A great anecdote.
Ha! I laughed. :)
So Krugman's weakness is women, eh? Someone needs to hire some hot babe to persuade him that government stimulus and artificially cheap credit actually distort the capital structure and cause malinvestments... or lure him out into traffic.
Very strange. That needs to be photographed and posted for comedy.
I'm not surprised by the reaction he gave her. If there's one thing Keynes worshippers can't stand, it's anyone that challenges their misguided views on economic thought.
"or lure him out into traffic."
Nah. That's too easy.
That guy is such a doofus. Anybody who isn't willing to have their ideas challenged is an intellectual lightweight.
I hope someone mentions this in one of the comments on Krugman’s blog or columns.
Ok, for once I will have to side with Krugman.
I think y'all are reading far too much in his response. He just was trying to be witty and funny rather than saying "don't read anything that doesn't conform with my view."
In fact, it's very possible Krugman did read it and was just telling her to "not bother" reading it since it's wrong - in his opinion.
Just get Bernanke to sign it too, and the irony will boost the book's price many times over.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
"He just was trying to be witty and funny rather"
This is Paul Krugman we are talking about... your qualifier of "try" is the only thing that saves that statement.
"In fact, it's very possible Krugman did read it"
Ummm... how else do you think he was able to come to the conclusion "it should not be read"?
@THeNcredibleEgg, in a way, I agree with you. Krugman is probably familiar with Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism and since he despises capitalism, you could take it more as a personal disapproval with Rothbard. But still, something tells me Krugman is overly dismissive of opposing viewpoints and he has shown that tendency, at least it seems to me.
Krugman is probably familiar with Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism and since he despises capitalism, you could take it more as a personal disapproval with Rothbard.
Since when was knowing anything about something required to hate it and since when did Krugman know anything about AE?
It isn't necessarily, but I was making an assumption?
Of course Krugman is probably familiar with the Austrian school in passing. He has probably studied it to some degree. As involved in the economics community as he is, I'm sure he has a mild understanding of it, even if it isn't a deep or accurate understanding of it.
Eric080: @THeNcredibleEgg, in a way, I agree with you. Krugman is probably familiar with Rothbard and anarcho-capitalism and since he despises capitalism, you could take it more as a personal disapproval with Rothbard. But still, something tells me Krugman is overly dismissive of opposing viewpoints and he has shown that tendency, at least it seems to me.
Devil's advocate post.
Krugman doesn't despise capitalism, and Keynesianism is capitalism, but not of the free market kind. When government itself runs on capital, we can't really say that Keynesian views on government are against capital; quite the contrary.
Even though Keynesianism has some roots in feudalist and mercantilist thought, Keynesianism is still capitalism, and Keynes himself loved the benefits of capitalism. Let us not forget that it was Keynes who - in one of his books - celebrated the world at its all time peak of financial globalization in the late 19th century, when you could easily buy or sell securities in any part of the world through a prospectus and a phone call. His policy was changing capitalism to his third-party interests, but not removing capitalism.
Krugman isn't dismissive of opposing viewpoints, because he is a Keynesian despite being a student of Paul Samuelson, who contradicted Keynes on many points, mainly in his use of mathematics. Krugman's main divide from Keynes is his belief in mathematical proof; Krugman also praised the statistician Milton Friedman, even though Krugman's letters to Galbraith show that he didn't believe statistical empirical proof was remotely sufficient, and a mathematical model was always needed as final complete proof. A student of Samuelson who praises Keynes and Friedman is someone coming from three divergent views.
Also, Krugman's views reflect ideas of social democracy, even though Keynes - a pro-imperial, non-egalitarian aristocrat - was far more conservative than Krugman was.
Very true on all points. I feel, from the Austrian perspective, that he is relatively dismissive towards the school and when I did use capitalism in this context, I was referring to a free market.
He has probably studied it to some degree.
To the degree that he has studied the phlogiston theory of fire: "A few weeks ago, a journalist devoted a substantial part of a profile of yours truly to my failure to pay due attention to the "Austrian theory" of the business cycle—a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire." - http://www.slate.com/id/9593
Wait? Krugman rides the train? Judging from his perfectly sculpted beard and hair, I had envisioned him commuting between home and the New York Times on one of his private helicopters with the Fed's gang-sign (the Star-of-David formed from 13 stars) emblazoned on the side. You learn something new every day.
Clayton -
haha. wow, so based on a unconfirmed second hand conversation recounted from a hostile source, everyone in this thread is jumping to the conclclusion that krugman is just short of advocating book burning and silencing malcontent austrians.
krugman may be unfair to his intellectual opponents, but i don't think this thread is leading by example.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
I agree, Student, which is why I wanted to defend Krugman.
One thing, though. The little divide between "coordination problem" economists and "Austrian" economists, who believe the same things, is only aggravated by petty rumours about each other treated like fact, and slander is rampant about both. If libertarians can slander others, why not those of their own? And they do.
Krugman's blog managed to convince me for a long while that Raghuram Rajan, advisor to Indian prime minister, was a bumbling fool who didn't know economics. When I read Rajan's writings, I realized he was very badly misrepresented by Krugman. And I saw he was one of the smarter men in the economics field.
The lesson is for everybody. Stop slandering people.
Stop slandering people.
Unless it furthers your agenda.
Yea, Krugman should have totally given that girl a lecture on Rothbard. That was entirely within the interests of either of them.
I was reminded of this and thought it would be a nice .