Nonsense.

Statism is the doctrine that holds that one’s life and one’s property belongs to the state, who may dispose of it as it sees fit, to achieve any of its alleged goals or satisfy any of its alleged “needs”.

The notion of a fiscal “stimulus” is the notion that the state, not the individual, has the right to decide how much of the individual’s money should be spent at any one time — and that if, in the opinion of the state, the individual is spending too little and saving too much, the state may veto the individual’s decision and spend his/her money anyway.

Thus, the very notion of a fiscal “stimulus” is a manifestation of statism — statism is the premise on which it is founded. To claim that advocating a fiscal stimulus has nothing to do with any statist premises is to confess an ignorance of the meaning of the terms one is using.

My “challenge to Krugman’s prescription” is to assert that my life and my money belong to ME, not to Krugman, not to “society”, and not to the government — and that, as a consequence, no one but ME has any right to decide how much of my money will be spent or saved at any one time.

The fact that Krugman “laid out exactly how he came to the figure that he did” is utterly irrelevant! If a man in the street points a gun at you and demands that you give him $184.63 of your money, his action is not excused, and he is not automatically entitled to that much of your money, merely because he can show you precisely how he came to that total.

Only a concrete-bound mentality — one that is impervious to the actual principles involved — can possibly think that what Krugman advocates is justified because he’s done his sums properly.

The stimulus figure Krugman came up with has nothing to do with any imagined statist premises. He got his figure from decades old back-of-the-envelope fiscal policy equations (Okun’s law, essentially), and CBO numbers on NAIRU, the output gap, and unemployment. An undergrad could do it.

If you’re going to challenge Krugman’s prescription explain why he’s wrong. Accusing him of an “-ism” is the easy way out – and not too convincing when he’s laid out exactly how he came to the figure that he did.

If we have a good economic recovery, he’ll say it’s a result of the stimulus (or some other interventionist government actions). If we experience only a deeper recession, he’ll simply say see, I told you so, the stimulus needed to be bigger. Regardless of the outcome, regardless of the facts, Krugman will never give up his advocacy of government intervention into the economy.

Look, anyone that can continue to advocate statist intervention in the economy — despite it’s global-scale, perfect-failure-record — deserves to be called dogmatic, if not a whole lot worse.

As for my position on the stimulus, I say it’s an immoral looting of my income and thus a blatant violation of my property rights. To falsify that position, you must prove that some men have a greater right to a man’s property than does the man who has earned it and is thus its rightful owner. You have to prove that it is right and just to deny someone what he’s earned while granting it, instead, to someone who has NOT earned it. Proceed to justify that, if you can.

I do enjoy reading from Russ and Don a lot, but I find it so funny that people think they are the anti-Krugman. I actually read them for much the same reasons as I keep up with Krugman’s blog – and I find the three of them very similar. They’re all hopelessly predictable, not afraid to mix normative judgements into their economics, all are respectful of older intellectual traditions in economics (which I think is very important to keep in touch with), all three are brazenly outspoken – which is always nice to read in a blog, and all three take it very personally when someone suggests they may be wrong about something (which makes for interesting dynamics on a blog).

And don’t worry – when I say that another economist is like Krugman I mean it as the highest of compliments.

This is nonsense – if you followed what Krugman said about the stimulus, he gave a figure that he thought was more appropriate. To falsify his prediction about what this stimulus will do, we’ll have to compare the administration’s projections to his. Obviously we can’t falsify his ideal stimulus because the figures he proposed from the outset were never passed. But in that sense, your position on the stimulus is unfalsifiable as well. You can’t blame Krugman for being unfalsifiable just because Congress didn’t listen to him – especially when you’re in the same boat. This stimulus is good but not nearly enough to pull us out – and when it ends up not pulling us out you’re just going to argue that that’s a reason for why we should have done less in the first place.

Anyway, while I agree simply dismissing someone as a dogmatist is wrong, especially someone as well-read and well-studied as Krugman, in this instance Don is 100% justified in doing so. This is one of those knee-jerk moments where Krugman decides the problem is as he wants it to be so the solution will also be as he wants it to be without looking up the data. If he bothered to do so, he’d find that there’s no correlation between spending and educational outcomes, except in limited, specific cases.

