Misplaced Pages

Talk:Paul Krugman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:43, 12 July 2009 editVision Thing (talk | contribs)7,574 edits Tagged POV← Previous edit Revision as of 22:36, 12 July 2009 edit undoScribner (talk | contribs)2,914 edits Tagged POVNext edit →
Line 574: Line 574:
::::::::::You need to re-read the section on this talk page. Other exist, we've been other this. I'll add the edit to the awards section in a day or so, with cites of course. The end. ] (]) 02:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::You need to re-read the section on this talk page. Other exist, we've been other this. I'll add the edit to the awards section in a day or so, with cites of course. The end. ] (]) 02:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


:::::::::None of the top ten people in ] is described as an intellectual in the lead of their article. I agree with skip sievert that "intellectual" also shouldn't be included in the lead of this article. ] ] 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::None of the top ten people in ] is described as an intellectual in the lead of their article. I agree with skip sievert that "intellectual" also shouldn't be included in the lead of this article. ] ] 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::I agree. Awards section. ] (]) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:36, 12 July 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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:JournProjectArticles
In the newsA news item involving Paul Krugman was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 October 2008.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Archiving icon
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 (talkcontribs) 06:34, 30 April 2006

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

I don't know anything about this dispute, but I don't see why it's notable enough to be in Krugman's biography page. He gets into arguments all the time, why is this one special? Gruntler (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Not very notable dispute. Since it's also unreferenced, I'm going to delete it. LK (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It is quite notable. Ferguson is a high-profile historian and the exchange has made a splash. I've restored it here.
See for example:
(Slate)
(Seeking Alpha)
(Cafe Hayek) and
(The Financial Times)--Christofurio (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This section is yet another conservative smear attempt, it's smarmy original research, that's poorly cited and written. Leave it out of the article. Scribner (talk) 16:36, 29 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)

After rereading BLP, I'm not sure if there should be a section on Krugman's views on a subprime mortgage crisis if there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss and explain his views. Krugman himself says that he is now being called for the creation of a housing bubble . BLP states that: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary source. In my opinion, that means that we should not write about his (un)successful predictions or calls if they are not covered by secondary sources. -- Vision Thing -- 07:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion collapsed
Do they have to be secondary sources all the time? What if someone provided a balanced summation of all PK's writings in this area, including these gems:
German Interview, undated
http://www.pkarchive.org/global/welt.html
"During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn't you lower interest rates?"
May 2, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/5201.html
I've always favored the let-bygones-be-bygones view over the crime-and-punishment view. That is, I've always believed that a speculative bubble need not lead to a recession, as long as interest rates are cut quickly enough to stimulate alternative investments. But I had to face the fact that speculative bubbles usually are followed by recessions. My excuse has been that this was because the policy makers moved too slowly -- that central banks were typically too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble, giving the downturn time to build up a lot of momentum. That was why I, like many others, was frustrated at the smallish cut at the last Federal Open Market Committee meeting: I was pretty sure that Alan Greenspan had the tools to prevent a disastrous recession, but worried that he might be getting behind the curve.
However, let's give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed's four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It's still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve -- let's have at least one more rate cut, please -- but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect.
If we succeed in avoiding recession, this will mark a big win for let- bygones-be-bygones, and a big loss for crime-and-punishment. And that will be very good news not just for this business cycle, but for business cycles to come.
July 18, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html
"KRUGMAN: I think frankly it's got to be -- business investment is not going to be the driving force in this recovery. It has to come from things like housing, things that have not been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
DOBBS: We see, Paul, housing at near record levels, we see automobile purchases near record levels. The consumer is still very much in this economy. Can he or she -- or I should say he and she, can they bring back this economy?
KRUGMAN: Well, as far as the arithmetic goes, yes, it is possible. Will the Fed cut interest rates enough? Will long-term rates fall enough to get the consumer, get the housing sector there in time? We don't know"
August 8^th 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML082201.html
"KRUGMAN: I'm a little depressed. You know, inventories, probably that's over, the inventory slump. But you look at the things that could drive a recovery, business investment, nothing happening. Housing, long-term rates haven't fallen enough to produce a boom there. The trade balance is going to get worst before it gets better because the dollar is still very strong. It's not a happy picture."
August 14, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/81401.html
"Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can't contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery.... But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates -- and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1.... Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn't 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place.
October 7, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ML071801.html
"Post-terror nerves aside, what mainly ails the U.S. economy is too much of a good thing. During the bubble years businesses overspent on capital equipment; the resulting overhang of excess capacity is a drag on investment, and hence a drag on the economy as a whole.
In time this overhang will be worked off. Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. But it seems inevitable that there will also be a fiscal stimulus package"
Dec 28, 2001
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/122801.html
"The good news about the U.S. economy is that it fell into recession, but it didn't fall off a cliff. Most of the credit probably goes to the dogged optimism of American consumers, but the Fed's dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong even as business investment plunged."
Surely given his extensive commentary on this important issue (the blowing up of the biggest bubble in world history), there should be some attempt at a summation of his views. - WhyMeLord? (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Karmaisking! All your quotes are pulled from 2001. Remember the dot com crash? Remember 9/11? Things would have been much worse if the Fed had not pumped money into the economy then. Suggesting quick response to a crash is not the same as suggesting the financial deregulation, lack of oversight and the failure to pull back on the housing markets in 2003-2005 that eventually lead to the housing problem in 2007-2008. For economists, driving an economy is like driving a car, timing matters. LK (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
And in May 2008 Krugman argued that oil at 125$ is supported by fundamentals and that it is not a bubble. This is how the chart looks like. Even now, when oil jumped 100% from a bottom, it is still at 70$, 44% bellow price of 125$.
It is difficult to present such information in a neutral way without secondary source. -- Vision Thing -- 10:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that some editors may be deriving info from irony-challenged blog sources. The current fuss appears to have been caused by a post from Arnold Kling, who assumed that Krugman's ironic reference to the need for a housing bubble would be understood by his (Kling's) readers. Of course, this turned out to be incorrect, and he was subsequently forced to issue a correction .— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talkcontribs)

I have found a reliable secondary source on this and other Krugman's columns. It is an article by Daniel B. Klein published in Econ Journal Watch. In the appendix of the article he gave a brief overview of Dubya's Double Dip? column. Klein notes that Krugman: Claims the recession of 2001 wasn't brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raised interest rates and so could easily be ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again; but Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. -- Vision Thing -- 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Daniel Klein is a long time frequent critic of Krugman's, not really an unbiased nor reliable source. LK (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's an article from the heritage foundation writing about what Krugman said about the cause of the housing bubble in 2005: How Smart Growth Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis by Wendell Cox
And another from Calculated Risk Krugman says Housing Bubble will Burst
LK (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate Calculated Risk, by Misplaced Pages standards it is not a reliable source for BLP article by any stretch of imagination. On the other hand, article published in Econ Journal Watch satisfies all criteria laid out in WP:RS and WP:BLP. I think it can be best summarized like this: "According to Daniel B. Klein, in 2002 Krugman argued that in order to end 2001 recession Fed needs to create a housing bubble because typical measures would not work." -- Vision Thing -- 14:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If this information is sourced and accurately presented by sources that are reliable then it can be included. It is in the area of the critique aspects of the article - skip sievert (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The essential ambiguity in the original article is still there in Klein's summary. Does "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" mean:

a) For the good of the country I really want Alan Greenspan to create a housing bubble. Or,

b) The economy is in a bad shape, if Greenspan wants to pull it up, he'll have to do something silly like creating a housing bubble.

Therefore, the Klein summary cannot be used to support a criticism of Krugman, since it is as ambiguous as the original article.

Note also that the use of the negative term 'bubble' instead of the more positive term 'housing boom', Krugman's article 2 weeks later (in August 2002) where he worries that the bursting of a housing bubble would create a lost decade for the US, and Krugman's statement in 2009, that he meant the later, all support the second interpretation. LK (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In case the point I'm making is unclear, let me point out that if I say, "Republicans need to blow up a building and blame it on terrorists to have any chance of wining the next elections", I am not advocating the blowing up of buildings. I am just making an observation about how hard it would be for Republicans to win the next elections. LK (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you are a Republican talking to Republicans in a Republican-oriented rag, it would be impossible not to treat that statement as advocacy. And if you're an East Coast Keynesian talking to U.S. central bankers through the NYTimes... - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.55.140 (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi again KiK. Firstly, Krugman = Democrat, Greenspan = Republican, Bubbles = No one likes. Secondly, are you telling me that if a respected Republican lamented the state of his party, and said that "Republicans need to blow up a building and blame it on terrorists to have any chance of wining the next elections",he is seriously telling people, please go blow up buildings? I think not. Duh. LK (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding back the section on Krugman's views of the housing bubble, per the Wendell Cox paper. How Smart Growth Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis by Wendell Cox I'm also including some of Krugman's more pertinent writing from his NYT writings. Per WP:SOURCE a person's writings is a good source about themselves. LK (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This section isn't just wrong it's a damn lie. Krugman is ridiculing Greenspan for his creating the nasdaq bubble in the Op Ed that is cited and taken out of context. Krugman is NOT advocating a housing bubble. Stop attempting to push the bogus POV. Scribner (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section is very misleadingly named

Most of those are not "controversies", it's just a list of people who disagree with him. Well, whaddayaknow, a conservative columnist disagrees with Paul Krugman? Gee, isn't that weird? How is some guy from the National Review disagreeing with Krugman a "controversy"? Answer: It's not. It's a disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.45.242 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it better if the section is called 'Criticisms'? LK (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I renamed the section "Conservative criticism". However, it seems there are one or two critics in the section that aren't conservatives. Scribner (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
'Criticisms' is usual name for such sections. -- Vision Thing -- 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I may divide the section, splitting off "Conservative criticism" because it is misleading and there is only one, maybe two, mentions of criticism that aren't politically motivated. Scribner (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest as a subsection within the criticisms section. LK (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Greenspan's policies

I reworked this section today to reflect Krugman's true intent of ridiculing Greenspan for creating the NASDAQ bubble. Krugman was not advocating a housing bubble, as is previously indicated in this section. The Op-Ed piece he wrote and used to cite the section prove my point. Don't revert to the previous section, it's not just wrong it's a damn lie. It's so bad, anyone pushing that section probably needs to banned from contributing to this article. Scribner (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a controversy on what Krugman meant to say at the time. For any interpretation of that column you need a reliable secondary source. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Then this particular quote should be omitted altogether. What your pushing doesn't even make sense. Why would Krugman advocate a housing bubble, ridicule Greenspan for creating bubbles and then warn of a housing bubble? Get real. Take the POV pushing elsewhere. Scribner (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The material you keep calling lies agree with the material you put in yourself. The "lies" are silent as to Krugman's true intentions, but simply give the quotes, while yours attributes motivation. So, at the very least, the material you're trying to remove is not "lies". Take part in the discussion on this talk page in how the material should be presented. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's my version of the quote under dispute:

In August 2002, Krugman said, in ridiculing Greenspan for his part in creating the Nasdaq bubble, "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." Krugman further warned of a housing bubble in stating, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort" (referring to the Japanese 'lost decade' of slow growth in the 1990s).


Here's the other version:

In August 2002, he wrote that, "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." Krugman also argued that, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort" (referring to the Japanese 'lost decade' of slow growth in the 1990s).

