We often have much to learn from our intellectual opponents. But some opponents we must deal with only because they are there … in some inescapable way.
Paul Krugman, for instance, is a Nobel Laureate economist. We deal with him not because his technical work is more relevant than the work of a hundred other economists, or because he wrote a really fine essay on the law of comparative advantage. Or because some Swedes thought enough of him to give him a big award and cut him a huge check.
We deal with him because he has a column and a blog at the New York Times.
And for the Times he’ll commit almost any sort of fallacy or public foolishness. Thanks to the New York Post, you can read a grand demolition of Krugman’s modus argumenti. “Krugman is a most unusual economist,” Kyle Smith writes:
Others may measure their words, issue caveats, acknowledge that the research isn’t conclusive, admit that their biases influence their reading of facts. Not Krugman.… He changes the subject, ignores inconvenient evidence and plays playground bully to people he sees as ideological enemies (a list longer than Nixon’s). He blasts away at others’ work without even providing the basic courtesy of a link to what he’s talking about.…
And Smith goes on, in part to review Krugman’s new book, End This Depression Now! (turnabout being fair play, no link from me). Not surprisingly, Krugman’s advice is a Democratic politician’s delight: spend more. Lots more.
Smith’s destruction is funny, and devastating. My complaint with Krugman has long been his relentless partisanship. But Smith reminds me that we have something to learn from Krugman, too: How not to promote a cause we regard as good.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
4 replies on “Learning from Krugman”
The link to Kyle Smith’s column in the New York Post appears to be broken. You get a 404 Error “Page Not Found.” This is the correct link:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/krug_attacks_cv5ld2kSZ5DFnNMQcxt8aJ
I have always been mystified as to why real economists pay any attention to Krugman.
So much of what he writes is clearly senseless.
Unfortunately, the Nobel Prize is now meaningless or worse.
Didn’t Obama receive the Nobel Prize for peace? I think it was after he bombed Libya and a couple of other countries – wantonly killing and maiming civilians, women and children.
Thanks for pointing us to Smith’s fun critique of Krugman (it’s always fun to rightly ridicule a bully).
Reading thru Smith’s list of Krugman ridiculousness, I wonder how it is that Krugman got his Nobel, got on the board of Enron, got a column on the NYT (well, at least that is understandable), and hasn’t been laughed out of his columnist job.
Listening to Krugman is a mistake, as any Enron investor will tell you. But politicians love those with economic credentials who say “spend all of other peoples’ money you can, it’s good for us.” It’s a convenient excuse for theft.