Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman Debated Stephen Moore at FreedomFest: Some Highlights

'Obamacare is working quite well,' said Krugman.

|

Krugman

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore faced off in a much-heralded debate over economic policy at FreedomFest on Thursday. They discussed the 2008 stimulus, Obamacare, the minimum wage, and the reasons for economic growth in the 50 states—vehemently disagreeing with each other on most topics, though occasionally finding common ground.

Krugman was at his most persuasive when talking about Obamacare, which he called a "remarkably successful public policy" that brings the United States more in line with the cost-effective healthcare policies of European nations.

"Obamacare is working quite well," he said.

Moore admitted that he wasn't a healthcare expert, but proposed Lasik eye surgery as an example of a medical service that continues to become cheaper because government doesn't mandate insurance for the procedure and true competition is permitted.

On the subject of the minimum wage, Krugman admitted that he had changed his mind over the years—he once accepted the idea that the minimum wage caused unemployment, but the evidence no longer supports that conclusion, he said. Moore fared better here, insisting that minimum wage laws were particularly destructive to teenage employment levels. He asked whether Krugman would consider supporting a separate minimum wage for teenagers.

"What my research shows is [with the minimum wage] you get a reduction in the labor force participation rate of teenagers," said Moore. "This is a very sinister trend. Would you, Paul Krugman, support a teenage minimum wage?"

Krugman said he was willing to think about it.

Moore claimed that "red states," which have adopted more free-market policies, are performing better, economically speaking, than "blue states." Krugman disputed this characterization, claiming that land use policies and climate were more important factors, to which Moore replied, "You tell me people moving from San Diego to Houston are doing it because of the weather?"

Krugman also repeatedly rejected the notion that he is a big-government liberal, or a socialist.

"There are only certain times where you really need government intervention," he said.

Before today, I had only ever experienced Krugman via his acerbic, blithely partisan NYT columns. He was much more reasonable—and ultimately, persuasive—in person. Ultimately, the Krugman/Moore debate served as a good reminder that the important intellectual fight is between advocates of limited government intervention and advocates of moderate government intervention, not between advocates of limited government and advocates of all-encompassing government. Even Krugman, the left's most influential economics expert, is not a socialist.

NEXT: Communist Crucifix Too Far for Pope Francis

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. which he called a “remarkably successful public policy” that brings the United States more in line with the cost-effective healthcare policies of European nations.

    Because European nations are doing soo well right now.

    1. European healthcare is cost effective becasue you can’t get any.

    2. And yet he insisys he is not “big government” drspite being for a policy where government micromanages health insurance.

    3. And Stephen Moore blew it against that rationale? Only because 1) Moore is a moron and 2) Soave is a Socialist

    4. Fun fact: if you make a scatter plot of the rankings of coutnries in Europe by (WHO-determined) health care system quality against the percent of health care spending that is spent by the state, there is no correlation between the two. None at all. I did it on a whim, using this chart from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe

      France, the ‘best’ health care system in Europe, is exactly in the middle when it comes to % public funding. And I’m willing to bet the WHO overestimates efficiency since France is known for wasting huge amounts money on funding unscientific treatments like homeopathy or brand-name drug use instead of generic, both of which cost lots of money but neither of which actually improves quality.

      So as far as Europe is concerned, the evidence does not seem forthcoming that greater state involvement in paying for healthcare improves quality.

  2. Did you let him know that some asshole partisan hack has been publishing under his name at the New York Times for the past decade?

    1. No kidding. I checked just now, and sure enough, his crappy blog is stilled called “The Conscience of a Liberal”!

      1. Come now, Mike, Liberal doesn’t mean Socialist! He’s obviously a Classical Liberal!

        1. 8% of the Times readership knows that!

    2. At one time I read that his wife was his first line of editing on his NYT articles. If that is true, it says quite a bit. Everything I have seen of Krugnuts is that he is a calm, mild mannered fellow. My guess is that his wife also has him on a leash and whips him into a frenzy (or just tells him what to write) on the column.

