The other economically ignorant Paul (Krugman) loses a bet. It’s useful to note that Paul Ehrlich’s partner in economic ignorance was John Holdren, the current president’s science advisor.
9 thoughts on “The Economics Equivalent Of Paul Ehrlich”
Comments are closed.
As Maguire notes, Krugman didn’t lose the bet, because he never took it.
Exactly. In other words, he doesn’t actually believe his own polemics, because he wasn’t willing to put his money where his demagoguery was.
A wonky objection to the unit root hypothesis is demagoguery?
There’s a big difference between Krugman’s argument (“we can expect fast growth if and when that capacity comes back into use”) and the terms of Mankiw’s bet.
Exactly.
You write that Krugman lost a bet. He didn’t. And instead of correcting the post you defend publishing a falsehood with “Exactly”?
To spell it out: if your argument is “Krugman doesn’t believe his own arguments”, the thing you want to write is “Krugman doesn’t believe his own arguments.” It isn’t “Krugman loses a bet.”
Poetry doesn’t make sense to you either, does it Jim?
Ya fell right into that one Jim. 🙂
Speaking of putting your money where your demagoguery is, I’ve often wondered how other rich “liberals”–Darth Soros, the “Park Avenue Pinkos,” the “Berverly Hills Bolshies,” etc.– “bet” their own money when it comes to investments. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve sunk mucho dinero into precious metals, firearms, or maybe real-estate in some rematore area they can retreat to when their stupid ideas bear the usual rotten fruit.
I can never figure Paul Krugman out. He has a Nobel-like prize (it’s not awarded by the Nobel Foundation; it’s awarded by the Bank of Sweden), so he’s clearly not ignorant, but I can’t understand how somebody believes something like “if the US Government borrows money from Americans, there’s no burden.” If I borrow money from my family, there may be no external debt, but there’s still a burden on me to repay my brother. An atom may have no net charge, but there’s still important things happening because the proton and electron each have a charge. It just seems like something that only someone who thinks about things all day, every day, without doing them could possibly believe.
The issue of “we’re just borrowing it from ourselves” is talked about in a EconLib podcast with Don Boudreaux recently; that’s why I thought of it.
I can’t understand how somebody believes something like “if the US Government borrows money from Americans, there’s no burden.”
Perhaps the explanation is that you’re responding to a caricature of Krugman’s views. I’ve never read him arguing that public debt owed to Americans is no burden. In fact, he’s written that the taxes needed to service such debt will impose deadweight losses.
It’s just nice to see Krugman proved wrong time and time again. Maybe he stopped putting in any effort after getting the nobel, just coasting along on his name recognition.