Scribner (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Krugman himself has clarified what he meant to say, which should be considered reliable, since sources are in general reliable sources about themselves. Also, libertarian economist Arnold Kling (not exactly an ally of Krugman's) has defended Krugman and commented on it here. So these sources should be taken as a definitive version of what he actually meant to say. But I think Scribner may be right, the quote should be omitted as it is misleading. Perhaps a suitable paraphrase should be introduced instead? Also, we've got to stop reverting each other. It's starting to look like an edit war. LK (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Krugman is a reliable sources about himself as long as material is not self-serving . In this case Krugman's clarification is self-serving. Arnold Kling's blog comment is not a reliable source. If quote is to be permanently removed, other material on housing crisis sourced only to Krugman's columns should also be removed. -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with this article and it should be removed. -- Vision Thing -- 17:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Greenspan's Congressional testimony does have something to do with the section. This is an encyclopedia. The mention is in every major subprime article on wiki. The SEC also testified, but we're talking about Greenspan in this section. As far as clarification...your objection proves your POV pushing. This article is a BLP, yet you're claiming rights to something the subject said over a clarification. Unreal. Scribner (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think VT is right that we can't give very strong weight to Krugman's retrospective self-analysis, just as we can't give too much weight to Friedman's retrospective explanations of his activities with regard to Chile. The Kling source looks just OK to me, unless it's clear that the hullaballoo over the quote springs from Kling's use of it, in which case his opinion is more important. I'm agnostic about whether the quote belongs in the article at all. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"retrospective self-analysis", you mean clarification. You don't have a choice in a BLP article, it's not even debatable. On Wiki, you err on the side of the subject of the article in BLP, always. Krugman spells it out pretty clearly, in that Greenspan's optimism IS FLAWED and that it would take more than "soaring household spending" to turn the economy around. He's pointing out that it'll take as much as a bubble to replace the last bubble that Greenspan had a large part in creating. It's not policy advocacy as is being pushed here. Scribner (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Self published sources are reliable sources about themselves unless unduly self-serving WP:SELFPUB, in this case his clarification is not undue. Kling is a tenured economics professor, and his blog was the original source of the current furor, and so his clarification should also carry some weight. LK (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Use of any blog as a source except that of the subject of the article (and then only in certain cases) is expressly forbidden by BLP. -- Vision Thing -- 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the offending material can be removed without much damage to the article? If these quotations have contentious interpretations, then it may be better to leave them out of the article until reliable secondary sources can be settled upon. Out-of-context quotations or unclear quotations can often give misleading impressions. In fact, secondary sources are typically desirable over primary sources like blog entries often for precisely this reason. Anyway, Krugman has written reams of unambiguous criticism of Greenspan's policies, and I see no particular reason that this one line of text is more notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia article than any other. It shouldn't be too much trouble to find a clearer critique. Sławomir Biały (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The section is tagged POV and will remain tagged until this is resolved. The quote should be removed because it's taken out of context and represents a false claim that Paul Krugman and Kling have both denied. For those who are unaware there is an current debate outside of wiki as to whether Krugman claimed we needed a housing bubble. Wiki should remain neutral or err on the side of the article subject on this issue until it's resolved, particularly when the BLP subject denies the claim. Scribner (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm changing the title of this section and removing the quote in a day or two. As further evidence of conservative POV pushing ChildofMidnight was just banned and restricted on working on BLP articles. Scribner (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Quote should be removed only if the other material on housing is also going to be removed. Without it presentation of Krugman's views on housing would be unbalanced. Also, we have a secondary source on that column. Before recent controversy economist Daniel B. Klein summarized Krugman's opinion like this: "Claims the recession of 2001 wasn't brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raised interest rates and so could easily be ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again; but Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." -- Vision Thing -- 08:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's consider leaving the quote as is, a title section change, which is needed and the following, "Krugman has since stated his reference to a housing bubble was one of economic analysis not policy advocacy." The NYT Opinion section "blog" isn't WP:SELFPUB neither one of us could start a blog there. Scribner (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I added, "Krugman stated this as economic analysis not policy advocacy." which puts it all to rest. He's responded to that the quote, we really can't leave the quote in and leave this out, not in a BLP. The title change is correct. Appears to be a excellent compromise. Please tag and discuss rather than revert. Scribner (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I attributed that. It must be clear that Krugman said that. I also changed the section title to 'Comments on Clinton and Bush economic policies' because 'comments' is more neutral than 'criticisms' (especially when controversy over housing bubble is taken into account) and because Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed by Clinton and not Bush. -- Vision Thing -- 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your point on Clinton more or less because Clinton did want the Glass-Steagall act repealed, going from memory and Greenspan was arguing for keeping derivatives unregulated at least as early as 1997. But, I don't know that Krugman would agree with you - we should check if he had stated an opinion on Clinton's policies. The "seven years later" should be worded differently because in truth he didn't clarify himself until he was charged as advocating a housing bubble. Scribner (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
On Krugman and Clinton, "Though critical of some Clinton advisors, Krugman recently assessed administration economic policy as pretty sensible overall." From this article. Scribner (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently section title is misleading. It is then better not to mention anyone by name in it. Also, Bush was not responsible for Greenspan's actions because Fed is independent. "Seven years later" can be rephrased. Maybe to just say "later" would be acceptable to you? -- Vision Thing -- 09:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
"Later" is fine. Every paragraph in the section is "Criticism of Greenspan's policies". That's why I titled it that way..."Comments on economic policies" is wrong because Krugman comments on other country's policies, these are specific to Greenspan. Scribner (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Section opens with: "A major theme of Krugman's writings has been Alan Greenspan's and the Bush administration's economic policies" and finishes with: "Krugman points to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed depression era safeguards that among other prevented commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies from merging." So section covers criticisms of government polices under Clinton, Bush and Greenspan. So maybe the best title would be "Comments on US government policies". -- Vision Thing -- 08:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's titled correctly, the last sentence is in his finding Gramm complicit in that regard, both Gramm and Greenspan are guilty of keeping derivatives unregulated. Too much time is being wasted on petty POV. The section is titled correctly. Scribner (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Zakaria's criticism of Krugman