This article is old (2007) as is the study (2005), but it makes the point decently well:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2438214220070524?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

As I’ve seen others say, Krugman might have been something ten or more years ago, but he’s little more than a hack today. It’s sad to see that happen, I’ve read some of his old stuff (especially the one about interest rates in an interstellar situation — pure geek porn, I loved it) and he really was (And probably still is) a very intelligent man.

Anyway, while I agree simply dismissing someone as a dogmatist is wrong, especially someone as well-read and well-studied as Krugman, in this instance Don is 100% justified in doing so. This is one of those knee-jerk moments where Krugman decides the problem is as he wants it to be so the solution will also be as he wants it to be without looking up the data. If he bothered to do so, he’d find that there’s no correlation between spending and educational outcomes, except in limited, specific cases.

This article is old (2007) as is the study (2005), but it makes the point decently well:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2438214220070524?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

As I’ve seen others say, Krugman might have been something ten or more years ago, but he’s little more than a hack today. It’s sad to see that happen, I’ve read some of his old stuff (especially the one about interest rates in an interstellar situation — pure geek porn, I loved it) and he really was (And probably still is) a very intelligent man.

You think “I don’t see any differences between education and groceries” counts as a reason?

Yes, I do. Pointing out the successful functioning of other markets is a valid argument.

To admit that voluntary trade to mutual benefit is the proper relationship for human beings in some markets — while coerced-redistribution of earnings to provide unearned benefits to others is a proper replacement for a market in other situations — such a claim bears a heavy burden of support, a burden which leftists like Krugman evade. It is for the Krugman’s of the world to prove why the initation of force against the innocent is justified in the pursuit of some economic goods and services but not others — and he cannot do it.

You also wrote:

But when he talks about the stimulus, for example, he presents models and REASONS for why liquidity traps are problematic and why fiscal stimulus is uniquely able to address the problems in these specific cases.

The dogmatic nature of his argument rests in the fact that it is pitched in non-falsifiable terms. No matter what level of “fiscal stimulus” is applied, if it fails to achieve what he claims it will achieve, Krugman will simple declare that the stimulus was “too weak” or “too late”, etc. To cling to a theory regardless of the facts is by definition dogmatic — and that’s what I’ve watched Krugman do for a long time now.

But this instinct not to take him seriously or to pretend that he can be dismissed as some dogmatist comes across as really childish every time it’s brought up on here.

It’s not an instinct on my part — it’s based on the evidence. No sane, non-brain-damaged alleged “economist” can possibly believe that government spending has declined over the last 30 years and that education spending must, therefore, also be down. That’s a typical Krugman claim — and only a blind devotion to push a viewpoint can explain it.

Nor am I doing what you imply — I’m not replying to some valid argument offered by Krugman by saying, “That argument can be ignored because Krugman is a dogmatist”. When you catch me doing that, then you can level this accusation at me — and I’ll agree with it. But as it stands, the claim that what I wrote above “comes across as really childish” — well, that claim comes across as really childish to me.

You think “I don’t see any differences between education and groceries” counts as a reason?

Yes, I do. Pointing out the successful functioning of other markets is a valid argument.

To admit that voluntary trade to mutual benefit is the proper relationship for human beings in some markets — while coerced-redistribution of earnings to provide unearned benefits to others is a proper replacement for a market in other situations — such a claim bears a heavy burden of support, a burden which leftists like Krugman evade. It is for the Krugman’s of the world to prove why the initation of force against the innocent is justified in the pursuit of some economic goods and services but not others — and he cannot do it.

You also wrote:

But when he talks about the stimulus, for example, he presents models and REASONS for why liquidity traps are problematic and why fiscal stimulus is uniquely able to address the problems in these specific cases.

The dogmatic nature of his argument rests in the fact that it is pitched in non-falsifiable terms. No matter what level of “fiscal stimulus” is applied, if it fails to achieve what he claims it will achieve, Krugman will simple declare that the stimulus was “too weak” or “too late”, etc. To cling to a theory regardless of the facts is by definition dogmatic — and that’s what I’ve watched Krugman do for a long time now.

