost always wrong on the issues we discuss. You seem not to see it, but that does not make it untrue. Krugman is ABSOLUTELY within his expertise to comment on the economy. His Nobel was for (as I understand it), observing the impacts on trade of various factors – that is, he made a pure theorhetical postulate about observable effects in a macro-economic environment.
And Mitch, you want to spin down the aid Red States get, so be it, but I wonder if you apply the same fatuous logic to your own meme’s, meaning, I wonder, when you hear idiots talk about how Hitler was leftist, or how CRA caused the housing crisis, whether you question it? The obvious answer is no, you lap up right wing blog idiocy without a second glance. I wonder if you factored out the ‘aid’ you consider to be ‘not aid’ in Blue States – how things look? Regardless, the readily available fact, not from Krugman, but from GAO, supports his assertion, and debunks yours. But I suppose that’s the way of it for neo-cons, ignore any facts you don’t like, kinda like WMD, or your falibility.
October 14th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Mitch,
He makes observations about macro-economics, that’s his field, including trade theory. And while we’re on the subject of experts, I would venture to say that as compared to anyone who comments on your blog, I’m at least as expert about banking, especially the kind of ailments facing Wall Street, yet you don’t bother to listen to any expertise on that subject.
There are oh, what 100,000 or more economists Mitch, including Banian, whom I have some respect for, yet not many have won Nobel Prizes Mitch, and I take Krugman’s comments on economic matters much more seriously than I take wingnuts. You want to compartmentalize it because it gives you cover, nothing, nothing less.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
And Mitch, thanks for pointing out my typo, I am sure glad you never have any in your replies… nope, nosireebob. I’m sure I know how to spell field, just as I’m quite sure your economic prognostications are fatally flawed. You poo-poohed the coming storm, pardon me if I think your evaluation of Krugman is just a bit jaded, just a bit unqualified. Banian may be an economist, but so are about 100,000 other people (or more), yet it was Krugman who won the Nobel, not Banian obviously. Given that Krugman CORRECTLY predicted the current ecnomic meltdown, and neither you nor Banian did, I guess I’ll consider your attempts to discredit his estimations of the US economy chirping from birds who don’t know what color the sky is.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
iven that Krugman CORRECTLY predicted the current ecnomic meltdown, and neither you nor Banian did
Peev, Krugman has been forecasting a recession every few months for the past 8 years. Even a broken clock is right twice each day.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Even a broken clock is right twice each day.
Sheesh, poor Peev doesn’t even measure up to a broken clock.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Is this the same Paul Krugman who had to wait until Milton Friedman was dead before he attempted to redefine him and mischaracterize his work? What a lowly, small, backstabbing ass of a man is he!
October 14th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Terry – and Brad for that matter – Krugman is considered one of the finest economists in the country, if you don’t get that, you’re just not bothering to read or listen. And Brad, the number of times I’ve been right as compared to Mitch is pretty staggering, so I guess that makes Mitch pathetically worse than a broken clock..
Let’s recount for a moment Brad – just for your edification:
Mitch – FISA wasn’t violated – PB, yes Mitch, it was.
Mitch – WMD will be found – PB – maybe, but it was a fictional ‘disprove a negative’ argument that got us into war.
Mitch – Abu Ghraib was reflective of poor conduct of a few bad apples, but we should understand Islam – which supports terrorism – PB that comment defies logic, further, is unecessarily inciting to Shiites and we’ll pay for Abu Ghraib in blood.
Mitch – Iraq will be over in a year (Nov 2005) PB – hardly, maybe a decade, and ONLY if we start showing the Iraqi people some respect.
Mitch – the economy is just on a down turn (2007) PB (2004) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are 7 Trillion in debt – and this President is whistling while Rome is burning.
Mitch – Sarah Palin is a Godsend for the right PB – and an albatross to everyone else.
Mitch – Tax cuts will invigorate the economy (this year), in fact, look they’re working (July 2009) PB – sure, Mitch, outside the fact that the middle class can’t pay it’s bills.
Mitch – supply sideism works – PB sure Mitch, you mean like the 2001 tax cuts that DIDN’T create jobs on shore – and didn’t lead to anything like sustained growth?
Brad – that’s just off the top of my head – you have, I think, an extraordinarily ignorant opinion. You might want to hang around a little while and see how things turn out a few more times before cramming your foot so far down your throat you can see your toes in your pants.
Mitch- the truly ironic part of your line of reasoning is this, you SAY that ANY Attorney is qualified to pontificate on ANY matter having anything to do with anything that has the term legal around it.. as you said “He’s an attorney, you know, as compared to YOU!”