I will reintroduce following paragraph into article: Krugman advocated for radical currency controls as a response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis saying "never in the course of economic events- note even in the early years of the (Great) Depression- has so large a part of the world economy experienced so decastating a fall from grace. The economies rebounded within two years, but only one country adopted currency controls. LK's objections to this paragraph were "This is inaccurate, and is not about US economic policies or his columns, it should not be here." However, that is what Krugman advocated in one of his Fortune columns and source is Newsweek article . There is no reason to limit coverage in this article to just Krugman's views on US economic policies, so I will either change section title or add new section (maybe something like 'Views on other economic issues'?). -- Vision Thing -- 09:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't inclusion be undue? It's not proper to jump on the few inaccurate predictions a person has made and emphasize them on the page. That would be giving them undue weight. Also, if you read Krugman's original column it's not clear at all that he was wrong. He didn't say what Zakaria claims that he said, the criticism in Zakaria's article is unfair. LK (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Same can be said for accurate predictions and for cherry picking quotes from Krugman's columns that present him in a positive light. At least this can be sourced to a reliable secondary source. It is not for us to determine whether Zakaria's criticism is fair or not. However, I checked the quotes Zakaria gave and they are from Krugman's column. -- Vision Thing -- 10:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Zakaria phrases it misleadingly, Krugman's version is more nuanced. The original article is here Anyway, as worded it shouldn't be in a section describing Krugman's journalism career. Maybe in the criticisms section, but it's not even a notable criticism. Zakaria is making an off-hand criticism thrown in as an introduction to his main point. Krugman's criticisms of Greenspan and Bush OTOH are numerous and well thought out. We don't have to cherry pick quotes. There's no need for quotes, just say that he has criticized and blamed them for the housing bubble and the poor performance of the economy since 2001. LK (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This as well as the Greenspan housing quote are nothing more than an attempt by conservatives to smear Krugman rather than an attempt to present the facts. It's an active campaign and is happening in other articles. What's surprising is that Misplaced Pages is tolerating this. Scribner (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Scribner, remember to be civil and to assume good faith. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Why it shouldn't be in journalism section? As I see it, that section should be an overview of Krugman's notable columns. And the best way to determine notability is to see which columns have received coverage by other journalists, authors and economists. -- Vision Thing -- 08:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You are pushing what is essentially a throwaway criticism from Zakaria, it's inclusion will make readers suspect that the reason the edit is there is specifically so that there is something negative about Krugman in that section. If you are serious about trying to improve the article, I suggest making a list of the times Krugman's writings have been mentioned by other journalists, I suspect there will be a large number. We can then judge from that which are notable. LK (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to do that. However, even when we take another approach Zakaria's overview of Krugman's views on Asian crisis is notable. In the last fifteen years Asian crisis was one of the major economic events so Krugman's views on it are naturally notable for this section. -- Vision Thing -- 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's ethnicity

If it is sourced that Paul Krugman is Jewish, than should there be any problem categorizing him as such? Please discuss.

Krugman was born into a Jewish family and no one disputes that and it is a non issue in the article. Judaism is a religion, so being Jewish is a personal choice. Is he a participant in that religion now.. would be the issue? skip sievert (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the issue is whether it is permissible under WP:OCAT to categorize Krugman as a Category:American Jews. For which the answer is unequivocally no under existing Misplaced Pages guidelines. Since Krugman's Jewish heritage has played no apparent role in his career, it is inappropriate to put him in the ethnic-related categories. To quote WP:OCAT:
"people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career."
As for whether it is appropriate to mention that he was born to a Jewish family in the article, I don't see a problem with that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear from WP:OCAT that Krugman shouldn't be categorized as such, since his notability is unrelated to his ethnicity or religion. LK (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, being Jewish is not only about religion, but also about ethnicity, since Judaism is a religion and Jewish is an ethnicity. I could give you plenty of examples of people that are categorized by their religion or ethnicity in cases that it had no effect on their notability.Such an example is Henry Ford who is categorized both as a Irish-American and as a Belgian-American. Should it be any different with Paul Krugman?

Indeed it shouldn't. But the fact that Henry Ford is inappropriately categorized really has nothing to do with Paul Krugman, does it? You should raise the issue of the incorrect categories on Talk:Henry Ford instead of here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If ethnicity is covered in the bio, ie, German/Jewish/Cuban/whatever, then including the category is fine. Notabilty of ethnicity relates more to including it in the lead sentence. I would keep the category here as long as it is mentioned in the body of the bio. This seems to be the "standard" for bios, but what do I know :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. The apparently long-standing guideline applies to categorization, not mentioning it in the lead. See WP:OCAT. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually yes. Maybe get others to comment as well. Categorizing by ethnicity is fine and is not overcatorizing by any stretch as long as it is sourced(I agree with adding the fact tag as you have done). Try to remove ethnicity categories of say Puretoricans(sp) and see what happens :) Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ps, this has been covered extensively over the years, I will have to dig up the numerous pages unless someone wants to beat me to it and has them handy. --Tom (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I defer to your judgement and greater experience. However, the issue remains that WP:OCAT is seemingly at odds with the prevailing consensus on this issue. Methinks it's time for someone to update it. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, I am just one editor, so like I said, maybe others will chime in. I think overcat actually makes sense, it more has to do with maybe how you/I are interpretting it. My take is that trivial categories are unneeded, which is the rub. What exactly is trivial can very well be in the eye of the beholder. Ethnicity, imho, is not trivial and lots of folks take great pride, to the point of fault in it. I am a mutt, personally, so I don't get to caught up in that stuff, but trust me when I say, ethnicity is a very, very, very touchy subject around here :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that he was born into a Jewish family, he was, but maybe whether he may or may not consider himself a Jew as to religion? Others may or may not consider him Jewish also. Identifying him as Jewish as to category may be a mistake or not notable to him being an economist. List of Jewish economists Does he himself self identify as a Jewish economist? Not that I can see. So maybe putting him in that categorize is not appropriate. Does he himself make a statement about that anywhere? skip sievert (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with alot of what you are saying. I personally dislike these categories since they "label" individuals in a way that actually might not be entirely "accurate" as you have pointed out. As I mentioned above, a person ethnicity and how it is "handled" has been a contensious issue for this project for some time. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ps, I really need to find the links to past discussions about this. I usually catch heat from "both sides" on this "issue" which usually tells me I am doing the "right" thing :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that he was born to Jewish parents, so that he is Jewish(if not by religion that by ethnicity)and there isn't any way to deny your roots, whatever they are.

