Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:49, 17 June 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Krugman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 4 months

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Economics B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:JournProjectArticles

A news item involving Paul Krugman was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 October 2008.

[REDACTED]

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: David Steinberg (April 15, 2009). "The Unbearable Lightness of Paul Krugman's Thoughts". Pajamas Media.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 130 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

He isn't dead, you fools

The NRO article "Krugman's posthumous medal" is saying that he is intellectually dead, not that he passed away today. I watched him on TV this afternoon and he updated his blog as of 5 PM.

Comments during financial crisis.

Joseph Stiglitz writes in his book that Krugman wrote an open letter urging Malaysia to impose capital controls during the Asian financial crisis and Malaysia did so. Is there any info?

http://www.slate.com/id/35534 Auros (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor content edit

It's a good article, concise and well-written.

I deleted the phrase "which has since been refuted" in reference to Krugman's collection of columns, The Great Unravelling, as non-neutral and unverifiable. The book (in keeping with Krugman's economic theory in general) does indeed argue that ballooning deficit spending under the Bush administration is pushing the United States toward fiscal crisis; but the assertion that his thesis has been "refuted" (with no citation to any authority, no less) doesn't make any sense. Three years after the book's publication, still within the Bush administration itself, there is not a consensus among economists about the long-term effects of extreme deficit spending on economic growth. If anything, people in similar positions, like Robert Samuelson, are closer to agreement with his prediction than refutation.

In any event, claiming that Krugman was wrong (or right) at this early date, without attribution, is POV, not verifiable fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindana (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 April 2006

Information Box

Why is he in a box called neokaynesian economics, rather than Paul Krugman? And why is this box different to all the other biographies of nobel winning economists. Please change this box to be consistent, since it provides more information and does not imply that Krugman is a one-man, walking economic concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.178.136 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the formatting of Template:Infobox Economist. I agree its ugly. Many of the other Nobel-winning economists use Template:Infobox Scientist which has a nicer format. DavidRF (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Krugman does a complete 180, and decides that protectionism is great

Oh wow. 129.120.177.129 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. He writes (in conclusion): "And if we go all protectionist, that will shatter the hard-won achievements of 70 years of trade negotiations — and it might take decades to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. But there is a short-run case for protectionism — and that case will increase in force if we don’t have an effective economic recovery program." You can hardly claim this is an argument FOR protectionism - it's a warning.

In other words, in the long run protectionism is bad (in the economic sense), but economically there is a short-run case in which it may be superior (specifically, the case where 'we don't have an effective economic recovery program') - and the political/economic situation (no effective recovery program, lack of global coordination, etc) is such that we may end up there (and, even if "bad" in the long run, it may be better given the circumstances, i.e. looming danger of long, painful depression).

This column is a warning that without an effective recovery program, free trade may be doomed. It is wonkish (see the title of the piece, "Protection and Stimulus (wonkish))", and spends more time on the special circumstances and economic argument given that it is an unusual conclusion.

This is classic economics: if we don't do X (for example, deal with the credit bubble before it explodes), we will end up in unusual situation Y (for example, deflation and ineffective monetary policy), and if so, unusual measures which would normally be considered economically "bad" may end up being the only tool available (for example, large government deficit spending i.e. fiscal measures to get to recovery). I think if you search diligently that Krugman had many articles to this effect; it doesn't mean that Krugman generally supports fiscal measures over monetary, but rather he supports fiscal means when monetary means are ineffective.

In this case, he is more directly arguing that if fiscal measures ("better") are not used soon, protectionist measures ("worse") can be expected - and that the longer-run consequences of this will be worse than e.g. having run a deficit (fiscal means). And in other words, "hey you freshwater economists - choose your poison: fast-acting, mildly discomfitting, reversible fiscal deficits or slow-acting, irreversible heavy metal/amputation trade protectionism."--Gregalton (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Extant (sic)

This quote that "Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor" should either be marked out as (sic) - extant is primarily used as "still in existence; not extinct or destroyed or lost" (e.g. the extant works of Maimonedes), which is clearly bizarre ("not destroyeed or lost"?) or simply wrong and hence impeaching the reliability of the source. In other words, charitably, the author is misusing the word (and presumably means excessive or something else) and this is not much more than a typo and fully deserving of the (sic) label; less charitably, it's just plain wrong and nonsense. I thought I was being charitable by applying the sic label...

Krugman has a long record of criticizing both existing and mooted government policy interventions, and in some camps is considered to be (if anything) broadly opposed to many forms of government intervention - particularly protectionism.

