We dislike him, we ridicule him, and we tend to dismiss him, but here’s the sad truth: Paul Krugman’s influence is vast, and conservatives have no effective counterpoise.
Over the past twelve months, Krugman has become the de facto official spokesperson for more government spending, larger federal deficits, and an aggressive monetary policy (including major asset purchases by the Federal Reserve like the one earlier this month). He reaches large audiences via his twice-weekly column in the New York Times and his blog on the New York Times website, to which he posts with impressive frequency — sometimes two or three times per day.
The Wall Street Journal would do its cause, and the cause of conservatism, a tremendous service by offering a similar platform to an outspoken and eloquent conservative economist. It should provide somebody a weekly column, a prominently featured blog, and a mandate to vigorously advocate free-market principles and supply-side economics. This person’s understanding of economics will need to be as deep as Krugman’s, so that he or she can comfortably spar with Krugman even on complex and highly technical subject matter; and the person will also need Krugman’s skill of explaining abstruse topics in a way that can be easily understood by non-economists.
The Wall Street Journal does not presently have such a columnist. Holman Jenkins writes a weekly column titled “Business World”, but he is not a heavyweight scholar of economics and his columns rarely address the macro-economic topics on which Krugman regularly opines. Arthur Laffer contributes, but not with sufficient frequency. We need somebody who can craft a coherent argument and then hammer it home, week in and week out. Someone who can regularly spar with Krugman and rebut his columns and blog posts.
Who might be suitable for such a role? It will be important to cast a wide net and thoroughly survey the pool of conservative economists who have penned compelling punditry, but it would probably have to be somebody in the mold of a John Taylor, a Niall Ferguson, or a Gregory Mankiw.
Yes, the recent elections suggest that Krugman’s side is losing in the battle for public opinion. But we ought not grow complacent. Krugman remains very effective at advancing, through widely read channels, a fiercely liberal economic viewpoint. He is influencing the terms of the debate, especially among educated professionals. We need an anti-Krugman, and what better place for him than in the pages of the Wall Street Journal?
— Alexander Benard is managing director of a D.C.-based consulting and investment firm.
I nominate Mike Shedlock.
His GlobalEconomicAnalysis blog, External Link
, has excellent commentary, he is of the Austrian school of economics (anti Keynesian), and is one of the most widely read and respected economics blogs in the world. And he is prolific.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed.
But one would hope that facts, experience and common sense would be a sufficient rebuttal to Krugman's hysterical pleas for even more taxes, regulation, spending and debt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe best thing to do with Krugman is to make it clear to Bernanke that anymore taking of his advice could lead to a serious audit that Krugman wouldn't have any control to stop.
Then, Brooksley Born should be set loose upon both.
As for a counter-point to Krugman, well, NRO used to have a fella by the name of Luskin who routinely took Krugman to the woodshed.
But that was when NRO wasn't too busy pushing cruises and think-tank stuff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would guess that the more Austrian of the economists who could be a foil to Krugman are at important institutions doing real work. Who among them would abandon that to write a newspaper column?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWithout naming him, David Brooks savaged Krugman (and other leftist economists) in today's Times. He cites their tenacious insistence on reliance on computer models, even in the face of contrary evidence. As a case in point, he refers to government stimulous packages, which simple have had little or no effect, and calls foolish the idea that more such packages will help.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis follows Krugman's column yesterday in which he, in fact, called for another, much larger stimulous package.
Brooks' column reminds me of when Abe Rosenthal occasionally felt compelled to rebut something particularly stupid in recent Times editorials or columns.
>We need an anti-Krugman, and what better place for him than in the pages of the Wall Street Journal?
Such a man exists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis name is Dr. Thomas Sowell.
It saddens me that Mr. Benard appears not have read or even heard of him, or if he has, ignores him completely. That is something he shares with most of the pundits at National Review.
Perhaps Mr. Benard has heard of Dr. Sowell, but views him as too controversial, radical, or partisan. These are admittedly deadly sins on the Right, though curiously they are never such on the Left.
A John Taylor, a Niall Ferguson, or a Gregory Mankiw? Sorry but these Whos in Whoville do not register.
More's the pity.
If he would do it, Phil Gramm seems a good choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hereby nominate Don Boudreaux of the popular Cafe Hayek blog,and also econ. professor at George Mason University. And as a back-up, his blogging partner Russ Roberts.
You say:
"This person’s understanding of economics will need to be as deep as Krugman’s, so that he or she can comfortably spar with Krugman even on complex and highly technical subject matter; and the person will also need Krugman’s skill of explaining abstruse topics in a way that can be easily understood by non-economists."
Boudreaux is a perfect match, and he's already spent a great deal of time on a weekly basis countering Krugman at Cafe Hayek.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThomas Sowell is the best there is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Wall Street Journal would do its cause, and the cause of conservatism..."
Silly me, I thought the WSJ was a newspaper rather than just another advocacy arm of Murdoch's right wing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Arthur Laffer contributes, but not with sufficient frequency."
Now there's a guy whose economic theories have yet to be refuted by empirical evidence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's a bit outside the mainstream for the Wall Street Journal, but Vox Day is an excellent voice for the Austrian school and regularly rebuts Krugman and Keynesian theory in general on his blog, Vox Popoli.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrank1914:
A hit! A very palpable hit!
I would like to see a counterpoint like the one described here. Perhaps there's a magazine or something where the editors will give someone the space to write long-form, and also run a blog...
Hmm...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA guy who used to write for them fairly frequently was Brian Wesbury. I'd nominate him in a second.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps there is no need for someone on the conservative side because everyone on the conservative side, even those with a small understanding of economics, can dismantle anything that Paul Krugman writes. When reality collides with Krugman's fantasy, anyone can see that he is the old man behind the curtain.
There is no need for a conservative counterweight to Paul Krugman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn C. Goodman of NCPA.
David Henderson of the Naval Postgraduate School and Hoover.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis person’s understanding of economics will need to be as deep as Krugman’s
If that's the benchmark, any primate qualifies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Rep. Paul Ryan didn't already have a day job, he'd school Krugman week-in and week-out. Not only does he have a degree in economics and political science, he is a deep policy wonk (in the mold of a Daniel P Moynihan) and he knows more about the federal budget than anyone else on the Hill.
However, the article misses the mark slightly. What makes Krugman so appealing (or is that appalling?) is that his audience (NY Times readers, ie, guilt-ridden-limousine-liberals of Manhattan) is largely liberal and he spends most of his time as an opinion (bad as it is) writer throwing red meat out to his salivating audience. I don't think any of his "writings" make it past the third paragraph before he starts frothing at the mouth (I pity his computer monitor) about those darn wing-nut Republicans. I'm not so sure I would want a thoughtful conservative trying to best him like that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy vote is for the Mankiw. Mankiw is the man, he already has a great blog, one of my favorites, he also has an Econ textbook like Krugman (only his is better) and he writes columns from time to time, he just needs to step it up and do it for the WSJ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember, this potential candidate will also need a vicious and mean-spirited wife to ghostwrite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse