Comments on: Menacing Krugman

By: A.J. Lenze

A.J. Lenze — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:15:26 +0000

One more reason that the Great Depression dwarfs our current economic downturn: In the 1930s, only the male head of most families worked, so if he was unemployed, the family's income dropped to zero. Today, in many families, both husband and wife work, so if one is unemployed, the family's income doesn't completely evaporate.

By: A.J. Lenze

A.J. Lenze — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:15:26 +0000

By: greego

greego — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:39:42 +0000

Hmm… most of his NYT blog audience?

Here's an amusing example from the China article that Don posted:
“Are you and Joseph Stiglitz invited to participate in the White House Jobs Summit? YOU BOTH DEFINITELY SHOULD BE! I am ready to march in the streets if you are not. I asked Mr. Douthat to see what he could do about making sure that you will be there! After all, the Republicans might as well be helpful about something!”

By: Curious

Curious — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:52:32 +0000

Agreed. Government employees are worse than unemployed because:
1. they cost more
2. their “work” makes life harder for the real wealth creators (private sector)

So every government employee should be counted as more than 1 person on welfare and thus unemployment today is much, much worse than during the Great Depression.

By: Curious

Curious — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:52:32 +0000

Agreed. Government employees are worse than unemployed because:
1. they cost more
2. their “work” makes life harder for the real wealth creators (private sector)

So every government employee should be counted as more than 1 person on welfare and thus unemployment today is much, much worse than during the Great Depression.

By: AndrewLynch1

AndrewLynch1 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:39:28 +0000

Don, not to be a suck-up or anything, but I enjoy your constant assault on Krugman. He's got a nice fat pedestal from which he can assault us (and the progressives who listen), so don't change a thing.

By: AndrewLynch1

AndrewLynch1 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:31:40 +0000

As any honest dissenter will tell you, the berating of misguided men with ginormous public pedestals is never tiresome.

By: muirgeo

muirgeo — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:20 +0000

His economics predicted this market collapse as libertarians cheered it on.

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:05:57 +0000

Well right – that's what I would disagree with him on. But the section we're both quoting from is called “The Price of Inequality”. I doubt he questions “a rising tide lifts all boats” so much as he questions whether that oversimplified metaphor really captures all the issues that he (and presumably his readers) care about.

Even you have to admit that the “rising tide” illustration is just an illustration. Not everyone's income rises at the same pace, and some decline. Some people care about that, some people don't.

By: DonBoudreaux

DonBoudreaux — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:01:48 +0000

Daniel: Also in the passage I quote above (from Krugman's NYT Magazine article), he tries to discredit – as being inapplicable today to the U.S. – the “rising tide lifts all boats” metaphor. Seems pretty clear to me that Krugman is here suggesting that many 'boats' are not 'rising' in the U.S. — that 'the rich' are benefiting at the expense of the poor.

By: Randy

Randy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:01:31 +0000

Agreed. The idea during the Depression was to save people by turning them into government dependents. The idea during this recession is to rescue the government dependents by borrowing money. So what happens next time?

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:58:20 +0000

you're an odd duck, sandre

By: sandre

sandre — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:56:27 +0000

you are my guru. You can't offend me. You dazzled me with that quote – chock-full of stats. You are amazing; Your ability to talk out of both sides of your mouth is something I need to master. Keep the tips coming.

By: DonBoudreaux

DonBoudreaux — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:52:02 +0000

Daniel: If by “dollars” Krugman means “a variety of different assets,” then his assertion that Chinese accumulation of “dollars” is siphoning demand from the rest of the world doesn't follow.

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:47:21 +0000

it was a quote, you goof

By: danielkuehn

danielkuehn — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:45:46 +0000

OK, I thought my point was clear. He never mentions what “more” is “more” of. It's vague the first time he mentions it. It's specific the second time he mentions it – he's talking about a slice of a static pie. He's not saying people are “poorer” – they just get “less” of the pie. Big difference.

It's like in your most recent post on Krugman – you can assume that Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about, or you can assume that “dollars” isn't actually currency, but short-hand for a variety of different assets.

I don't think anything I ever say is going to convince you not to go into reading Krugman thinking he doesn't know what he's talking about.

By: DonBoudreaux

DonBoudreaux — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:44:39 +0000

As for Krugman's assessment of Milton Friedman's monetary policy as being laced with "dishonesty," I recommend this article by Anna Schwartz:
www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n2/cj28n2-9.pdf

By: txslr

txslr — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:44:32 +0000

You know, I've been pretty healthy lately, but this morning I woke up with a headache. It's the worst I've felt since I tore my ACL several years ago. I guess I should go in for knee surgery, eh?

By: sandre

sandre — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:43:57 +0000

You dazzled me with statistics. I'm taking copious notes here. I'll get to where you are in no time. I'm starting to convince myself, which I think is the first step.

By: DonBoudreaux

DonBoudreaux — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:42:45 +0000

Daniel: This quotation from Krugman does not change what he said in the passage that I quote — and the one that I quote is the offensive one. Let me highlight for you the core of the passage that I quote: “if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else.”