      1. A lot of calm, mild-mannered people are anything but in print.

        1. In real life, I’m am acerbic prick. Some come to life combination of Walter Sobchak and the Michael Douglas’s character from Falling Down.

          In print, I’m rather reasoned and mild, without all the bluster of wood chippers buzzing in the background.

    3. How funny would that be if it was true?

    4. His wife writes the columns. Or edits them to make them more inflammatory.

  3. Krugman also repeatedly rejected the notion that he is a big-government liberal, or a socialist.

    And then went on to prove the opposite.

    1. My thought exactly. I guess he really is more persuasive in person.

      1. Clearly fooled Soave.

        1. Apparently a very low bar. All Robby needs to hear is, “No, I’m not,” and he’s convinced. Just how many trillions does it take before someone is a socialist, Robby?

          1. Rico Suave is Nick Gillespie junior: a world class social signaler and cocktail circuit bon vivant in training.

        2. Soave is moving on Salon. Either we boot his butt out after being “persuaded” by Obamacare or he leaves willingly.

      2. He’s probably less dismissive of his opposition in person simply because of the audience. He’s in a bubble at the NYT that would tolerate a call to burn Austrian economists at the stake.

        1. Yeah, showing up at FreedomFest is essentially outreach for him, so he’d be on nicer behaviour than usual.

          He’ll probably start blasting Moore as soon as he’s back into comfortable territory.

        2. This kind of makes me hate him more. Kind of like Jon Stewart being nice to a Republican guest and the very next day proceeding to mock a highly edited caricature of him. I think I’d respect Krugman more if he were the same belligerent asshole in person as on his blog. All this tells us is he’s either a coward who’s afraid of confrontation unless he’s the only one with a microphone, or that he just likes to pander to his audience.

    2. The man who has publicly stated that Asimov’s Foundation series grounded his economic views does not believe he is a liberal or a socialist.

  4. “Obamacare is working quite well,” he said.

    My bank account begs to differ

    1. Well, yeah. The insurance-based model is shitting the bed with the lights on, even faster than it would have otherwise, thus paving the way for single payer. That is exactly how Obamacare was supposed to work.

      People like my family, who’re paying higher premiums for a lot less coverage, are just eggs to be broken in the making of this omelet.

    2. PPACA was never about saving you money. It was about expanding health insurance to a few million people at any cost (to everyone else). Mission Accomplished.

    3. Does that include the hundreds of millions wasted on setting up state exchanges when everyone is going to wind up on the federal exchange?

      1. Holes….they aren’t going to dig themselves!

        1. I love the money fires!

      2. Money can’t be wasted in the Keynesian worldview. The only thing that matters is that money was spent. It doesn’t matter one bit whether you spend $1000 on a new TV that you use for years, or the government spends it for one guy to dig holes and another guy to fill them in.

    4. “ObamaCare is working quite well. . . ”

      I read that line. And threw up.

  5. According to the supreme court, it may be working well, but it ain’t working as intended.

  6. Does Paul Krugman even take Paul Krugman seriously at this point?

    1. He has a bifurcated personality. Part of him is an honest academic. Part of him is a ruthless capitalist, willing to play any part to make a dime. He’s found a part that makes him lots and lots of dimes…

  7. “There are only certain times where you really need government intervention,” he said.

    Like in case of alien invasions, which are necessary to stimulate the animal spirits, or when we need a housing bubble, or….

    The man is laughable. That so many take him seriously at this point is frightening.

    1. The man is laughable. That so many take him seriously at this point is frightening.

      To his credit….once he received his prize and his various stipends he continued to do yeomans service as a relentless cheerleader for the state.

      No slacking for Paulie!

    2. There are just as many people who take Robert Reich seriously. If it helps, I think Krugman’s generally mocked inside the actual economics community. He’s rightly seen as a polemicist, not an academic.

      1. His macroeconomics textbook is rather widely used in colleges (though not as widely used as Mankiw’s, thankfully). His academic writing, it’s worth noting, isn’t like his political pandering. It’s literally like the guy has two different personalities, Professional economists probably take him seriously as long as they don’t read any of his articles at major news outlets, or his ‘popular economics’ books; those are where he goes full on lunatic.

  8. Even Krugman…is not a socialist.
    Except on healthcare. And the minimum wage. And land use. And climate.

    1. And alien invasions

    2. Don’t forget his insistence that we must nationalize the banks to end the recession.

  9. Krugman was at his most persuasive when talking about Obamacare, which he called a “remarkably successful public policy”

    By what measure? Did he say, or was this a bare assertion that was somehow persuasive?

    Because the entire net reduction in the uninsured under ObamaCare is due to Medicaid expansion. Its possible that ObamaCare has actually made the situation worse outside of Medicaid, that without ObamaCare more people would have private insurance than actually do.

    that brings the United States more in line with the cost-effective healthcare policies of European nations.

    If you look at inputs, studies show that we are median or below for health care costs. Its only if you look at prices that we look high. But prices are not a measure of anything in healthcare, because there are no markets in healthcare. Inputs are the way to go. For example, if you have 10 doctors, and you pay them each $10,000, then your “price” is $100,000. If you pay them each $100,000, then your price is $1,000,000. The inputs are the same. All that the price does is move around who bears the cost of the inputs.

    “There are only certain times where you really need government intervention,” he said.

    Did he give any examples of when he opposed government intervention?

    1. “Certainly – all the time. That’s the time I’m thinking of.” – Krugnuts

    2. That brings the United States more in line with the cost-effective healthcare policies of European nations.

      What is this fascination with doing things the European way? And why is it a measure of success? Why don’t we align ourselves with the policies of Pacific Island nations? Or South Asian nations? Is there an inherent presupposition that European nations are superior?

      And, on the whole cost-effective nature of Europe…even if we accept that as true, there might be reasons for that cost-effectiveness:

      http://www.theguardian.com/soc…..ting-times

      FTA:

      As a result of the pressures on the NHS, 2,386 planned operations were cancelled, plus another 137 urgent operations, 11 of which had been cancelled two or more times. The equivalent figures for the same period last year were 1,298, 72 and three respectively.

      The strain the NHS is under was further highlighted as it was revealed on Friday that Great Western hospital, in Swindon, temporarily closed its A&E department last week.

      Statistics also showed that instances of ambulances queuing outside A&E departments for at least 30 minutes more than doubled compared with the same period last year, and bed days lost to delayed discharge of medically fit patients were higher than in any other week this winter or last.

    3. Found it:

      Interesting article on how “single payer” is just all the problems of OCare in new bottles.

      And that input v price thing I mentioned above.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo…..nt-get-it/

  10. Krugman was at FreedomFest and Reason was worried about Trump being there? Ha.

    1. Krugman did not present a lecture about how to “make America great again.”

  11. “Krugman was at his most persuasive when talking about Obamacare”

    Seriously? … his argumentation on other topics was that bad.

    1. ^^ I came here to say THIS, but Cato took care of it.

      Thank you

  12. Some HighLowlights

    Fixed that for you, Rico.

    Nice picture of that ugly dog, too, btw.

  13. This sounds very lopsided.

    1966 Ali v 1996 Ali lopsided.

    I hope Moore sends Krugman’s wife a card.

    1. “I think he’s a good man. I like him. I got nothing against him, but I’m definitely gonna make orphans of his children.”

      “Uh, you know, they do have a mother, Champ?”

      “Yes, but I would imagine that she would die of grief.”

      1. +1 Drederick

  14. unfortunately this probably makes it less likely that krugman would ever debate steve landsburg, which would i think would be something pretty special.

    1. Krugman surely knows his limits.

  15. “Obamacare is working quite well,” he [Krugman] said.

    Of course it is working well. It was designed to place the final nail in private healthcare’s coffin, and it is doing it quite beautifully.

    Oh, ins’t that what he meant?

  16. We’re now well into year seven of the biggest explosion of global spending and debt since World War II, and this schmuck is still writing the same columns now that he was writing back in 2009: claiming that the problem is “austerity” and that everything would be great if only everyone would just keep spending even more.

    To call Krugman a clown would be an insult to Bozo and all the other great clowns of history.

    1. He’s appears to be entertaining to a certain crowd… much like clowns.

      1. Lots of kids like clowns, but some kids are terrified of them.

        Most progressives are a bit like children with their naive ignorance, their helplessness, and their almost innocent, but self-centered, concept of fairness.

        I can understand why progressives like clown like Krugman, but his popularity scares me.

    2. Imagine Krugman as a financial advisor.

      1. “You don’t have enough income for all the things you are entitled to. I advise getting several credit cards. That way, you’ll be rich.

        “And (this is the best part): max out those cards at 13% interest, and invest the cash in CDs at 2% interest! You’ll be losing money, which is why you need a crapload of credit cards, so you can make it up on volume!!”

  17. I would have paid good money to see him introduced as Pauly Krugnuts or Krugabe.

  18. “This is a very sinister trend. Would you, Paul Krugman, support a teenage minimum wage?”

    More government interference? Please, you’re turning Krugman on.

    1. Yeah, an age-based minimum wage. Why not a wage based on how many kids you’ve got? Or how big your rent/mortgage payment is? I’m sure the TOP MEN can figure out a formula to describe exactly how much each person should be making, regardless of what job they are doing or how well they are doing it.

    2. It is a facepalming moment when the suggested solution to the negative effects of government interference in the market is to make labor law more complex.

      1. I lost all respect for Krugman when he turned in favor of minimum wage. He used to oppose it, and I think he still knows it causes disemployment; he just switched sides so he could be a more consistent Democratic cheerleader. There is almost no clearer case of a ‘scholar’ changing positions in order to tow a party line.

        Everyone who has studies the subject knows that the ‘research’ he’s referring to are the Katz, Card, and Krueger studies (a couple other nmes I don’t recall); but has Krugman ever looked at Neumark and Wascher’s refutations of those studies? Neumark and Wascher are leading economists in minimum wage, so he can’t have ignored them. He has never even tried to refute them. So I get the impression that Krugman just ignores literature that he knows goes against his worldview.

        To me that makes him almost worse than Robert Reich. Reich is an idiot, he can’t help it; he can’t be anything else. Krugman on the other hand has willfully deluded himself in order to fit in or sell books or whatever; far less forgivable

  19. Even Krugman, the left’s most influential economics expert, is not a socialist.

    O’ be some other name! What’s in a name?
    That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    So a socialist would,
    Were he not a socialist called,
    Retain that dear perfection which he owes without that title.
    Socialist doff thy name

    1. She doth protest too much….

  20. To the point re: “Teenagers”… I always bring this up when people talk about the minimum wage – about half of all minimum wage earners are 16-20, and the vast majority of those are part time, not “living wage” recipients.

    The ideologues who want to pretend that their advocacy for a minimum wage is all about “The Poor” studiously avoid the fact that very few ‘poor’ people are positively affected by the law.

    The most significant impact is on small businesses that hire young people part time. And its been an area of the economy that’s been crushed over the last 20 years.

    Even idiotic liberals have decided this might be a problem. Of course their solution is more Government Programs. Because its not like handouts have ever crowded out actual economic activity.

    1. Thats ok those young workers can just take out huge college loans instead of working, and make academics richer and richer while the poor young people pile on massive debt that they’ll be paying of for the rest of their lives.

      Isn’t it funny how colleges bitch about supposed “wage slaves” while chaining millions of ignorant young college kids to the slavery that is debt?

  21. Moore admitted that he wasn’t a healthcare expert

    I’m curious if Krugman admitted the same.

  22. So punchable…

  23. “Even Krugman, the left’s most influential economics expert, is not a socialist.’

    I think it is entirely dishonest to consider Krugman anything like the left’s “Economics Expert”.

    He’s a @#()*$ NYT editorial columnist. 90% of his columns have zero actual ‘economic’ insight at all. He’s a polemicist. On the rare occasion where he does offer some economic POV, its nothing but some kind of unsupported headline claim, a la “Obamacare is Doing Peachy!”…despite rapidly rising premiums and the law having only put a meager dent in covering the otherwise-‘uninsured’ – the ostensible reason for the thing in the first place.

    If there’s any *actual* economists work that the left cites, its Pickety. When they cite Krugman, its usually something unrelated to economics… which they think is somehow more-appealing and convincing because he won a Nobel Prize.

    1. Piketty of course is arguably worse, both in terms of shoddy reasoning and being more of a bona fide socialist.

      Stiglitz is popular on the left. Larry Summers is kinda middle of the road, sometimes a little left of center, but not consistently. It’s hard to be a truly left wing professional economist (as opposed to just getting an econ degree and going to work as a political whore). It’s like being a creationist biologist. It happens occasionally, but it just looks odd.

  24. Moore claimed that “red states,” which have adopted more free-market policies, are performing better, economically speaking, than “blue states.” Krugman disputed this characterization, claiming that land use policies and climate were more important factors, to which Moore replied, “You tell me people moving from San Diego to Houston are doing it because of the weather?”

    BOOM HEADSHOT

    1. I love this place just for the videos.

  25. Even Krugman, the left’s most influential economics expert, is not a socialist.

    Maybe it would be better to say he wouldn’t admit to being a socialist in front of a knowledgeable audience expressly opposed to that.

    the Krugman/Moore debate served as a good reminder that the important intellectual fight is between advocates of limited government intervention and advocates of moderate government intervention,

    This seems unsupported by evidence. Has there ever been a case of Krugman or Democrats generally reacting to government intervention by fighting against future efforts at further government intervention on the same issue? For example Democrats successfully increased minimum wages at various points in time, are they now against additional increases in minimum wage laws? Of course not.

    So Krugman’s and Democrats’ preference when following “moderate government intervention” is more government intervention. More than moderate is not moderate.

    1. It seems to come down to definitions. Apparently some folk define the PPACA, TARP, etc., etc. as “moderate government intervention.” Although, even on that point, I’m pretty sure Krugman is on record as saying the bailout was too small.

      1. Sorry, I can’t remember the writer’s name, but I will never forget the op ed in the NY Times that labeled Obama as being “left of center.”

        1. I still remember talking with a group of academic friends and being met by riotous laughter when I described Obama as a radical leftist. They told me he was clearly a moderate Democrat.

          They agreed with me that Nancy Pelosi was a radical leftist – but only after a moment or two thinking about and not being quite sure of that at first.

          1. Obama is a conventional academic leftist or progressive. He, and this group, are quite outside the mainstream of America. But he’s perfectly normal within his cohort.

            This creates much confusion especially when part of the discussion group is another progressive. Their control of the intellectual culture is so complete they don’t understand how out of touch they are.

            1. To call Obama academic in any sense is a stretch IMO. I think of ‘academic leftists’ as being extreme but consistent. Obama’s policies (healthcare being a case in point) rather seem like they literally get written by eleven different ‘experts’ who are always kept in separate locked rooms and are not allowed to interact with each other; then when each is done with his vaguely defined task, all the pieces are hastily sewn together. Like legislative bric-a-brac, with some aspects of a bill actually counteracting other aspects of it. Again, the ACA being a shining example.

          2. There’s a difference between how someone sells themselves or governs when they require the approval of non-leftists, and who they actually are. Something Rico should remember.

      2. Although, even on that point, I’m pretty sure Krugman is on record as saying the bailout was too small.

        He’s certainly on record saying Obama’s “stimulus” was too small. But I think your definitional point is off.

        Right now Krugman says PPACA is “remarkably successful public policy” but that’s because(1) PPACA isn’t stable yet and still requires political cover and (2) the policy impacts aren’t actually clear yet so he can pretty much say anything he wants to. Eventually one of two things is going to happen after Obamacare stabilizes, it will either have met it’s objectives or not.

        Is anyone willing to place a bet about how Krugman will react at that point? I’m willing to bet substantial money he will advocate more government intervention in healthcare rather than either less intervention or no change regardless of which outcome proves true. Does anyone at all doubt this? Sure the proggies will argue, but only because they need to defend him for political reasons.

        To Krugman and Democratic progressives every government intervention is a way point for further government intervention. So defining what Krugman publicly supports today as “moderate” and claiming these are the two preferences we choose between is simply wrong.

        1. Good point/s.

          One other thing they always ignore: almost always, initial government intervention is predicated on the market not working perfectly. However, when government intervention does not work perfectly, this is never cited as a failure of the intervention.

          Under their rubric, if anyone goes bankrupt or dies because of the PPACA, it should be immediately repealed.

        2. I have no doubt that Krugman will be calling for single-payer from the next Democrat majority Congress.

          1. I’d bet money on it. At this point they could purpose massive sweeping tariffs on all foreign goods and Krugman would do the necessary mental gymnastics to convince himself to support it. He no longer deviates. .

        3. “it will either have met it’s objectives or not.”

          The objective being to enforce compliance and dependency by not only granting the state control over life and death for the entire lower and middle class but creating the reasonable fear that shrinking the state could result in loss of healthcare for many people.

    2. When you always advocate the status quo, and the other side wants more, each compromise is just a step closer to your adversaries’ goals.

      Conservatives don’t understand this. This is why Conservatives either need to become libertarians or suffer through a slow ideological death.

      1. I think many conservatives do understand this, but their political leaders don’t care. Hence the Tea Party / anti-establishment civil war.

        1. Conservatives understand that and they have no coherent philosophy, so they end up in the same place as their leaders. They are both losers.

    3. More than moderate is not moderate.

      Yup.

      Well given the sweep of the ACA and the fact that he supports it, I have a hard time considering him a moderate. The ACA is a pretty radically progressive movement.

    4. For example Democrats successfully increased minimum wages at various points in time, are they now against additional increases in minimum wage laws?

      Plenty: all those who answered “of course not” when asked, if X is good, wouldn’t it be even better to raise it to 10X?

      1. You forgot the word “yet.”

    5. Wait a minute here – Krugman was PLENTY a socialist back in January when Tsipras won election. Krugman was a PROFOUND socialist during the Greek ‘no’ vote .

      If Soave can’t find a challenge to the Bearded Troll, then Reason needs someone else.

  26. I should watch this, but I’d rather poke my eyes out with red hot pokers than listen to that sniveling shit Krugman’s voice.

  27. the important intellectual fight is between advocates of limited government intervention and advocates of moderate government intervention

    So who was there to advocate for moderate government intervention?

  28. WTF Robby, I’m very disappointing.

    Let me give you a life lesson. When someone is a unabashed vitriolic socialist in a place where he is never called out on it, and a moderate sounding guy in a place were he most certainly would be, the conclusion you come to should not be that that he is actually moderate.

    The conclusion is that he is intellectually weak and a coward. Fuck Paul Krugman with a woodchipper auger.

  29. “There are only certain times where you really need government intervention,” he said.

    Sure, sure. And that other 10% of the time, government intervention would just be really super.

    1. Here’s just one of his grandiose ideas:

      http://www.businessinsider.com…..art-2009-2
      .

  30. “He was much more reasonable?and ultimately, persuasive?in person.”

    Yeah, why don’t you ask him to rob someone to try a live experiment of implementing his policies. Maybe even have Krugman rough them up for not obeying. How far would he get?

    “Krugman, the left’s most influential economics expert, is not a socialist.”

    Influential to people who have no clue about what implementing their views would take, nor would they commit the theft and violence against others that is required for their ideas to work.

    This douchebag supports the socialization of healthcare, money, and many other things.

    What about an alternative minimum wage for young people?? OMFG, forcing people to engage in charity by threat of fines and imprisonment isn’t good no matter what age group it applies.

    That’s like the “conservative” that runs around screaming about freedom and liberty waving their don’t tread on me flag while supporting their own form of theft, and slavery backed up by gov’t violence.

  31. “Bad move on my part”

    Video of Krugman ignoring, as best he can, reality:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs

  32. “There are only certain times where you really need government intervention,

    I’ve never seen him call for no government intervention.

  33. On the subject of the minimum wage, Krugman admitted that he had changed his mind over the years?he once accepted the idea that the minimum wage caused unemployment, but the evidence no longer supports that conclusion, he said.

    Come the fuck on. The “evidence” that they always cite is from the early 90s.

    1. The “evidence” is a number of very short term studies (evaluating 6 months or less) of very small changes in the minimum wage, and don’t think this is by accident.

      These studies are specifically designed to support the political claims the designers wanted to make just as Elizabeth Warren defined a “medical bankruptcy” as having 5k in medical debt even if unsecured consumer debt was 100 times more. Or just as the rape hysterics define touching someone’s shoulder as sexual assault so they can conclude 1 in 5 female college students is sexually assaulted.

      1. The evidence is always some sort of bullshit survey: “We asked X employers if….” It’s like “proving” that adding weight to your car doesn’t reduce mileage by asking people what sort of car they have and how much they weigh and how much cargo they carry and what their gas mileage is. “Gee, we can’t find a correlation!” Or course you can’t, morons. But basic physics tells you that if the heavier the vehicle, the lower the mileage. Basic economics tells you that if you mandate a higher price for something, people will try to buy less of it. If your study doesn’t see it, it’s the fault of your study.

        1. Their evidence was falsified long ago.

          Funny how their evidence always seems to come from Kreuger too…

          1. Beat me to it. Those two economists found that minimum wage caused disemployment effects… using data from the same businesses surveyed by the most widely cited paper supporting min wage, by Krueger and Card.

            But one is dealing with people who think that being intellectual means reading a bunch of books and articles by a bunch of people who all nearly always agree with each other and ‘support’ their views by citing each other. It’s just a big circle with very little exposure to anything outside the circle. And Krugman is pretty open about it; he admitted – no, bragged – that he never reads anything by people who disagree with him because ‘he already knows they’re wrong.’

  34. Krugman’s not a socialist the same way he’s not an asshole. He’s not not one.

    1. He probably is more a fascist than a socialist.

      1. I call it neo-socialism since fascism turns the discussion into an argument about what is fascism or name calling.

        Neo-socialism is the government usurping the prerogatives of ownership without bothering to undertake formal ownership. All of the following were usurped by either Obamacare or other actions by the Obama administration such as TARP.

        Choice of products to offer for sale
        Select management
        Receive profits

        From the government’s perspective this is perfect. They control whatever they want and can claim political credit for any changes while blaming the businesses for the negative impacts of their decisions. And they’re never on the hook for performance like they were for the Obamacare exchanges. It’s so much better than that old fashioned version.

        When you hear someone say public-private partnership this is what they mean.

        1. I like to use the word pseudo-socialist. We have to find some word though to get the word ‘liberal’ away from these pricks. Otherwise someone prescient satirist in the not-too-distant future is going to have an easy time mocking the irony of the fact that the most ardently and unambiguously anti-individual freedom sect in the country will call themselves ‘liberal.’

  35. Moderate government intervention? PLEASE.

    Krugman and his ilk wish for MORE intervention than we currently have, and that level is ridiculously high.

    We are as close to a command economy as you can get without being outright communist.

  36. Since when is Lasik constantly getting cheaper?

    1. There’s this thing called Google. Try it out
      http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why…..c-surgery/

      1. And BOOM, a headshot for Tony.

        1. Sadly, Tony and others stuck on a violent ideology get to vote others into slavery. Their wants require violence, but you’ll never see someone like Tony rob his neighbors bank account, or house.

          Tony doesn’t have to put up his business, or his home and assets to fund high speed rail, healthcare, shower a business with subsidies , or any other idea that requires theft that enters his head. This is why folks parrot the same nonsense over and over again because they don’t face consequenses for their actions.

    2. At least as long as Plastic and Cosmetic surgery as been “constantly getting cheaper”.

      By the way, you can afford that face lift now. And tummy tuck. And nose job. And the liposuction.

      You’ve had your face up Hillary’s cunt and Obama’s ass for so long (or Hillary’s ass and Obama’s cunt), you’ve lost your pixie-like, urchiness and have become Bernie Sander’s doppelganger. The sagging, scary socialist.

  37. Krug is quite flexible intellectually for his Team; when Republicans (Shrub) were deficit spending, droning, building out a police state, and massively expanding medical entitlements…Krug was against it all.

    Donkey-clown gets into office and does same things? Krug loves it.

    1. Krugman was an out and out anti-Keynesian during the early 2000s recession. So was Stiglitz if I remember correctly. Ten years later, what do you know, they’ve found Jesus again.

  38. Krugman now sports a rather ISIS beard. I’d be scratching that brillo pad with both hands.

  39. I read somewhere that Krugman’s wife edits his columns to make them more partisan and ignorant. Perhaps she is trying to make him less appealing to potential mistresses.

  40. This is me getting my econ geek on. Pedro Schwartz slams Krugman.

    The trouble with what we’ve just heard and what’s in the book I’ve read very carefully, is that often, Nobel prize winners are tempted to pontificate on matters that are outside the speciality in which they have excelled. And they have this mantel of authority whereby whatever they say, whether it’s sensible or perhaps a bit outre, is accepted with resignation from some and enthusiasm by others.

    Now, we just heard Professor Krugman say something about the euro and the situation of the euro today and the solutions. And I thought what he said was intelligent, practical, but exactly, what usually is the case with an economist of this kind, which is they got us into this mess, and now we have to sacrifice our principles so that they can get out of this mess.

    Dr. Schwartz is awesome, setting him up to knock him on his ass. Really, watch the whole thing because Krugman’s expression is PRICELESS.

    1. Oops. a-end-tag should have been after “out of this mess.”

    2. Not sure if it’s plagiarism or coincidence, but FA Hayek said roughly the same thing in his Nobel acceptance speech.

      the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.

      This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence.

      But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.

      There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society – as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe.

      1. I would think rather a common observation amongst like-minded thinkers.

        1. Of course, but it’s a little interesting since Dr Schwartz is presumably familiar with Hayek’s famous speech. Repeating the same idea without referencing FAH is kind of odd.

          1. Plenty of people in multiple fields have probably had this kind of thought. Read about Cary Mullis and Luc Montagnier for some examples of excellent Nobel-winning biologists who had some ludicrous ideas. Or just look at the number of Cold War era Nobel winning physicists who adamantly and publicly argued on opposite sides of the nuclear disarmament issue. And the economics Nobel prize is particularly controversial.

            Schwarz likely has hear Hayek’s argument, and he’s likely heard a similar one made many times by many people (can’t be an uncommon topic in academic circles), so even if motivated in part by Hayek’s phrasing of it, I wouldn’t consider it too extraordinary that he doesn’t mention him specifically.

  41. I would have preferred a duel.

  42. Robby, really?

    “”Obamacare is working quite well,” he said.”

    That’s it? His best argument and that’s all you quote?

    Sorry, but this is a weak article (if it can be called that).

  43. How do we know John Maynard Krugman is not a big government statist fascist socialist? Because he says so.

    Done and done, bitches.

  44. “…the important intellectual fight is between advocates of limited government intervention and advocates of moderate government intervention, not between advocates of limited government and advocates of all-encompassing government. ”

    That might be the “intellectual” fight, but it certainly isn’t the political one. Our choices are between those who find any limit to government power an annoyance and those who wish to expand government power at a slower pace.

    Time the intellectual fight addressed our political shortcomings..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.