Does anyone really think sources need to be found showing Krugman opposing existing forms of intervention? For example, opposing the sugar quotas system in the United States (and specifically the effect on the poor)? Let alone most of the columns he has written for the NYTimes...--Gregalton (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The critic is a radical deregulationist. I think he means "existing", but he coud equally well mean "still in existence", since he advocates elimination of regulations. Obviously he's very wrong in asserting that Krugman rarely opposes regulation, but that's a different issue. Perhaps he could have found a better word than "extant", but I don't see how it's grammatically incorrect. I think it's factually incorrect, but criticisms of Krugman, correct or incorrect, are what the "Criticisms" section is for. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Having read more in detail his paper, he does indeed appear to mean "existing", but (by his own text) clearly factually incorrect. I'll edit to detail.--Gregalton (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The missing word

Why does the word "Obama" appear nowhere in the article? There is no real guidance or hint as to Krugman's views on Obama's approach to the financial crisis. This has been Krugman's main focus for some time now, and readers would benefit from a concise, clearly written paragraph on Krugman's critique of Obama's economic policies with respect to the recession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is missing no longer. I just put in a brief discussion of the Krugman/Ferguson dust-up, and in that context the issue of Krugman's attitude toward Obama administration policy. --Christofurio (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobel "Memorial" Prize

It seems that other winners of this award use the full name of the award in their bio, but I haven't looked at them all, just clicked on a few to check. Also, the article on the award says is is commonly referred to as Nobel prize, but then it points out that it isn't one of the 5 "Nobel" prizes. Also, the "longer" name of the award changes over the years? Anyways, why not go with the linked to name of the award? I don't think it is derogatory or implies that he didn't win an award associated with Nobel. Was this brought up by some "talking head" to slam him? I saw this was brought up in the archive in passing but not discussed fully, just mentioned the correct name of the award. Anyways, Tom (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Further reading. --Tom (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Centenary Professor

Is Krugman centenary professor at the London School of Economics? According to the LSE, and according to his own website, he is. What evidence is there to show that 'no such position exists'? --LK (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article from Reuters, a reliable source, also names him as a centenary professor at the London School of Economics. LK (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson

Nothing yet about his very public, and I would say quite notable, public dispute with Niall Ferguson over inflation. --Christofurio (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Supposed 'support' for housing bubble

Visionthing, about your revert. Since there is not enough space in edit comment, so I will explain in full here. The recent addition by IP is vandalism, as:

1. The supposed quote is actually Krugman quoting someone else.
2. The word "" was inserted into the quote to imply something that Krugman did not actually say.
3. The 'quote' is taken out of context to support a thesis that the cited source does not support. Krugman has been worried that the Fed would create a housing bubble since 2002, he was not advocating for one.

LK (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Krugman wasn't quoting anybody, he was agreeing with McCulley.
2. That can be easily fixed.
3. Context of the article in question is that in 2002 Krugman was fearing that 2001 recession would be followed by another one. In his view, 2001 recession wasn't a typical post-WWII recession that could be fixed by typical measures. If I might add, that is much like his view today when it comes to fiscal deficit (current crisis needs to be solved first, and we will worry about deficits later), so that kind of thinking is not out of his character. -- Vision Thing -- 09:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're being unreasonably obtuse. Vandalism can always be fixed so that it's not vandalism anymore. However, as added, the edit was purposefully misleading, hence vandalism. Hence your revert to the original addition was unjustified. Also, read the article, Krugman was quoting Paul McCulley. LK (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read policy on vandalism? It says: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'ld also like to remind you of policy concerning biographies of living persons, any arguments critical of the subject must be impeccably sourced and neutrally presented. Attacks on living persons that are poorly sourced, and misleading, are not attempts to improve the encyclopedia. LK (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and the same standard applies for praise. -- Vision Thing -- 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep following that Anarcho-capitalist Hayekian agenda Vision Thing. You're really good at it. And accuracy and impartiality are overrated anyway. Wikidea 14:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have something against me? -- Vision Thing -- 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

