Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:41, 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.

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)

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)

• 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