Howeer, now you want to take on the pretense of trying to split hairs on economics. I’m no great economist, but I’m reasonably familiar enough to know that, say as compared to Law, where there are two certifications – a conflation Jay Reding chose to make when saying there are only two ‘specializations’ when in fact, there are MANY – (not to mention that Jay and Foot blithely overlooked that any competent attorney would look sidelong at someone making a claim of failure to enforce not based on statue but on Constitutional generalization – but hey, when you’re an attorney, you’re taught to argue both sides with zeal – so c’est le vis) – but anyway, I’m reasonably familiar enough with economics to grasp that there are comparatively fewer ‘certifications’, and that Krugman, as what a PHD Professor Emeritus at perhaps the finest economics school in the nation, is just a teensey more qualified to render opinion on the nature of economic theory than say, you, or, with no slight intended to Banian, to Banian, who, as I recall hopefully correctly, isn’t a PhD in Economics, isn’t a Professor Emeritus at Princeton, and didn’t win the Nobel Prize, in a field where actions are interwoven inextricably, as opposed to, say, law, where one specialty can and does often live in complete oblivion to other areas.
Ironic that you accept the ‘general’ opinion of one professional, albeit well respected – pontificating in an area he does not generally practice – yet draw distinction upon another, pontificating in an area he DOES practice, in a field of work where his general opinion is more likely in-synch with current theory, and oh, just happens to be an extraodinarily distinguished expert, not just within the state, but within the world body.
I don’t mean to laugh, but your hypocrisy is unbelievable.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
statue=statute…
October 14th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
In short Mitch, I think your protest, as with all things upon which you say ugly, misguided things, is pure politcal theatre, and nothing more.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Terry – and Brad for that matter – Krugman is considered one of the finest economists in the country, if you don’t get that, you’re just not bothering to read or listen.
That says nothing about his political pundritry anymore than if he were one of the most respected ping-pong players in the country.
If you really would have respected Krugman’s opinion you would have put your money in gold starting in 2001. You didn’t? Guess you think he’s a flake like most other Americans.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Terry said: “Krugman, of course, knows the truth about the reasons why red states tend to get more per capita fed expenditure”
Cause you’re lazy, hypocritical welfare whores. We make the money in the industrious blue states while you kooks worry about putting Jesus in the schools.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:00 am
angryclown said:
“We make the money in the industrious blue states”
Is that what “Wall Street” is doing right now? I only ask because I heard they got in line for their own welfare check recently … 😉
October 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Oh. . .
SNAP!
October 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
We make the money in the industrious blue states
Actually, no. The money – the actual physical productivity on which any economy is based – is mostly in the red states. The blue states have tended to make their money by skimming off the top of all of that. It’s why New York opposed emancipation of the slaves in 1860; slavery was good for New York. Some things never change.
Peev,
So much BS – so little time.
Actually, no time to respond today.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Who made Pernicious Peev’s head (and mouth) explode again?
October 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Cause you’re lazy, hypocritical welfare whores. We make the money in the industrious blue states while you kooks worry about putting Jesus in the schools.
Clown, I live in bluer-than-blue Hawaii. Both senators & congressmen are democrats. We get far more fed $ than even most red states. Krugman doesn’t seem to know that. Where’s my Nobel Prize?
October 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Turns out they make money at law firms, publishing houses and, the current quarter excepted, banks, Mitch. You don’t take money off the GNP just cause it doesn’t involve a tractor at the end of a production line. I guess the only productivity you see is bushels of grain and cars nobody wants to buy. How very Soviet of you!
October 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Turns out they make money at law firms, publishing houses and, the current quarter excepted, banks, Mitch
Right. Overhead. AKA overburden. AAKA “parasites”.
October 16th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
your protest, as with all things upon which you say ugly, misguided things, is pure politcal theatre, and nothing more.
Yeah, there’s a shocking revelation, there.
But here’s a question for you, Peev: I must not dare question the wisdom or competence of Paul Krugman, even when he’s not just writing outside his field of expertise (about politics rather than international economics, for example) but when his opinion has been authoritatively debunked – but no matter since I am obviously ignorant on all subjects and must bow before not only Krugman’s crushing expertise on ALL subjects, but (apparently) yours as well.
On the other hand, to pick a random example, you poo-poohed the informed opinion of Scott Johnson, a highly accomplished lawyer – going so far as to defame him by claiming he was committing legal malpractice because you have a friend who’s allegedly a law professor (even though you changed your tune a bit after you were set straight by several real lawyers) – and then claiming to be fully qualified to comment on the law yourself because of your past career as a i-dotter and t-crosser on health insurance claims (which is, of course, much more authoritative than graduating from the U of M Law School, which is a Tier-1 school among US law schools, albeit unranked in terms of health claim i-dotting and t-crossing)…
…well, you know where this is going, right? You talk out your tush constantly, Peev, and then scuttle away when, inevitably, you are called on it.
So I guess my only real response to you, now as ever, is “arrogance is not a source”.