Comments on: Apologies to Paul Krugman

By: juan carlos vera

juan carlos vera — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:52:00 +0000

Estimado Don: Usted no debe disculparse por su interpretación sobre las creencias de Krugman. Su interpretación es correcta. Yo observo, desde afuera, que la ideología del señor Krugman es el motor intelectual de la mente económica del Presidente Obama. El esquema permitirá confiscar violentamente la riqueza del sector privado. La lógica de su intervencionismo se está utilizando como el instrumento perfecto disfrazando al pseudo-socialismo con la figura del gobierno benevolente. Los socialistas creen que se trata de un avance hacia el socialismo, los anti-socialistas también creen en ese socialismo, y quienes no entienden nada se creen el verso del gobierno benevolente. En verdad, a la distancia, solo se observa el inexorable avance de un mero acto confiscatorio operado por la mano invisible de la gran hermandad de los improductivos.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:18:00 +0000

John, I’m not sure I value executives that differently from an entrepreneur. As an investor, I can choose to allocate my capital elsewhere. I’m not forced to remain a shareholder. As an investor, I regard entrepreneurs in the same way.

I understand that Don is very narrowly conceding that in that particular statement, Krugman is not claiming that wealth creation is a zero-sum game. He is merely giving that illusion. Purposely so. Very passive aggressive.

I still don’t like the way Don’s apology divorces GDP from its creators, but that’s my problem.

Having said that, I remain deeply respectful of Professor Boudreaux and still consider reading his posts the spiritual highlight of my day.

Ditto.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:00:00 +0000

I agree that Krugman can be interpreted in this way — and, frankly, I have little doubt that this “fixed-pie” impression is the one that he meant to convey to (and/or to depend upon from) his readers. But still, in the context of looking at shares of a GIVEN GDP, my new interpretation is both plausible and the more-generous of the two.

I insist upon giving even devils their due — or, even more than their due. We (true) liberals can afford to be generous in our interpretations of others.

By: John Dewey

John Dewey — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:07:00 +0000

"if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else."This is NOT "a matter of arithmetic". Krugman did not say:"if the rich possess more of a fixed amount of wealth, there is less wealth left to be possessed by everyone else."Rather, he said:"if the rich GET more ..."He's writing about the process of acquiring wealth. And Krugman is wrong. As giants such as Herb Kelleher and Sam Walton GOT richer, they increased the wealth of almost everyone else.

By: John Dewey

John Dewey — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:44:00 +0000

“if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else.”Here’s why this sentence bothers me so much:Rich man Herb Kelleher created an organization – Southwest Airlines – which figured out how to make passenger air travel much more efficient. As Southwest attracted more air fares, rich executives and shareholders of U.S. Airways, United Airlines, and other companies did indeed get less compensation for their efforts. But the customers of Southwest Airlines kept many more of the dollars they would have given to those other airlines – and to Greyhound bus lines and to Exxon for gasoline for personal vehicles.So was everyone else left with less as rich man Herb Kelleher got richer? Of course not. Herb Kelleher managed to increase his wealth at the same time that his customers were able to increase their standard of living. It’s not “everyone else” who received less, but just the inefficient producers and the owners of those inefficient companies.Krugman wasn’t writing about the arithmetic of GDP. He was writing about the supposedly unfair way in whch wealth is acquired. His essay is offensive.