That is not really so. Traditionally fathers do not count in this regard either. Mothers do... so it depends on how far you want to take all the odds and ends of all those debates. People that were born into Catholic families routinely say that they are not Catholic, or Christian, or may call themselves atheists... or that they are recovering Catholics. There is no issue connected, that he was born into a Jewish family, but there are many people that do not consider ethnicity a good marker for anything as that relates to the larger world or employment. skip sievert (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Keynesian Censorship? PK did advocate "insane" low interest rates which caused the housing bubble

Comments please?

Article written for Mises.org by unknown author won't be accepted as a reliable source for WP:BLP article. Also, be aware of WP:CIV policy. -- Vision Thing -- 10:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be pro-Keynesian bias at work among some editors here, which may be why the Ferguson material keeps getting deleted. When I first raised the question, one response was that it should be deleted because it is unreferenced. Well ... I've provided some references, lots more are available.

See for example:

(Slate) (Seeking Alpha) (Cafe Hayek) and (The Financial Times)

This has made a rather large splash within the commentariat, enough to overcome any reasonable notabiltiy hurdle, since we "aren't paper."

--Christofurio (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a definite pro Krugman slant in POV regarding his advocacy of bubbles. Other editors trying to claim that Krugman is in fact a secret Austrian economist fearful of inflating economic bubbles is laughable. Krugman is a Keynesian. Keynesians believe (and teach) inflationary policy is the panacea to economic disasters. Several sources in 2001 - 2002 period cite him as personally advocating for inflationary policy, not merely repeating someone else's advocacy. He is now again advocating inflationary policies. Objectively his stance regarding bubbles (which he invariably denies ex post facto) should be included in the article. --A is A (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Cafe Hayek is a blog, Seeking Alpha is a blog aggregator, the one from FT is a blog, the Slate commentary is an editorial, but is reasonably ok. However, Krugman often makes it into the newspapers, let's try to be balanced and present an overview of only the most notable instances. For example, the furor he raised when he publicized Alywn Young's work on the the Asian 'tigers' made it into several international newspapers and magazines. As have his criticisms of a) Bush, b) Greenspan, and c) Obama. LK (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Young's work on the the Asian 'tigers' is already mentioned here. -- Vision Thing -- 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Banned user Karmaisking

Heads up guys, the banned user karmaisking is apparently targeting this page, carrying out his threat to vandalize mainstream economics pages, if we didn't let him have his way on the Austrian school pages. Policy is that edits made by banned users can be reverted by anyone on sight. Unfortunately, KiK keeps on coming back, even though everything he writes is eventually reverted. Apparently, he finds some sort of mean satisfaction in annoying people here. The best thing to do is probably to follow WP:RBI, Revert, Ignore, Block. LK (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

intellectual

If there's an objection to the description of Krugman as an intellectual, please discuss here. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider him an intellectual. Economists are sometimes described as subjective moral philosophers... ala Smith. The term is also open ended. He is an economist and rubs elbows with politicians and journalists, and maybe even special interest groups. That is not an intellectual occupation unless considered so by someones opinion, that maybe trying to endorse Krugman for what ever reason as to making him sound important or better. Leading intellectual? Would it be alright to call him an anti-intellectual? No. Neither is appropriate. skip sievert (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, he certainly fits the general idea of what qualifies as an intellectual, as evidenced by his inclusion in the list of the ref. There are many people on that list who vigorously disagree with each other, and some I wouldn't consider particularly smart, but they fill the social role of intellectual. It's possible that the currently popular term "public intellectual" would be better, and is more directly supported by the reference. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a junk ref to me. Public intellectual? This is the source of the information The Foreign Policy/Prospect 2008 World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals poll is now closed. To view the complete list of intellectuals, please click here. It is a poll on a very junky mostly book selling and college course selling website It probably is not a good ref for the article at all. It appears as kind of a blog poll on the site as the determinate of who is an intellectual or not. Maybe get rid of the ref citation and the reference to Krugman as an intellectual. Unfounded and ballyhoo. skip sievert (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Skip, you need to research your claims Foreign Policy.com appears to be respectable by any standard. They're "a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek". For future reference, check the "about" section of a periodical if you're unfamiliar with its work. Yes, Paul Krugman is an intellectual. Here's mention of his published work at Portfolio.com. Scribner (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. Also the site in question was using a blog like forum like poll to make their list of public intellectuals. Appears to be respectable by any standard...? I wouldn't read it if someone paid me too... because it is an obvious commercial ... for pay advertising enterprise, and the poll they conducted is just that ... a poll that was conducted among their most likely very limited readership... so big deal as to what they think. Not worth using as a link and not a good source as to who is or who is not an intellectual public or other. skip sievert (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Krugman is also, and more importantly, mentioned as a public intellectual in the book, "The American Intellectual Elite" on page xvi. here. Scribner (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Foreign Policy is an old and well established journal, article on them here: Foreign Policy (magazine). They are undoubtedly a reliable source. LK (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Another mention here at www.econjournalwatch.org "His eminence as a public-intellectual economist in the United States today is unsurpassed." pg. 109 Scribner (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Funny how the internet feeds on itself as to looping itself with pov. The question is do you want to make a claim for this idea in the beginning of the article..?. and why is that an issue, since it is also so arguable, and could be sourced probably the other way also, that he was not an intellectual? Obviously this is an opinion idea. Opinions vary. Like this Jackson was an 'intellectual'
Jacko's lawyer Bob Sanger revealed yesterday (July 2) that Jackson had more than 10,000 books in his library, numbering in everything from literature classics for Freud, Socrates and Jung. "He was very intellectual but didn’t flaunt it," Sanger said. (The Sun) Anyway almost anything can be sourced if the desire is strong enough on the internet... but why present Krugman in that way?
Also, looking around I see that Krugman is constantly throwing around the idea that his opponents are anti-intellectual, so stressing that he is an intellectual smacks of pov also. Yesterday, Paul Krugman wrote an editorial about the high proportion of liberals in academia. His major point was that the anti-intellectualism of the Republican Party has waged an incessant cultural war against academics to gain its 'populist' bona fides. Consequently, they have driven academics into the Democratic Party. This is mostly right: in fact, many faculty, even if they are ideologically liberal, are tempermentally conservative (science, for example, is a conservative enterprise-paradigm shifts aren't very common). end from I am not saying this is good sourcing, but no doubt good sources could be found. Is it worth it though to make that point? skip sievert (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In this article a "Princeton colleague and friend" claims Krugman views himself as a public intellectual. So, since others view him as a public intellectual as well it's not just a casual mention. This issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned. Scribner (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's irrelevant what Krugman calls others. He clearly fits the social role as intellectual, as do many of those he argues with. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really and this is a controversial edit in the article. Krugman constantly refers to his enemies... if that is the word... as anti intellectual.. he does this over and over... in publication after publication, and it is repeated in the press over and over..., and to have editors here reinforce that he is an intellectual, and they are anti-intellectual would be bad editing because of that point. Would it be right to say all economists are intellectuals? Bad distinction. Bad descriptor. This is a bad way to refer to him then because it is a political economic pov in this case because of his constant mention of anti-intellectuals... in other words... people other than himself involved in politics and economics. skip sievert (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Krugman is an intellectual. Only possible issue is whether that should be mentioned or not. What are contributions he made as an intellectual that can't be encompassed by "economist", "columnist", and "author"? -- Vision Thing -- 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It should not be mentioned, because it is a value judgment more or less. What are contributions he made as an intellectual that can't be encompassed by "economist", "columnist", and "author"? Probably zilch. Another issue is subtle but important here. Krugman constantly refers to his intellectual enemies, as anti intellectual.. he does this over and over... in publication after publication, and it is repeated in the press, and to have that reinforced here, that he is an intellectual, which like you say he may be a so called intellectual within the context of writer, economist, or columnist, but that is different, and declaring him one in the lead is distorting the context of information. skip sievert (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
VT, you make a decent point. I'm not sure how much "intellectual" adds. Of late there seems to be a habit of recognizing people as "public intellectuals" (I first really noticed when William F. Buckley died), and if this is something worth recognizing, then it's worth recognizing for Krugman. I'm really indifferent to it, and would have left it out if I'd written the sentence. However, if someone else feels it belongs, then I can't think of an adequate reason to exclude it. My participation in this is just that I'm afraid that the appellation "intellectual" is being removed by people who dislike or disagree with Krugman, which isn't adequate. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
From econjournalwatch.org "The accomplishments of Paul Krugman are prodigious. He has written
or edited more than 25 books, 40 scholarly articles, and 750 columns at the
New York Times, where he continues to write a twice-weekly column. Krugman
received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1991 for his research in international trade.
He taught at Yale, MIT, and Stanford prior to joining the faculty of Princeton.
His eminence as a public-intellectual economist in the United States today is unsurpassed." This doesn't include his winning the Nobel Prize. I'm adding a cite to this to the reference in the lead.Scribner (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Scribner (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
His eminence as a public-intellectual economist in the United States today is unsurpassed. Sorry, but doesn't that sound kind of ridiculous? Is that kind of pov opinion sourcing really called for? I do not like or dislike the guy... but calling someone an intellectual, who uses the term anti-intellectual frequently to point the finger at his economic/political enemies in thought, seems very inappropriate and leading and steering as truth giving instead of informing. skip sievert (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No. It doesn't sound ridiculous. It sounds like accolades from his peers, which is what it is, an acknowledgment of Krugman's accomplishments. Your complaint (which does sound ridiculous) belongs in the criticism section, if anywhere. Moving on, this is too much time on petty BS. Scribner (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
skip sievert, there are certainly many intellectuals who disagree with Krugman. However, it is possible that majority of intellectuals agree with him on most issues. Robert Nozick wrote an essay Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? that explains a lot. Anyway, I don't perceive "intellectual" as inherently positive (or negative) term. -- Vision Thing -- 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally it may not be, but because Krugman wields the term in a negative way against people as anti-intellectual, and that is well known, it comes across as a Fan site commentary and pov in the beginning of the article. skip sievert (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag over liberal mention in lead

Krugman is clearly, and proudly, a liberal. His blog is called "Conscience of a Liberal", as was a book of his. It's perfectly reasonable to include that in his introductory description. I don't think it matters much where in the sentence it goes, but "liberal intellectual" makes sense if you consider his books and blog to be part of what identifies him as an intellectual. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether he is proud or not does not matter. No it does not make sense, because then he is presented that way as to leading in a telling manner. Liberal intellectual becomes a factual statement stitched together then in presentation. The latest V.T. edit breaks it apart as two separate things - That is better. skip sievert (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's "public-intellectual", if you feel a need to qualify "intellectual" we've already covered this once. "...is a prominent liberal American economist," is wrong. He's a prominent American economist, period. Just as Alan Greenspan is is an American economist, even though he's clearly, and proudly a conservative. If you're identifying a politician, yes liberal would be fine, even liberal columnist is fine, once again, if you're hellbent to have liberal in the lead. Scribner (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree it would be better not to have it in there at all. Calling him an intellectual or liberal in the lead seems like a bad idea. Public intellectual also sounds like a neologism designed on some blog or forum somewhere as a pov promotional tool. skip sievert (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Skip, the reason I don't agree with your argument about removing "intellectual" because of Krugman's use of anti-intellectual is not just that it's absurd but that it's original research. Scribner (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged POV until resolved with talk. Scribner (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hellbent, but "liberal" is at least as appropriate as "intellectual", so if someone wants it there, I think they should be able to put it there. I'm OK with applying the "liberal" adjective anywhere in there, although I'm a little uncomfortable applying it to "economist". Applying it to "intellectual" makes the most sense to me, but to "columnist" might be the easiest to support. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"columnist" makes the most sense but really Krugman is really specific as to his political ideology and it isn't just liberal. Defining Krugman as a liberal, first, above all diminishes his accomplishments and an economist and intellectual. Take note of who put the liberal mention there...pretty obvious sock account. Scribner (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
NM, I'm fed up with this page and will leave the POV warring to those who are more invested than me. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Scribner (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

argument

None of the other economists or authors mentioned in this article have a political affiliation mentioned in their lead, neither should Krugman. It is covered sufficiently in the article.

Scribner (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, what's good for the Bill Kristol page is good here. The funny thing is I wasn't even saying it pejoratively, although it appears by your flurry of activity that you took it that way! Notice I said the word "prominent" before it. That was my word. One of the key differences between Krugman and the people you list above is that they don't refer to themselves as liberals (Krugman does) and they are not as outpsoken on liberal causes as Krugman is. I conclude my argument with this fact: Krugman's own blog is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." His own blog!

JohnnyLH (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Kristol is a political analyst, Krugman is an economist. Name some economists who have their political affiliation mentioned first in their lead, there are none. None in this article that I found. Writing a blog isn't his notoriety, being a Nobel Prize winning economist is, however. There's a section in this article already devoted to his politics. Scribner (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
OK see that is where you are mistaken. Krugman is an economist, sure, but he is also a politcal analyst. He is more famous for being a political analyst than he is for being an economist, and secondly he is a more famous political analyst than Bill Kristol! Krugman has a twice-weekly op-ed spot on the NYT. He is also a regular guest on "This Week with George Stephanopolous," "The Charlie Rose Show," and other shows such as shows on PBS and MSNBC. In these appearances, as well as his regular column in the NYT (and occasional columns elsewhere) he speaks of general political issues more than he does of economic issues. When he does speak of economic issues, he does not do so objectively--he does so as a liberal--and even proudly admits as much. Bottom line, none of the people you listed above are regular political commentators. Paul Krugman is a regular political commentator who happens to also be an economist. Again, through his writing and his own words, he is a liberal first and foremost, and far from being unapologetic he is proud of it. JohnnyLH (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Nowhere in this article is Krugman mentioned as a political analyst. Not once. He is a public-intellectual. You're getting the two confused. Even the political analyst David Gergen doesn't have his political affiliation mentioned in his lead. Krugman's taught at Yale, MIT, Stanford and Princeton as an economist, not a political analyst. Again there is a section devoted to his politics already. Scribner (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
nowhere in this article? And that means what, exactly? Why don't you call the producers of "This Week" (a sunday political show) and let them know that the man they have had on every 3-4 weeks for the past several years to analyze political matters is not actually qualified to do so. Let me know what they say. Also please call the editor of the NYT and tell him that from now on Paul can only write 2 economics columns per week in his op-ed slot. The regular columns he has written analyzing political matters unrelated to economics have got to stop because Misplaced Pages does not mention his analyst credentials in the article. Again, the man's own blog has liberal right in the title, not "economist." Plus, stepping back a bit, I disagree with your assertion that just because something is in the opening paragraph it somehow trumps everything else. I don't think anyone would read it that way. Again, the average person in the world who has even had exposure to Mr. Krugman has seen or heard him talk about non-economic issues more so than economic ones. His specialty is being an economist but his public face is that of a liberal commentator. This is essentially all I have to say about this. I really can't believe I am arguing over this. I might just re-write the whole first paragraph and we'll go from there, i don't know. I do know that liberal should appear int he first paragraph, however. Anyway, do what you feel is right and I will re-write the paragraph later if I feel it needs to be. In the meantime, I really do wish you would try to stay within the spirit of this site and not just act as a goalie for arbitrarily decided upon pet pages. I really will do everything I can to stop behavior like that on this site. There is no excuse for it. I said it before and I'll say it again: no one person owns these pages. We all do. At least that's what I was led to believe when I signed up. JohnnyLH (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Krugman first and foremost is an economist. Economists may be described as being in certain 'schools', but his main contribution is in Trade theory and is broadly mainstream, and so not restricted to a certain school. His persona as a public intellectual, on the other hand, can be described as liberal. He is best known for his critique of Bush and Greenspan, and hence describing him as a liberal public intellectual is, in my opinion, fair. However, do not describe his as a liberal economist, his economics is apolitical. LK (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
We're contradicting parts of the political section of the article if we label him as a liberal in the lead. Scribner (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Krugman is called liberal economists by many sources. For example, in "The Oxford history of the United States" on page 293 he is described as "the liberal economist and columnist". He is also called liberal economist by Gregory Mankiw in both "Principles of microeconomics" and "Principles of economics". Even his own NYT calls him liberal economist . -- Vision Thing -- 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If he were only an economist, his political affiliation would not be relevant for the introduction. But he is also a political commentator, and in that context it may be sufficiently relevant for the introduction. Debates about what his point of view really is or is not belong deep in the article. But there is no POV at all if we report, as a factual statement, that he describes himself as a liberal. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Your edit is fine with me, seems to be a reasonable compromise (if 'liberal' has to be in the lead). I believe it was placed at the beginning not so much as a statement of fact but for its negative connotations. Some of the criticisms were petty, personal and over the top as well. Krugman gets tons of hate mail, not surprising to me that his BLP has problems. Scribner (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing POV in calling him a liberal, he calls himself a liberal and others call him a liberal. -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged POV

-- Vision--, you removed the Conservative criticism section, added back unscourced personal attacks in the Criticism section and removed Greenspan's mention in the comments about congressional testimony. Let's hear why. Scribner (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's wrong to call Krugman a liberal economist but conservatives are hellbent to attack this BLP, Wiki seems to be allowing it so have at it since you have a cite, but you do need to cite your claim. I've already discussed creating a Conservative criticism section here. Some of this old criticism was more along the lines of personal attacks and isn't supported in the cites. The Greenspan testimony is relevant, it's exactly what Krugman is referring to in the his statement. Scribner (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for segregation of some criticisms under conservative heading. Also, all criticisms are sourced. As for Greenspan's testimony, your source doesn't talk about Krugman so bringing testimony to relation with something that Krugman said is OR. -- Vision Thing -- 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. And there's consensus for a conservative criticism section already been discussed. Do your homework. Greenspan's testimony is about Krugman's complaint that financial markets weren't regulated. The edit doesn't need to mention Krugman, ridiculous to claim so on your part. Scribner (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. There is no consensus for conservatism section.
  2. "In May 2008 Krugman argued that crude oil at 125$ is supported by fundamentals and that it is not a bubble. By the December of 2008 price of the crude oil plunged to 44$. " Is this text ok to you? -- Vision Thing -- 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Add whatever you think is appropriate to the BLP of Paul Krugman, don't threaten my edits with retaliatory edits. Also, the criticism section should be integrated into the article, exactly like is done on Alan Greenspan's BLP, Phil Gramm's, BLP, Rush Limbaugh's BLP, etc. Scribner (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Integrated criticisms into the article. The section had become a catch all and contained some ridiculous criticisms that likely violated WP:BLP. Removing POV tag. Scribner (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed 'public intellectual' and 'liberal'.. Inappropriate leading information and hectoring in context without context. Neologism term... public intellectual means 'mind of the beholder' meaning grinder aspect of some pov. skip sievert (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I gather you're not familiar with the long history of the term -- only lack of knowledge could lead to the claim that it is a neologism. Anyway the reference provided (Barsky) doesn't use the qualifier, so I have simply restored intellectual without the public -- that's what the reference says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Scribner, by "Integrated criticisms into the article" you probably meant to say "Deleted criticisms from the article." For Greenspan issue see WP:SYNTH and the UN example. -- Vision Thing -- 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, why call him an intellectual at all? It's potentially a loaded term. Calling him a Nobel-prize-winning economic theorist, the author of a long list of books, and a regular columnist at a top US newspaper suffices, doesn't it? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Beyond that it gets sketchy as to leading or pointing which is uncalled for. skip sievert (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Vast improvement! Thanks to all who helped. Looks great to me. Scribner (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the "load" re intellectual? If it's "loaded", that is? Is there something wrong with being an intellectual? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Loaded pov term. Not really appropriate. Not needed as a label. Is there something wrong with being an intellectual - end question Nomo... - No, but what does that question have to do with loading up these descriptor terms that are not needed for any particular reason? These terms are way to vague and so open to interpretation that they are clutter. skip sievert (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
"Clutter" and "vague" aren't the sort of arguments that carry much weight around here, in my experience. Better to argue with reference to wikipedia policies/guidelines. The only issue raised in those terms so far is pov. But I don't get it -- what is pov about "intellectual"? It's the opposite of pov, in my view -- one can be an intellectual and hold any/every point of view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no doubt that Krugman is classified as a public intellectual. I vote inclusion. Scribner (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a classification of that on Misplaced Pages? Was Greenspan one also? Are you sure that is not just an unneeded appellation? Obviously it is a controversial edit or it would not be a matter of contention. Why turn the article into a fan site? It is not needed. It is a bit over the top.
Put it somewhere in the body and source it if you must, but that does not seem like a good idea either at least to me. Turn that into part of the article. Is that in the body of the article? Does it make sense to hit people over the head with such an abstracted relative description, when maybe they were expecting to learn something less obscure. Would you be willing Scribner to go through all the economics articles and write that economists in general are public intellectuals... intellectuals at all? Would you volunteer to change all the other articles as well... or does this just apply to Krugman for you? No doubt someone could source that Greenspan is an intellectual possibly even a public one, but why bother, and what point is trying to be made beyond leading people or telling people information rather than just providing information and letting people think for themselves? skip sievert (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize the poll is on wiki. Probably a mention in the awards section would be suitable. That's how one other intellectual is mentioned. Scribner (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll was conducted in November 2005 and June 2008 by Prospect Magazine (UK) and Foreign Policy (US) on the basis of a readers' ballot. I wonder how qualified a blog Forum poll really is for anything especially that appeals to a very limited or select group of readers. I suppose anyone with a proxy server could vote 100 times. Looks very irrelevant. Maybe Noam Chomsky fans got excited about this though since he came numero uno. Would that number one spot indicate anything?.. as to overt readership of said site? By the way Misplaced Pages is not a good source, as a source. skip sievert (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You need to re-read the intellectual section on this talk page. Other cites exist, we've been other this. I'll add the edit to the awards section in a day or so, with cites of course. The end. Scribner (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the top ten people in Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll is described as an intellectual in the lead of their article. I agree with skip sievert that "intellectual" also shouldn't be included in the lead of this article. -- Vision Thing -- 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Awards section. Scribner (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. Krugman, Paul (2002-08-02). "Dubya's Double Dip". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
  2. Krugman, Paul (2002-08-16). "Mind the Gap". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
  3. Krugman, Paul (2002-08-02). "Dubya's Double Dip". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
  4. Krugman, Paul (2002-08-16). "Mind the Gap". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
Categories: