http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...thor:p-krugman



EDIT: Econophile's list is better

You don't seem to realize that you can evaluate someone based on things besides scholarly papers.

And can you seriously suggest that the person funding the report has nothing to do with the results of the research? Did you ever consider that the person funding this stuff might seek out researchers that will draw beneficial conclusions to his cause? Your thinking on this subject seems naive, whether we are talking about Krugman or anyone else. Perhaps it is because you are involved in a hard science where it is a lot more difficult to pass off bunk theories as fact when the empirical evidence is lacking.

Sigh.

I think the biggest problem with Krugman is that he got his nobel for trade theory but he's most vocal about macroeconomics. People are going to be reading his articles in the NYT and think the Nobel designation means that anything he says is settled science.

I'm not sure why this stuff matters if you actually read the work. If you read it and it is obviously biased to the point where the work is useless you should be able to tell right? Are you suggesting that because Krugman is funded by certain agencies (which you don't even know exactly) you are not required to read his work and can freely bash it?

This happens in any field, I can think of one very vocal physicist who is completely off on much of what he says publicly but he still certainly deserves the award.

I don't think I'm communicating effectively here, and for that I apologize. I couldn't care less about his trade policies. What I care about are the incessant appeals to authority people seem to love regarding his macroeconomic policy recommendations, which are ridiculous simply because they are Keynesian at heart and I think that system is bull**** based on my economic studies up to this point.

That said I perused his Nobel speech slides and didn't find them to be that groundbreaking, but obv slides don't tell the whole story. Perhaps I will take another look.

Who is appealing to authority? I am just saying that from the work itself it doesn't look obviously wrong and from what I can understand seems like it could possibly merit awards. You guys are saying that it MUST be crap because it is written by Krugman.

The speeches are usually dumbed down for a lay audience so it may not be the best source

Ok...do you think he should be listened to on these publicly discussed matters or not? Also who is it? I have some interest in the field so would like to know if I read something that seems intelligent but actually is stupid.

If after reading that paragraph you don't understand why your position is so flawed, I don't know what else to say.

Actually, I'll just try to explain; if I, as a relatively untrained observer of theoretical physics, read an article by Kip Thorne about black holes, I would almost certainly assume it was correct. And whether I did or did not agree at first, I could then read his work, and despite my limited knowledge of physics, conclude that he is a genius/infallible/the greatest physicist known to man.

Now in reality, he could be completely wrong. Being relatively ignorant of the material except for some familiarity with calculus/E&M/etc, I would have no way to ascertain this. Another observer more versed in physics (perhaps a grad student like yourself), however, could point out to me that despite his brilliant contributions to the field, there are severe flaws in some of his premises, and might therefore dismiss that body of work.

Take that little story and switch any reference to me with you, and any reference to physics with economics. (I personally am not a grad student but that isn't the point.)

He certainly shouldn't be listened to on certain matters and I think the same could possibly be true for Krugman, this whole thread is about the nobel prize which is not really a lifetime service award but an award for a specific idea. Sheldon Glashow is the physicist I was thinking about. I wouldn't call what he says stupid though, just wrong.



Is that what is going on here? If I was to criticize a physicist I would provide at least semi-technical analysis. For Glashow, I would say that underestimates the importance of how string theory incorporates gravity and singles out string theory for flaws which are going to be present in any form of quantum gravity at present. The only thing people have said about Krugman is that he is payed by the state (not even sure how true that is).

I dont think anyone really cares about the work he got his PhD for. I havent seen many actual criticisms (justified or not) about his trade theories. Almost all the criticisms and ad hominems are directed at his macro economic theories he is constantly spouting off in the NYT.

I can only speak for myself but what he's recommending on a daily basis would bring pain and suffering to a lot of people.
And he's obviously using his "Nobel prize fame" (even if it's unintended) to gain mass-credibility for his whacky ideas.

Exactly what arbitrary model for aggregating utility are you using to determine that his contributions add up to a net loss for society? Clearly, his employers have found his work valuable. And I see no successful effort on the part of those who are hurt by his contributions to fund his retirement from academia, which must mean that his contributions must help his employers and perhaps himself more than they hurt others.

Maybe its because people don't realize that they are hurt by his contributions. If we followers of economics can't even come to an agreement about the effectiveness of his suggestions, do you think the average person can?

There's no need for having a metric for utility. Krugman claims that through his proposed policies there will be more stuff to be used which is objectively false (which, I assume, is what clowntable meant).

If he claims that there would be less stuff but "more utility" (e.g. becuase he and his employers gain) then it would be up to him to show us the metric that proves that this "additional utility" makes up for the "lost utility" of the rest of the populace.

Seriously, stop trying to use the Austrian's rejection of interpersonal utility comparison against them. I mean, do as you like, but at least try to fully understand the argument first.

clowntable didn't say that Krugman was wrong - he said Krugman's contributions are a net loss for society. Those two are distinct claims.

There was a good post today from http://austrianeconomists.typepad.co...ard-monte.html that illustrates beyond any reasonable debate why people should take anything Krugman says with a dose of skepticism.

Krugman's article states:
Steve Horwitz responds:
So we have a nobel prize winning economists making claims about historical fact he knows nothing about. Regardless of his work in trade theory I dont see why anyone should take his ideas on macroeconomics seriously. The really sad part of all this is that most people are simply going to read his crendentials and assume his word is gospel without understanding the complex nature of the science of economics.

perhaps he meant academic contributions in terms of advancing peoples understanding and ability to tackle economic requiring tasks.

Or perhaps it's entirely hypocritical to criticize the "mainstream" economists for making simplified assumptions regarding aggregate utility, only to make blanket statements that presume the knowledge of others' utility functions?

How would one know, for instance that people are hurt by his contributions? Even under the worst possible results of any Keynesian stimulus, some people would benefit, correct? How does one compare the net effect on society?

I made this point before, but without some sort of presumed framework for aggregate utility, how do you decide that one system is better than another?

just how you decide destructive poker advice versus constructive. or between pusedo science and science. One plays, whether innocently or not, on a persons vulnerability to misalign their decisions with reality. This causes their predictions and descriptions to be inaccurate as well as their expectations. There is objectively more rational and more real ways of optimally aiming at goals and optimally aligning expectations. some advice is inherently destructive by working at the expense of all the advice that is inherently constructive or less destructive towards the end of scientific accuracy.

Wouldn't this then allow you to compare aggregate utility under one situation versus another?

You missed the point.
Utilitarian arguments are usually nonsensical, as there is nothing to be measured, compared, added etc.

If we assume that Krugman (or somebody else) doesn't get off on seeing these policies implemented but can only be made better off by the alleged consequences, i.e. increased wealth, then it logically follows that people as a whole are worse off if wealth actually decreases. This is a matter of trivial logical inference.

Of course, we thereby assume that Krugman doesn't get off on seeing his policies implemented per se. I think in a casual discussion this is a valid assumption. In a more profound ethical debate this wouldn't be a valid assumption.

But even some people would like to see those destructive policies implemented for their personal enjoyment: If they want to make a utilitarian case for the implementation, then it is up to them to demonstrate how their personal gain will make up for the loss of others. Do you disagree?

There are other ethical systems besides consequentialism.

i have no problem with doing this. goals need to be clear though and degrees of action understood.

First, this is irrelevant. Clowntable didn't just say we would be worse off if we implemented Krugman's suggestions, but rather his contributions have already made society worse off. Krugman has never been a policy-maker and the net effect he's had on policy is not easily gauged. Second, clowntable didn't say if Krugman is correct regardling his own assumptions regarding some vague notion of wealth being the primary goal of society, then his contributions have been a net loss. He stated, unequivocally, that Krugman's contributions have been a net loss for society.

In short, you're putting words in his mouth. Let the man answer for himself - he's probably the smartest of Austrian economists here on twoplustwo.


Please let us know how clowntable's statement can be interpreted under any other ethical framework.

Phone Booth: would you argue that a second depression (or extreme recession, call it what you will) could somehow NOT be bad for aggregate utility?

Yeah, I know that clowntable is very smart, maybe the smartest, and can speak for himself but as you try to paint Austrians as hypocritical nihilists in other discussions too, I took the freedom to respond with my point of view while trying to avoid putting words in his mouth as well as I could. Maybe consider PMs if that is a problem for you.

And again, yes, you are right, it is impossible to say whether Krugman's theories have been a net loss for society, strictly speaking. I personally (not to put any words into clowntable's mouth) think it is okay in a casual debate, where we give Krugman the benefit of the doubt that he is just terribly misguided and not an evil pervert who gets off on the misery of the poor. But yes, you are correct, he might be an evil pervert and then clowntable's statement would become nonsensical, as this crucial assumption wouldn't hold. Happy?