But this instinct not to take him seriously or to pretend that he can be dismissed as some dogmatist comes across as really childish every time it’s brought up on here.

It’s not an instinct on my part — it’s based on the evidence. No sane, non-brain-damaged alleged “economist” can possibly believe that government spending has declined over the last 30 years and that education spending must, therefore, also be down. That’s a typical Krugman claim — and only a blind devotion to push a viewpoint can explain it.

Nor am I doing what you imply — I’m not replying to some valid argument offered by Krugman by saying, “That argument can be ignored because Krugman is a dogmatist”. When you catch me doing that, then you can level this accusation at me — and I’ll agree with it. But as it stands, the claim that what I wrote above “comes across as really childish” — well, that claim comes across as really childish to me.

I am a student in Britain (in the equivalent of senior high) and what i’ve realised is the major problem with public education is that what you end up with is only one version of truth being taught, that is, the government’s version of truth.

We have something in the UK called the ‘national curriculum’, whereby all schools in Britain, public and private, must teach basically the same things.

The bureaucrats who run the national exam boards have used this for their own left-wing agendas (or so it would seem). We are taught in science that it is irrefutable fact that global warming is an existential threat to mankind unless we act now, in history that the New Deal was unquestionably good for America, even in English classes we read plays by the anti-big-business Arthur Miller and articles almost entirely from the guardian (a left-wing British newspaper).

The end result is that this generation of British children thinks that global warming is as true as pythagoras’ theorem, that the new deal was as good as the end of the slave trade, and that Arthur Miller was as great and as right as Shakespeare. (No offence to American playwriting, i just don’t like left-wing playwrights).

Your federal system in the USA probably prevents any kind of ‘national curriculum’ but the more politics mixes with education, the greater the chance of that sort of thing happening. That’s my reason for opposing Krugman’s suggestions.

(By the way David Rotor- you say American companies rely on taxpayer-funded roads. Well in the 18th century the British government almost entirely privatised its road system and ended up with the best road system in Europe at that time).

I am a student in Britain (in the equivalent of senior high) and what i’ve realised is the major problem with public education is that what you end up with is only one version of truth being taught, that is, the government’s version of truth.

We have something in the UK called the ‘national curriculum’, whereby all schools in Britain, public and private, must teach basically the same things.

The bureaucrats who run the national exam boards have used this for their own left-wing agendas (or so it would seem). We are taught in science that it is irrefutable fact that global warming is an existential threat to mankind unless we act now, in history that the New Deal was unquestionably good for America, even in English classes we read plays by the anti-big-business Arthur Miller and articles almost entirely from the guardian (a left-wing British newspaper).

The end result is that this generation of British children thinks that global warming is as true as pythagoras’ theorem, that the new deal was as good as the end of the slave trade, and that Arthur Miller was as great and as right as Shakespeare. (No offence to American playwriting, i just don’t like left-wing playwrights).

Your federal system in the USA probably prevents any kind of ‘national curriculum’ but the more politics mixes with education, the greater the chance of that sort of thing happening. That’s my reason for opposing Krugman’s suggestions.

(By the way David Rotor- you say American companies rely on taxpayer-funded roads. Well in the 18th century the British government almost entirely privatised its road system and ended up with the best road system in Europe at that time).

I wouldn’t waste too much time thinking about my philosophy. I’ve generally found that anyone that doesn’t brazenly declare their libertarianism comes across as “mushy” on here unless they brazenly declare their socialism. My guess is you’ll always be predisposed to see me as mushy, so don’t even worry about it.

I wouldn’t waste too much time thinking about my philosophy. I’ve generally found that anyone that doesn’t brazenly declare their libertarianism comes across as “mushy” on here unless they brazenly declare their socialism. My guess is you’ll always be predisposed to see me as mushy, so don’t even worry about it.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/education-spending-doubled-stagnant.html

Putting more money into eduction does not seem to help much?

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/education-spending-doubled-stagnant.html

Putting more money into eduction does not seem to help much?