Stan, I’m afraid you’re heading down a blind alley. You cannot hold pre-NYT Economist Paul Krugman up to the current version. You’ll just go mad. Sallie James pointed out the problem with Columnist Paul Krugman, when it comes to the concept of competitveness.
But my favorite example was well chronicled by our friend James Taranto last year. When Sen. Jim Bunning held up an extension of unemployment benefits, Krugman lamented “the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties”
Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. …
But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”
Krugman added, “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe. And the difference between the two universes isn’t just intellectual, it’s also moral.”
Intrigued, Taranto went out to investigate what “textbook economics” says on the matter. He went to, of all places, Paul Krugman’s textbook (co-written with Robin Wells, AKA Mrs. Krugman) Macroeconomics. It says:
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
Now Krugman’s extended moralizing about helping the unemployed is not invalidated by his hypocrisy, but his pose of astonishment that anyone could agree with what his own textbook says is hard to square with claims of consistency or good faith.
Paul Krugman is Anthony Wiener, Part II.
You don't have to look very long or very far to see this is a troubled, angry, and immoral man.
The only point of view that matters to him is his own. Which is all well and good if he didn't have the NYT to provide free distribution of his insanity for public consumption.
I don't read the NYT - never have, never will.
Those of you - who like the proverbial train wreck, can't look away - only lend credence to an otherwise bit of trash that is less factual than the National Enquirer.
- And the Enquirer has better reporters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBravo!
And as I keep saying, conservatives are not doing anyone any favors by repeatedly linking to, commenting on, and quoting these partisan dopes -- even if the point is to demonstrate how dopey they are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is becoming all to apparent that Krugman's prolific opinion writing has caught up with him. Also obvious is his penchant for rationalizing the most recent and critical liberal political position, with no regard to logic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKrugman was wrong about what the textbooks say, but you could charitably interpret him to just be using textbooks as a shorthand for what the current (mistaken) consensus of economists says.
Remember, when conservatives look back on Alice Rivlin's testimony about the structure of the stimulus bill all they see are her unheeded warnings about how recovery efforts might be derailed in the execution phase. But nobody criticizes her on the absurd content of her recommendation, which prominently features extending unemployment benefits in order to stimulate the economy (as well as direct transfers to state governments, again to stimulate the economy).
Rivlin was speaking for the profession at large, and the profession at large is off the rails.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, but see Krugman is going all moralistic now. It's immoral to not support the unemployed. Forever. That's in the Bible or something, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe answer to your question is in your own text. Generous, European style unemployment benefits can lead to structural unemployment or a choice to remain on the dole. American unemployment is not generous, and at a time where is no other lever available to get money into the economy (lack of demand) the last thing a government should be doing is reducing the demand even further.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, chicago, but my spouse and I have several members of our social circle of family and friends who have been on unemployment long-term, and TO A PERSON, they've all turned down somewhat lesser-paying job offers (compared to the job they once held) in order to stay on a paid "unemployment vacation." Sleep in late, never get out of your jammies and slippers all day, surf the internet, avoid the commute - after awhile, it becomes addictive. It's just simple human nature and economics - if you pay people NOT to work, don't be surprised if they take you up on it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother Keynsian who still believes that it is the job of the govt to inject money into the economy.
The govt has billions of ways to inject money into the economy. They could just as easily send a $10,000 check to every man, woman, and child in the country.
Regardless. It doesn't matter how much money the govt injects into the economy, it doesn't do any good. Because before govt can inject money into the economy, it must first take money out of the ecnomy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe answer to your question is in your own text. Generous, European style unemployment benefits can lead to structural unemployment or a choice to remain on the dole. American unemployment is not generous, and at a time where is no other lever available to get money into the economy (lack of demand) the last thing a government should be doing is reducing the demand even further.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, don't you know that trying to square Krugman's logic with his earlier logic is akin to reading the Necronomicon aloud to kindergartners.
TERROR AND MADNESS BEYOND HUMAN COMPREHENSION!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, ya'll are shameless aren't you. Krugman's very clear point--if *you* actually exercise 'good faith' in reading what he says--is that Kyle's POV is "bizarre" given our current situation: an economy in a "deep slump," with "more than five unemployed workers for every job opening"--very clearly not the context in which his textbook point about unintended side-effects applies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat? Krugman said that the "unintended consequences" were manifested in the European unemployment rate staying so high. The European situation was WORSE than our current situation, with even more unemployed people per job opening.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI honestly believe that Krugman has gone insane. The change in his writings of years ago to now is mind boggling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHasn't it occurred to anyone that Krugman long ago passed his "sell-by" date, that his opinion pieces are no longer appropriate for even the New York Times, but rather for The Onion? Why are his opinions given any more weight these days than, say, Jimmy Kimmel's? It's gotten to the point where I expect more sense from Helen Thomas than from Krugman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse'The Krugman Fallacy' - but I repeat myself...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is yet more lazy hackery, Jonah.
There's no contradiction between the two comments. In the first, he was commenting on the proposition that unemployment benefits should be cut altogether in the midst of a recession. In the second, he was pointing to the risk that OVERLY GENEROUS unemployment benefits may contribute to structural unemployment by disincentivizing work
You don't need to be very smart to work out that he believes that we should have a safety net in place, but set at a level that is not so generous as to make it attractive to remain on benefits once work becomes available.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@gbh: "Overly generous" is a phrase you invented so as to lob insults.
Krugman says that "generous benefits" are a disincentive to work. Bunting says "continuing benefits" (which is another way of saying "generous") is a disincentive to work. Same same.
Then you made up more stuff, such as when you wrote that Krugman was "commenting on the proposition that unemployment benefits should be cut altogether in the midst of a recession". He was doing nothing of the sort. Krugman was claiming that unemployment benefits reduce (his word) unemployment. This is in direct contradiction of what his book says, and is frankly nuts. He then veils his nutjob econ. opinion in a moral blanket: disagree with the Krugman, and you are an immoral SOB.
Nice try, but Krugman is not a serious person, if he ever was.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Bunting says "continuing benefits" (which is another way of saying "generous")"
... and you accuse me of making stuff up!
Obviously, Krugman is talking about the level, not the duration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Krugman, please stop commenting under a pseudonym. We all know it's you, you naughty old man...;)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou state: "Obviously, Krugman is talking about the level, not the duration."
Bzzzt. Let's consult the tape shall we? Snipped from the QUOTE Jonah provided:
"Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS NOT ONLY HELPS THOSE IN NEED, IT ALSO REDUCES UNEMPLOYMENT"
So, contrary to your assertion, Krugman is most certainly talking about the the LENGTH for which unemployment benefits will be paid, not the amount of benefits will be paid. Indeed if you read the original Krugman post, it is quite obvious that he is focused on the duration of benefits not the sum total amount:
"During the debate over unemployment benefits, Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat of Oregon, made a plea for action on behalf of those in need. In response, Mr. Bunning blurted out an expletive. That was undignified — but not that different, in substance, from the position of leading Republicans.
CONSIDER, IN PARTICULAR, THE POSITION THAT MR. KYLE HAS TAKEN ON A PROPOSED BILL THAT WOULD EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND HEALTH INSURANCE SUBSIDIES FOR THE JOBLESS FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. Republicans will block that bill, said Mr. Kyl, unless they get a “path forward fairly soon” on the estate tax.
Now, the House has already passed a bill that, by exempting the assets of couples up to $7 million, would leave 99.75 percent of estates tax-free. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for Mr. Kyl; he’s willing to hold up desperately needed aid to the unemployed on behalf of the remaining 0.25 percent. That’s a very clear statement of priorities."
The simple fact is your wrong. Whether or not you'll admit to being wrong or not is largely irrelevant because it's clear you're purpose is not fact-based discussion but partisan trolling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse