Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Krugman's prize

Re: Krugman's prize

Nicolas — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:35:02 -0000

What are you Russ, ignorant or dishonest? All Krugman says is: For a given pie, if one part is bigger, the remaining parts need to be smaller.

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?

Re: Krugman's prize

David — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:43:46 -0000

You label your article "Krugman's price", the price is clearly about his academic work, and then you go on and attack him for his political views. It just is lame, sorry. Put the politics aside for one day, and pay tribute to a man who has contributed greatly to economic research. Just because he is not of your (or mine) political side doesn't mean one cannot see that he is a great economist and can acknowledge that.

Re: Krugman's prize

dg lesvic — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:40:12 -0000

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?

Re: Krugman's prize

Jeremy — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:37:39 -0000

I can't stand Krugman. I remember his positions on the Asian Financial Crisis closely resembled that of some libertarian thinkers, until he realized that the moral hazard argument was being expounded by some folks whose positions he disagreed with. Then he flip-flopped.

I better go find my stress ball before I explode!

Re: Krugman's prize

Russ Roberts — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:34 -0000

Chris (and others),

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.

Re: Krugman's prize

Chris — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:16:32 -0000

Russ,

The biggest assult on liberty has come from the Bush administration, but you can only muster outrage over a prize for academic work with which you admit that you are not familiar. You're a class act.

Re: Krugman's prize

Methinks — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:14:16 -0000

Let's face it, the prize was given to Friedman and Hayek reluctantly and only because they just couldn't get around their contributions to the science. the Nobel committee agreed to give Hayek the prize only if he shared it with the Marxist. They leapt to give Al Gore a prize for making a dumb movie, passing over a woman who risked her life and withstood to save the lives of many many others. The Nobel prize is becoming meaningless.

Re: Krugman's prize

Pingry — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:09:45 -0000

Charlie,

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.

Re: Krugman's prize

Babinich — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:00:56 -0000

Don Luskin has had constantly written to Dan Okrent about the dishonesty of Paul Krugman.

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...

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

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

Re: Krugman's prize

Vake — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:00:56 -0000

Thanks for the inspiration Russell. It's disheartening seeing the continual march of statism, but knowing that liberty will ultimately triumph is our ultimate consolation.

Re: Krugman's prize

T L Holaday — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:53:54 -0000

For an example of grace and good manners in the face of the success of someone with whom you have policy differences, see Arnold Kling on his blog and at Reason.

Re: Krugman's prize

Trumpit — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:51:40 -0000

This is totally disrespectful blather on the day that Krugman wins the big one. Couldn't you wait until tomorrow to trash, and bash him. Show a little common decency on a day of celebration for him and his friends, family, and fans.

Re: Krugman's prize

Charlie — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:38:41 -0000

No they won't, becauase they aren't dumb. Do you think this puts Krugman in a higher tax bracket? It certainly won't. His and his wife's salaries as professors put Krugman in the top bracket. Not to mention he has two well-performing texts and several books, plus his NYT column. I really doubt he's been voluntarily paying higher taxes through the last 8 years. I don't know why he would start now. And people don't care. Probably because they don't think it is a deviation of ones arguments to advocate for one thing, and yet, if it doesn't work to follow the law as is. It seems the public may actually think it is noble to rail against one's on self-interest, because of a belief that it is fulfilling some higher principle of fairness or justice.

Charlie

Re: Krugman's prize

Pingry — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:32:30 -0000

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.

Re: Krugman's prize

muirgeo — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:30:43 -0000

The difference between your world and our world is that in our world, your world can and will exist. In your world, our world can never exist.

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.

Re: Krugman's prize

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:27:50 -0000

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.

That is precisely what I am saying.

Re: Krugman's prize

DRDR — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:18:19 -0000

I'm curious to see if Krugman uses this award to gain "a larger soapbox." My first impression is no. Unlike most laureates, he had a large soapbox to begin with, and I'm not sure he really wants a larger one.

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.

Re: Krugman's prize

Charlie — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:01:21 -0000

-Pingry

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

Re: Krugman's prize

gilligan — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:59:16 -0000

I've said this once and I'll say it again: The difference between your world and our world is that in our world, your world can and will exist. In your world, our world can never exist.

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

Re: Krugman's prize

Pingry — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:54:34 -0000

Indeed, as an addendum to my previous post, if Krugman decides to willingly pay at the higher rate, to keep with his writing in which he attacks the Bush tax cuts, and despite only a legal obligation to pay the lower rate, then the higher tax burden (reflected in foregone goods and services, whether now, or in the future from lower interest income from investments)is surely a big cost of being a public intellectual.

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.

Re: Krugman's prize

colson — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:46:15 -0000

Anon makes a good point. There are some PK articles over at http://www.econlib.org/ that pretty much rebuke your ideas about PK. His Nobel was based largely on his older work, prior to becoming a just another political wonk.

"Hey... here is a fact the majority of the worlds people overwhelmingly reject libertarian politics and economics."

... and if everyone jumps off of a bridge, I'm guessing you would be right there with them. A significant portion of the world is ignorant of economics despite their active participation as an actor in the economy of human nature. DB posted a point on this exact issue when he noted a NYT or WaPo columnist was fixated on the "seen", never taking a glance to comprehend the unseen factors involved.

"The only way to have your way is to force it on people on societies against their wishes"

Well, not really. We advocate for a system of negative rights. You advocate for positive rights. Your position, by definition, imposes its will on others. We think people should be free without imposing their will on others. We don't threaten people with taxes and regulations. We don't rob people of their rightful gains. To the greatest extent of our ability, we promote education over force, reality over unrealistic idealism.

"(a shock of sort always helps)"

Stop using Naomi Klein's fallacious arguments to buttress your own. You are doing yourself a disservice to use Klein's out-of-context quote while ignoring the greater concept Friedman wrote of.

I've said this once and I'll say it again: The difference between your world and our world is that in our world, your world can and will exist. In your world, our world can never exist.

Re: Krugman's prize

Anon — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:41:58 -0000

Parkwells:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Re: Krugman's prize

Krugman - OMG. — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:41:50 -0000

I've often thought that, in the interest or promoting his ideas as superior, pointing out the fact that Hayek got a Nobel prize in economics was treading on shaky ground, because of the unabashed statism of several of the other economists who were also Nobel prize recipients.

But this clinches it: Paul Krugman has been awarded a Nobel prize in economics. And what perfect timing! Interventionist policies have brought the U.S., and the world, to their knees financially. Who better to be lauded than a champion of leftism! Oh, the sweet irony.

I know the Swedes have had their challenges with socialism, but how far left can they go before they've completely stripped a Nobel prize award of all its legitimacy? What's next, a posthumous Nobel for Marx? Playing "a big role in shaping the discourse in economics" is the central criterion for the Prize, after all.

How much you would you bet that Hayek would list his Nobel on eBay now if were alive? The Nobel in economics is now, officially, a bad joke.

Re: Krugman's prize

dg lesvic — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:41:18 -0000

Prof Roberts quotes Prof Krugman as saying:

"...if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else."

The first response, of course, is that the rich get more by producing more for everyone else.

The second, I submit: that you do not get more for the poor by taking from the rich to give to them, that that will just make the poor themselves poorer.

For more on this, see my discussion below with Sam Grove at what is now the bottom of the comments section for My Argument for Redistribution.

Re: Krugman's prize

Parkwells — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:37:46 -0000

Another professor from Princeton recently published a book demonstrating that in the 20th there had been more real economic growth under Democratic administrations rather than Republican ones, and more increase in income inequality under Republican ones - so don't think the "free market" that Republicans and others claim to support is the best solution.