Talk:Paul Krugman
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Is it worth mentioning that it's mainly libertarian/right-wing experts for hire and bloggers that have tried to strawman him, or is that redundant? ClothCoat (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Redundant. That's exactly the kind of people we'd expect to be doing it in the first place. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Liberal only when convenient[edit]
First of all, what's up with this title? What is it supposed to mean? That you can't be a liberal if you criticize Bernie Sanders? Second of all it is entirely misrepresenting his views and the content of the column. Krugman isn't saying that big banks weren't involved in the financial crisis. He's simply saying that the banks being too big was not a primary factor in what caused the crisis, the shadow banking sector was the core of the issue. Shadow banking meaning financial institutions big and small that act like banks but aren't regulated or insured like banks. To simply call for breaking up the big banks isn't enough. To prevent this sort of thing in the future you need real policy specifics that address the shadow banking system. 213.112.248.182 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please[edit]
I would like to see a quote of Paul Krugman defining himself a social democrat. Anyway, Krugman the columnist (who has given up doing things scientifically) seems to be an intellectual for hire that does need some debunking on rational wiki, and economists seem to agree on that. I have a funny quote by Barro I'll post as source for this. --Edosan (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Josh or his father? (And you don't need a rocket science degree to see that Mr. Krugman favours social democracy, unless you wish to go the Judean People's Front route.) Osaka Sun (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- his father of course http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/02/an-interview-with-robert-barro/370/ quote: He just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist. And the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics, which I actually did. He has never even done any work on that. His work is in trade stuff. He did excellent work, but it has nothing to do with what he's writing about. ...curious, this thing has been deleted from the "normal" wikipedia too. NPOV, apparently. And yet Barro is incontrovertibly one of the most influential economists of his generation. If this were a rational wiki or Paul Krugman were treated as any other public figure is treated here, the page would start with this quote and end with two lines of "fairness". It's suspiciously apologetic towards the character instead. And not fun to read.--Edosan (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Barro believes that the Keynesian multiplier is less than one. He believes that for every dollar the government borrows and spends, spending elsewhere in the economy falls by almost the same amount." Aaaaand I can't take him seriously. Oh looks like I'm not the only one. ClothCoat (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- his father of course http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/02/an-interview-with-robert-barro/370/ quote: He just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist. And the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics, which I actually did. He has never even done any work on that. His work is in trade stuff. He did excellent work, but it has nothing to do with what he's writing about. ...curious, this thing has been deleted from the "normal" wikipedia too. NPOV, apparently. And yet Barro is incontrovertibly one of the most influential economists of his generation. If this were a rational wiki or Paul Krugman were treated as any other public figure is treated here, the page would start with this quote and end with two lines of "fairness". It's suspiciously apologetic towards the character instead. And not fun to read.--Edosan (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Keen v. Krugman[edit]
What about the debate between Krugman and Steve Keen? Keen got the better end of it. Definitely worth a mention.
- http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/the-keenkrugman-debate-a-summary/
- https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/steve-keen/keen-krugman-debate
Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Inverse stopped clock? Even opendemocracy considers it pretty out of charactar but I suppose it could go here. If not then put it on the Inverse stopped clock page. ClothCoat (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- The exogenous theory of money and loanable funds model is fundamental to New Keynesianism. I wouldn't exactly classify it as a minor error. If Keen is right, there's a major flaw in Krugman's economic thinking. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
In charge of Japan[edit]
To whomever: The sentence about Krugman being nearly in charge of Japan's policy just wasn't supported by either the NYT reference or the Bloomberg link inside it.
This sentence: "As of 2014, he's essentially in charge of Japanese economic policy as it tries to lurch out of its Lost Decade. So, you know, good luck. " MarmotHead (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)