VT, you have twice reintroduced misleading, improperly sourced, critical comments into a biography of a living person, once after I have warned you to be careful about doing so. You are breaking Misplaced Pages policy. Please stop. I have added a sourced statement about Krugman's actual position on the housing bubble in 2002. In the future, please research your subject before adding critical comments into biographies of living persons. LK (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it that V.T. is breaking any kind of policy. He seems to be making good faith edits, and there will be different aspects to the things in question here. Some ideologists do not like Krugman, others think he is the cats meow. Both groups are source-able, no doubt. The article should be well rounded as to critiques on him, pro and con. Also it appears that both editors here arguing with V.T. are making things rather personal. That is not a good idea. Making statements like you are breaking Misplaced Pages policy is pretty confronting. If you believe that to be the case L.K. then through requests for comment or similar means), could be used. skip sievert (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Skip, read WP:BLP, introducing improperly sourced criticisms into a biography of a living person is breaking policy. Criticism of living persons are held to a much higher standard. This is a serious policy, on controversial pages like the one on President Obama, the introduction of even one improperly sourced criticism will get the editor blocked. LK (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

LK, in my view, if anybody is breaking BLP it is you because you are misrepresenting Krugman's argument and trying to make it look like he got everything right. WP:BLP deals with contensious material no matter whether it is negative or positive. -- Vision Thing -- 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's view of the housing bubble in 2002

I propose that we try to find proper wording here and once we achieve that to reintroduce the section in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable... and it makes some points that are arguable and can be gotten at. Comments about can get an editor banned are not helpful. Note the statement about V.T.'s supposed politics above as to someones real or imagined beliefs by W.I. - Who really cares what he believes?

If these things are confirmed

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

Then information can be added. The sources should be being shown and discussed and debated here, not the people involved in editing, or the truth aspect of information. skip sievert (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

LK, please revert your last edit. Reason why the quote was introduced is because section was thought to be unbalanced in its original form. -- Vision Thing -- 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Also, with your last edit you broke WP:3RR. -- Vision Thing -- 16:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete long standing material because an edit dispute has occurred over what Krugman might have said 3 years earlier. As for 2002, I stand by my version. I believe it is a fair assesment of what Krugman said and meant in 2002. Please read through both articles (written back to back), I believe you will reach the same conclusion. LK (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As early as 2002, Krugman was fearful that a developing housing bubble could eventually lead to a US version of the Japanese lost decade, the decade of stagnant growth that followed the bursting of the Japanese housing bubble in 1990. He argued that, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort."Mind the Gap Krugman had also noted that, after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, the US Federal Reserve would need to create a housing bubble to pull the economy out of the early 2000s recession, "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Dubya's Double Dip

Let's agree not to touch the old version of the article until we get this dispute sorted out. LK (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As for 2002, I stand by my version. I believe it is a fair assesment of what Krugman said and meant in 2002. end quote LK - Thats your opinion then and debatable, but this is not about you and your fair assesment or what Krugman meant. Sourcing and literal meaning is more important and getting a real time-line of events that is sourced and objective makes for a better article.

This probably is not a real dispute if V.T. has provided sourced, reliable, and Npov information. It should be in the article then. Or if there is a problem a request for comment... can be made... but the information could be put in the article that V.T. is attempting to have in if that criteria is met as it looks to be. skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are some verifiable statements from Krugman's NYT columns. In August 2002, Krugman wrote:

• "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
• "Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off."
• "More and more people are using the B-word about the housing market. A recent analysis by Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Policy Research, makes a particularly compelling case for a housing bubble."
• "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort."

In 2005, he wrote, on Greenspan and the housing bubble,

• " like a man who suggests leaving the barn door ajar, and then - after the horse is gone - delivers a lecture on the importance of keeping your animals properly locked up."
• "As recently as last October Mr. Greenspan dismissed talk of a housing bubble"
• "If Mr. Greenspan had said two years ago what he's saying now, people might have borrowed less and bought more wisely. But he didn't, and now it's too late."

On hearing of the controversy over his 2002 article, Krugman wrote in 2009:

• "Guys, read it again. It wasn’t a piece of policy advocacy, it was just economic analysis. What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened."

Feel free to craft your own version of how these statements should be represented. Since I've gotten too involved in this dispute, I'm going to not edit the article for a while. LK (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Since my forthright reply to Vision Thing has been deleted, I should restate what I actually meant: Vision Thing, I think you're an admirable contributor. I think you set a brilliant example for all of us who work on Misplaced Pages in the pursuit of truth, clarity, even handed academic enquiry and a thirst for a deeper understanding of the human condition. I also think you have the highest standards of personal cleanliness, a demure disposition of mind, and that I am keen to continue cooperate with you on building a better encyclopedia for this reason: I respect your obvious intelligence, and anyone who thinks otherwise just hasn't seen enough of your excellent contributions. Well done, mate, keep it up. Wikidea 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press