|
Media Infiltrations: Of Interventions and Conservative Principles  National Review Online September 23, 2008 Quit Doling Out That Bad-Economy Line The Washington Post September 14, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
The Conspiracy Letters
Join the fray! Email us at letters@poorandstupid.com. We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously. Letters may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Friday, May 02, 2003
SCHOLASTICISM STRIKES BACK I am a co-author of said article deemed "sophisticated exegesis" ("Random Moodswings: Sophisticated Exegesis" 4/27/2003). Amidst a flurry of your purported incisive comments about Krugman's analysis, why undermine any credibility you have by boasting in one's ignorance with such a brainless reference to my article? If that is your intellectual style, why not pass around another round to your web beer buddies and give them a high five, as you salute a flat earth and denounce water fluoridation too.Professor Lones Smith
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:39 AM | link
Thursday, May 01, 2003
ANOTHER THEORETICAL ARGUMENT I noted that you conlude that economics is a "fraud" ("Same Corpse, Different Twitches" April 26, 2003), based on Paul Krugman's arguments. I think it is very unfair to judge the science of economics based on the idiotic ramblings of one man, who has long since ceased to be taken seriously by other (serious) economists.Krugman has in effect become a full time left-wing politican, and we all know that the left waived bye-bye to the consepts of fact, logic and honesty a long time ago in order to be able to defend their beloved ideology. Krugman simply does not represent the science of economics, at least in regards to his political writing. No serious economics journal would dream of publishing his "$500,000 per job" article for example.
That article is simply a disgrace. While Krugman probably is right in not counting the full ten years as "new" jobs, I completely agree with you that his "explanations" are simply after-constructions, in order to cover up a lie. There is no basis whatsoever to assume that the effect would only hold in one year, based on the science of economics. What is meant by "short term" is simply not defined, not even in the world of textbook economics. If a reasonable estimate is to be done, it probably be more in
the rang of 2 to 3 years on average. The fact that he never in his article justified why he had chosen one year as the definition of short term proves to me beyond any doubt that he simply was trying to lie to his audience, even if we accept his defense that it was "obvious" that the effect wouldn't be permanent. As you have yourself noted, there are good theoretical reasons to believe that some of the effect might be permanent, because of supply side effects. Even one of the Keynesians favorite concepts, that of "hysterics" (short term effect could give rise to long term effect, for example by creating a culture of unemployment), predicts that some of the jobs created represent an permanent increase in employment.
Lastly: I have not read everything you have written, so I might have missed this. But to me the most idiotic, immoral and utterly dishones assumption of the article is that one should view tax-cuts as "costs". Tax dollars that are cut do not dissappear, they stay in the pocket of the taxpayers! In that sense every job created by Bush is a pure benefit, even if it only last one year, or even one week. It is very important for me to emphasize that there is no rationale whatsoever in the science of economics to view tax cuts as "costs," as opposed to redistribution.
Tino Sanandaji
Ph.D. student of Economics at the University of Chicago
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:21 AM | link
KRUGMAN -- A THEORETICAL ARGUMENT One thing that I would like to point out to you. Thus far, you haven’t actually theoretically disproved Paul Krugman’s argument ("Krugman Doth Protest Too Much" 4/29/2003). Yes, he’s probably full of crap when he says that this is what he meant all along, but whether he meant it or not should make no difference to someone who’s intellectually honest and willing to honestly debate tax cuts. For those intellectuals who read your website religiously (as I do), I would suggest adding two little theoretical arguments against Krugman’s idiocy.
The first is one that Krugman just barely acknowledges. He says on his website that “You may argue that tax cuts are good for some other reason - say, that they have a supply-side effect, increasing potential output (that is, shifting LRAS to the right.) But aside from the fact that independent economists - even the hand-picked head of the CBO - don't agree, that's playing dirty: if it's about jobs, it's about jobs.”
Yes, the most important argument for tax cuts is not job growth, it’s the supply side effect. No one has ever made that a secret or tried to hide it. Of course, Krugman in his paranoia may use the same argument he uses in 75% of his columns -- that the Bush administration is misleading the public -- but that’s just Krugman’s oft-repeated big lie. I’m sure most people who read his columns actually believe this by now even though the real evidence suggests otherwise.
But more importantly, Krugman, in the above sentence, implies that there is no connection between the shift in the LRAS curve and the growth of jobs. Maybe someone should inform Krugman that if factories have more capacity, manufacture more products, sell more products, etc. and if the economy’s long run supply curve does actually increase, then more people will be needed by companies in order to manage this increased supply. The bigger a company gets the more people it employs. Textbooks may not talk about this because even a third grader can make that deduction on his own.
So it’s really not playing dirty at all. Arguing that the LRAS curve is shifted to the right due to tax cuts and that the shift results in increased jobs is perfectly feasible. I’m not even going to address the stupidity and condescension in the statement Krugman makes “aside from the fact that independent economists don’t agree” with the supply side effect. That’s just pure bullshit. The matter is a legitimate debate in the economic world. But that of course is aside from the fact that if you give people more money, they will spend some of it and invest some of it. Investment, in case Krugman forgot, is the most important supply-side effect tax cuts will have.
Secondly, Krugman, in his $750 billion number completely ignores the $350 billion in the plan for dividend tax cuts. So his crappy analysis should at least be tuned down by $350 billion. And if he wants to use the dividend tax repeal as part of his statistics, maybe he should start reading up on financial theory. The dividend tax cut would revolutionize capital structure for this country’s corporations. Debt would be seen as a riskier alternative to equity without the advantage of the tax shield over equity, and with the slow reduction in corporate debt, balance sheets will be less volatile, leading to less volatile capital markets, less risky corporate enterprises, and of course, as corporate America starts resting on firmer ground, jobs will be created in the process. This aside from the result of less jobs being lost due to bankruptcy.
So, you see, forget the fact that Krugman originally lied. Even his after-the-fact justification is completely full of crap.
Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:48 AM | link
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
WHOSE MONEY? This is all very amusing, watching Krugman go through spasms to defend himself ("Krugman Doth Protest Too Much" 4/29/2003). What I'd say is that even if he were correct and it took a tax cut of $500,000 to create a job paying $40,000 per year, that's better than the US treasury raking in that $500,000 and then spending it in ways that create no employment and may even lead to job destruction. What it ultimately comes down to is whether you think that resources are put to better use in the private sector or by the federal government, and that's a no-brainer. Except for some people with Ph.D.s from Keynesian econ departments.George Leef
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:19 AM | link
BENEFITS OF GROWTH Enjoyed your article about Paul Krugman's analysis ("Only Off by a Factor of 29" 4/22/2003). I didn't see his original analysis so I'm not sure where all the numbers come from, but if 1.4 million jobs are created, that isn't just $40,000 per job. The rule of thumb where I work is that benefits amount to 1/5 to 1/3 of the job salary. Thus, for every $40,000 in the employee's pocket (less taxes of course), there is another $8000 - $12000 running around in the economy chasing things like health care, tuition, etc. Seems that either drives up the number of jobs or is a better reflection of the true economic benefit of the jobs themselves. If I make $35,000 in salary but get $15,000 in benefits, I'm doing about as well as someone who makes $50,000 salary with no benefits. Seems that drives the ratio as well.
Paul Kline
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:16 AM | link
MORE PRINCETON MEMORIES Just to add my two anonymous cents on Princeton’s intro econ courses. I began life there as an engineer, but Harvey Rosen’s Econ 102 micro course was so lively and incisive that I switched to study econ. (It didn’t hurt that econ was a lot easier for me than physics.) Later I had Rosen for 333 Public Finance (i.e., taxes and spending), and he was no less brilliant. He connected his teaching with the real world and even presented some topics from a supply-side perspective. He has of course done lots of papers on taxes, especially showing how the 1986 marginal rate drop substantially increased job growth, revenue, and investment at small US companies.
I think it’s fair to say that most non-econ majors -- at Princeton or anywhere else -- at least everyone I’ve ever talked to -- had a fairly miserable experience with introductory econ courses. They get completely turned off and as a result leave economics to the “pros” like Krugman and De Long.
I don’t know the history of how Krugman came to teach 101/102—and I don’t know what Rosen’s doing these days or whether he requested a break—but replacing a funny, smart, ultra-popular, non-ideological, supply-side sympathetic like Rosen with Krugman seems scandalous for all those students coughing up $35,000+ a year.
Your electronic economic JDAMs have been scoring direct hits on the Princeton Woodrow Wilson School. Don’t let up! I say your goal should be regime change.
A shot of my own: You should ask Krugman why it is that after the Reagan tax cuts/deregulation/monetary stability the U.S. created some 40 million private sector jobs but Europe during the same period created virtually ZERO private sector jobs. Is Krugman suggesting that the 20-year Reagan boom was due to an increase in AD along the SRAS curve but now the SRAS curve is adjusting upward so now we are losing those jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts? If so, we’ve got a long way to go (about 37 million). Most of us would take “short-run” effects like the Reagan Run any day.
I see…Krugman says at the bottom of his latest update that tax cuts could possibly have supply-side effect, shifting LRAS to the right. So he admits, as he occasionally does, that policy actions can affect the potential output of the economy. But then he says: “if it’s about jobs, it’s about jobs.” Is he really saying that even a higher level of long-run output does not create/require more jobs???
Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:13 AM | link
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
FALSE ALARM? While reading today's shrill New York Times column from Paul Krugman (at what point did he stop writing about economics entirely and become a full time Bush-basher?), I had to laugh at the following:"One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced— that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not. "Maybe it's just me, but this sounds a lot like Krugman's use of his little-known personal web site to correct his blatant errors in the publication formerly know as the Paper of Record.
Tom Campanile
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:19 AM | link
Monday, April 28, 2003
ANOTHER REPORT CARD ON KRUGMAN Here's my sense, based on having talked with 12 to 15 people who have taken Paul Krugman's class, of the reactions to his teaching style. Also, I will copy below the student evaluations for his courses, which are available to all Princeton students. If you're interested in a sampling of his reading list, let me know -- he assigns articles he's written in Slate, etc., as class readings very frequently.Krugman teaches the introductory and macro- and microeconomics courses here, Economics 101 and 102. Together they form the crux of the basic economics curriculum. Because these two typically receive the largest enrollments of any courses on campus at about 250-350 students each, the department has a history of putting its very best teachers in those classes. Alan Blinder, Harvey Rosen, and Beth Bogan have historically been asked to teach these courses. (I've had Bogan and Rosen; both are fantastic, funny, approachable, and demanding. I've heard similar remarks about Blinder, though by fewer people -- he seems to be a less effective speaker.)
When Krugman arrived, rather than putting him in an upper-level undergraduate course, he immediately replaced the current microeconomics instructors. Students were generally surprised by this move -- most high-profile faculty recruits, including Cornel West, take their time before establishing their public face on campus. Not so with Krugman, who commands an audience of about 300 kids twice weekly.
That's the brief background. There are three widely heard criticisms of his course: 1) he has no time for students; 2) he is a poor orator; and 3) he is too wed to a commercial textbook that he's currently (or has just finished) writing.
1) No time for students: You know better than I do that this guy is a pretty ubiquitous public intellectual now. He writes two columns a week for the New York Times, makes appearances on the talk show circuit, and keeps up that web site of his (which he seems to update fairly regularly). I've heard from a variety of students that he is extremely busy and generally unapproachable.
2) The course reviews I copy below go to the point about his rambling oratorical style. Apparently, he just doesn't have it, as far as this goes. I think this is the central complaint about Krugman -- it has nothing to do with his ideological predispositions or curricular bias. He just seems to be a very poor lecturer.
3) Particularly for his microeconomics course teaching, a number of his students told me that he was in the process of writing a lengthy textbook (as the course was going on), from which he assigned the overwhelming majority of his readings. Supposedly, the book had not gone through its final editing stages, so it had noticeable spelling and grammatical errors. (I myself have not seen the book.) And, to connect this with #2, he made many references in class to how busy he was because -- on top of his work for the Times -- he spent the rest of his working hours on this textbook.
Stepping back for a second, I'd sum up the criticisms thus: Krugman is not used to teaching undergraduates with any dedication, which many students here expect (and demand). As you may have noticed, the ideological tint of his lectures, if there is one, is not something I've heard people criticize frequently (though a slight bias in the reading lists has been a complaint). I attribute this in part to the lack of knowledge of introductory economics students, myself included, which would prevent us from detecting pernicious biases even if they were to exist. He might be completely neutral, might not be: for a student without an economics background, an extensive lecture on public deficits is not likely to provoke the same ire for moderate or conservative students as would a lecture on terrorism (even though the economics teaching might be more dangerous as it is passed off as objective fact). This makes the situation a bit different than the liberal outrage over Marty Feldstein's class over at Harvard, which seems to be based on a reading of the content of his course.
Anyhow, I'll let the remaining passages speak for themselves. These are from the Princeton Student Course Guide, which allows students to evaluate courses anonymously. There are two negative evaluations, one positive. The intensity and bitterness of the negative evaluations are emblematic of the comments I've heard from over a dozen students on campus, with one exception, a student who was fortunate enough to be in his individual section and liked him. (About 2% of students are in his section.)
Brad Simmons
"I had the misfortune of taking this class with Krugman. He was to, be nice, AWFUL! The lectures were incoherent and most of the Hour and Twenty Minutes!! were spent listening to him stumble along. Lecture involved the prehistoric method of an overhead projector and scribble pens. Coming from Bogan who had the notes printed up and used powerpoint presentation. So class was bad, precept was worse. The book was not a book but an installment of chapters from Pequod which had the graphs all at the back, misspellings, and grammar errors. The midterms and final were pretty straight forward and I did fine in the class. I am very bitter though that I had to suffer through Krugman for a semester when Rosen and Reinhardt are such excellent professors. Please don't make the mistake I did. Don't TAKE THIS CLASS IF PAUL KRUGMAN IS YOUR TEACHER. LEAVE HIM TO RESEARCH."
"Krugman should not, and hopefully will not, ever teach this class again. He was the most disorganized teacher I have ever encountered. I went to two classes (not including exams) all semester. The class is easy (do the readings and problem sets), just take it with any of the other three profs who are many consider the best lecturers in the department. (Bogan, Rosen, or Reinhardt). Hopefully Krugman will teach a higher level class where he is more prepared for the class. Either way this class is a gut, so I would advise anyone to take it."
"Krugmans books is awsome, the course is awsome, i never went to krugmans lectures......u dont need to."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:49 PM | link
SILENT MAJORITY SPEAKS! I want to thank you and the Krugman Truth Squad for your work. I am a student at the James Madison College of Michigan State. The college is a small residential college focused on public affairs. We are highly encouraged to read Paul Krugman and many times he is discussed in class. Throughout the beginning of the school year I was forced to listen to my professors' liberal propaganda which they backed up with Krugman's articles. I was unable to defend myself against many of his claims. However, since discovering you and your peers' articles, I have been able to act as the silent majority of conservatives in my class. Everytime a prof brings up Krugman I am prepared. It is amazing to see how they respond when a conservative responds with hard facts -- they don't know what to do!
Christopher Miller
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:28 PM | link