Comments on: Paul Krugman’s Deficient Perspective

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:41:00 +0000

Brotio,
Thanks for having my back while I wasn’t checking in on this thread. I suppose that DK could give us numerous instances of right wing governments having camps – you know like Cambodia, VietNam, China, DPRK, etc. Oh wait, those are all left wing…Geez, never mind. Oh, and I am glad that you remembered to note that camps did exist in the USA at one time and that it was during the reign.. er…I mean the administration of the prototype of modern liberalism (ie, progressivism who is on record for admiring the monsters you cited).

Yes, Daniel – Chile did exist and it was bad under Pinochet. But calling that government right wing is a reaction to the socialist government that Pinochet unseated. I file Chile under “politics ain’t beanbag” category which is right next to the “sometimes the cure for a disease can seem worse than the disease” folder. Chemotherapy is a fine balance between just enough to kill the cancer but not so much as to kill the patient. Chile had a cancer under Allende (sp?) and Pinochet was the cure. However, I have seen it said that historical analysis shows that most right wing dictatorships end because the government had liberalized (ie – given freedoms) to the point that their heavy hand lightened over time until the government and its bad actors went away and a more classically liberal regime peacefully took over.

By: Name

Name — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:42:00 +0000

This post is an effective prescription to the massive metaphorical headache I’ve been suffering since this morning, which is when I first saw Krugman’s utterly pathetic article. Thanks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:21:00 +0000

I think you’re drifting back into a one-dimensional mentality

By: JohnK

JohnK — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:13:00 +0000

I have no idea why populists would support Ron Paul anymore than anarchists would support Obama.
As far as your being a statist goes, you see a legitimate role for government in managing economic affairs which puts you in defense of government at times.
When you defend the State you portray yourself as a statist.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:18:00 +0000

Two dimensional is far better than one dimensional in my book I wonder if that’s really appropriate too sometimes, though. For example – take libertarians and populists. They should be diametrically opposed on a two-dimensional map, and yet populists seem to take up the Ron Paul banner with ease. Maybe it’s an issue of opportunity? I don’t know. Either way, two dimensional is a big improvement on forcing a square peg into a round hole by arguing that the right-wing is freedom oriented, Hitler is a leftist, etc. Adding at least one dimension makes those issues a lot less forced.On these two dimensional maps I always end up at the corner of libertarian/left/centrist. I guess the meeting of West, Southwest, and Center in this one you’ve linked to. But in a one dimensional spectrum who knows where I am – I’m told I’m a statist

By: JohnK

JohnK — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:03:00 +0000

DK, some of us see the political spectrum as two dimensional – politopia.com

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:15:00 +0000

Ah yes, the old “by definition I can’t support that so it can’t be something my team would ever do” explanation. And to be sure, it’s valid enough. But many leftists would make the same argument, and they would no more claim Hitler than you would (I know the “Hitler is a leftist because he was a corporatist and because the “S” in NSDAP stands for socialist” holds water here on Cafe Hayek, and there’s no point in arguing it, but it’s not something you can just say and assume is true because you say it – many would make the exact opposite claim). In the real world understanding of these terms, “right wing government” doesn’t mean more freedom – it means excessive state control just like left wing does. It’s just a reactionary government rather than a radical government. Instead of bending over backwards to unconvincingly tag it on the left, why can’t we just say “excessive right wing or left wing state control can lead to terrible aberrations like concentration camps”? Why do this weird redefinition of what “right wing” means, all for the sake of trying to brand the left? I suppose it’s because “slippery slope” arguments away from libertarianism don’t make as much sense when it becomes obvious that the political spectrum isn’t one-dimensional. To force the one dimensionality you have to throw extreme right wingers and left wingers in the same bunch and fundamentally redefine right and left.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:16:00 +0000

Well, Daniel.Since concentration camps were a staple of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and that the number of people sentenced to camps by those two Leftist countries dwarfs everyone else’s concentration camps. And, since the most famous incidence of concentration camps in the US was initiated by the Stalin-and-Mussolini-loving Roosevelt Administration. And, since the farther Right one goes, the more one values individual liberty, a Rightist government wouldn’t be a Rightist government any more if it instituted concentration camps, it’s safe to say that, “concentration camps are a tactic of the Left”.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:18:00 +0000

I love how it’s just a matter of course that concentration camps are a “tactic of the left”. Is there really that big of a disconnect? We all hear about the polarization of politics… I never realized it was this bad!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:31:00 +0000

The problem is Don quoted EXTREMELY selectively. Read all of both pieces. You might still not believe me, but he explains quite clearly why he views the two deficits differently, and it doesn’t just have to do with size – the only issue that Don brings up.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:29:00 +0000

The late Ned Gramlich too.

I’d agree – I’d give him credit for the book because it demonstrates Krugman’s grasp of depressionary dynamics, which are better than most – but he didn’t really see this coming.

By: MWG

MWG — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:34:00 +0000

“First there is nothing contradictory in Krugmans concerns about the debt.”

How are the quotes the Prof. cited NOT contradictory?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:55:00 +0000

Krugman disaggred with himself a lot more stridently than that!

From his 2003 column, “Fiscal Train Wreck” [with defict at 3.5% of GDP, 10-year projection $1.8 trillion]:

“I’m terrified … we’re looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high … looming threat to the federal government’s solvency …

“the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident, the fiscal train wreck, is already under way.”

Krugman versus Krugman for more quotes and data.

Which Krugman to believe?

By: Justin P

Justin P — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:04:00 +0000

Hard science is where you can design an experiment to directly test your hypothesis. The difference with respect to Economics is that in Econ, you can never directly test your theories. You have to extrapolate, try to compensate for this variable and then try to compensate for that variable….blah blah blah. The point is you can never directly test your hypothesis or theories in Economics, where you can in the “hard” sciences.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:09:00 +0000

I’m not a Krugman hater, but I don’t know if you’re right on the book thing. As far as I can tell, Dean Baker, Robert Shiller and Peter Schiff were pretty much the only Americans of renown that predicted this collapse. Maybe Michael Panzer, too, but not Krugman.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0000

well, to be charitable, democrats might be bad (they are when it comes to knowledge of economics) but Republicans have been absolutely abysmal.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:59:00 +0000

Mark, I’ve seen every episode, but it seems like the most recent season was a couple of years ago; am I right?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:57:00 +0000

You’re kidding when you say you don’t know what it means, right?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:52:00 +0000

First there is nothing contradictory in Krugmans concerns about the debt. Second Krugman wrote a book about this coming collapse while some economist wrote books on the power of choice and price to solve everything. They even denied the economic collapse as it was happening.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:55:00 +0000

ArrowSmith,
Now that I know what a gauleiter is, I can probably agree. The problem is that in trying to head Krugman off using the tactics of the left, you may become that which we/you/I abhor – a tyrant. The problem with saying that you are responding as the left does is that although it may feel good at first, when you try to “wash it off” later, you find that you have a stain left. Don’t get me wrong, we should not roll over and die for the bastards. We have to fight back and hard, but let’s do it with the best facts and conviction. I normally enjoy your posts and say these things just to help keep us all in line.
Best,
T Rich