Now, your article suggests that by saying this, Krugman maybe thinks that taxes don’t influence economic activity, or that liberty is bad, or that we would be better off under communism, either of which would make him an idiot.

I hope deep in your heart, you don’t think this. If so, you’re just dishonest. If you really believe it, then you’re ignorant. Which are you, Russ?

I like your work a lot.

What do you think of my thesis that taking from the rich to give to the poor does not reduce but increases income inequality?

I better go find my stress ball before I explode!

My displeasure is over Krugman's non-academic work as an economist. I thought I tried to make it clear I wasn't judging his academic work.

Welcome to the Cafe. If you hang around long enough, you will find that unlike Professor Krugman, we are not interested in advancing a partisan agenda, particularly that of the Bush administration.

I have no idea what his income is. Do you? And if so, have you got a citation? You seem to be unsure when you write things like "I really doubt" and "I don't know why", etc.

However, I am more concerned with his, or another person's decision in a similar situation.

Notice how I say that everything else is held constant.

Whether they are "dumb" or not regarding the choice, is not even relevant, and is based on some notion of "dumb" which cannot even be objectively defined given that we, as a species, cannot even define intelligence or measure it.

I'm trying to talk about costs and benefits at the margin, and you inject subjective and emotionally loaded concepts like "dumb", "noble", "fairness" and "justice".

These terms are completely subjective, and vary from person to person. They can never be reconciled with any degree of objectivity.

Furthermore, when people bandy about these terms, it almost invariably applies to other people. But, of course, those other people interpreting these things in their own subjective way, use them to describe other people….including you!

I think my argument is pretty much set out in my previous posts, so read through them again please.

Also, I must say that it is rather difficult to follow your argument as your style and level of writing appears. It's quite unruly and bereft of any cogency.

Dan Okrent responded:

"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/weekinreview/22okrent.html

Paul Krugman is a hatchet man. He'll put partisan politics ahead of truth.

No award, by any committee, can make a man whole.

Charlie

Not at all, because I told you that it is not immoral if you take advantage of government programs even if you happen to be against them.

Nor have I said that it would be immoral for Krugman to choose the lower rate, despite railing against the tax cuts. And nothing of the sort can be inferred from my statements.

But first, I hope that no one makes some blissfully naive post attacking me about Krugman's contributions because I know damn well that I understand them, and other economics, as well as or better than anyone here. That's not being disrespectful, I'm just confident in my ability because I have always taken a rigorous approach to learning it.

Second, we can talk about Krugman, Russ, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, or anyone else for that matter, including myself, but the crux of my argument is that the public will embrace the Ad Hominem (tu quoque) stance against anyone if they deviate from their argument when coercion is not present, and free choice is available, holding other things constant.

That is a major cost that anyone must undertake, a risk of being a public intellectual as Krugman fancies himself, because no matter what one says and subsequently does, one cannot overturn economics and logic.

That is precisely what I am saying.

Posted by: colson

In your world you and I would likely be serfs. Your world simply does not exist in the real world. It would be an un-natural state of humanity. Like a school of fish suddenly deciding they weren't gonna school together anymore.

Not at all, because I told you that it is not immoral if you take advantage of government programs even if you happen to be against them.

Nor have I said that it would be immoral for Krugman to choose the lower rate, despite railing against the tax cuts. And nothing of the sort can be inferred from my statements.

But first, I hope that no one makes some blissfully naive post attacking me about Krugman's contributions because I know damn well that I understand them, and other economics, as well as or better than anyone here. That's not being disrespectful, I'm just confident in my ability because I have always taken a rigorous approach to learning it.

Second, we can talk about Krugman, Russ, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx, or anyone else for that matter, including myself, but the crux of my argument is that the public will embrace the Ad Hominem (tu quoque) stance against anyone if they deviate from their argument when coercion is not present, and free choice is available, holding other things constant.

That is a major cost that anyone must undertake, a risk of being a public intellectual as Krugman fancies himself, because no matter what one says and subsequently does, one cannot overturn economics and logic.

That is precisely what I am saying.

My impression from Krugman's initial reaction to the award is that he'll use it to pay tribute to his solid academic work, and not further his political agenda. He's had plenty of opportunities today to take shots at his critics and political opponents over the financial crisis, but so far, I haven't heard him taking them. I think Krugman understands that this award is and should be apolitical, and he won't do anything to spoil that. Also, perhaps the current Paul Krugman feels nostalgic about the Paul Krugman who was a pure academic.

This is in contrast to Stiglitz, who often has used the Prize to help legitimize his ideas at the expense of rigor. I'm guessing Russ had Stiglitz in mind when he worries about a larger soapbox.

Are you saying it is immoral for Russ to take a deduction from his income taxes for mortage interest rate, since he is against such a subsidy?

Charlie

Awesomeness. I've used this reasoning before but it often unfortunately falls on deaf ears.

But if he pays the lower rate, despite wanting others to pay the higher rate, and having no obligation and free opportunity to pay the higher one, he can consume more goods and services both now and in the future. But, in this scenario, a large cost of being a public intellectual would be the flack he would receive.

Either way, there is no such thing as a free lunch. But in Krugman's case, lunch is a bit more expensive because everyone will be watching to see if he truly is a paragon of American liberalism as befits the "conscience of a liberal"

This is a completely different argument from merit emanating from his important contributions, because the same argument could be made if, say, he had become exceptionally lucky and correctly guessed the pseudo random numbers generated by the lotto, incurring, let's say, a payout equal to the Nobel Prize winnings.