Krugman Finally Realizes How Wrong He's Been

[Waddy]

After almost destroying the American middle class, Krugman issues a mea culpa. Admits he was wrong about globalization. The ultimate "my bad". Wonder if he'll give back that Nobel prize?

Economists on the Run

Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought…

getpocket.com

 

[PoS]

Krugman is a joke. He's on the same level as Hannity and Breitbart.

 

[Emily L]

I didn't read the whole article (I have trouble even spelling economics), but I think it's refreshing when somebody admits they were wrong about something. Some people simply refuse to do that.

 

[Waddy]

I didn't read the whole article (I have trouble even spelling economics), but I think it's refreshing when somebody admits they were wrong about something. Some people simply refuse to do that.

In the normal course of events I would agree. But when that "wrong" actually destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, "sorry, my bad" just doesn't cut it. It would have been nice if Hitler had apologized for the Holocaust, but also pretty meaningless. Don't get me wrong, it's good that he admits he was wrong, it's jut too little too late.
Krugman is a study in hubris. So all fired sure he was right. Demeaning and rude to those who disagreed with him. He could turn public opinion against politicians who didn't see it his way.
BTW: no sensible economist argues that some form of "globalization" wouldn't happen; cheap foreign labor, container shipping, global communication, and China's move toward manufacturing for export all indicated that globalization was on the way. It's the way Krugman approached it; endorsing poorly structured trade agreements, no worker re-training or protection of important industries, or tax equalization, etc. He had his way, got a Nobel prize, and no one dared argue against him. And of course, there were the leading corporations willing and ready to take full advantage. It's like they paid Krugman to be their spokesman.

 

[Spakian]

The fact that he said that he was wrong is good enough. Acceptance of being wrong is better than being a crybaby about it

 

[Waddy]

The fact that he said that he was wrong is good enough. Acceptance of being wrong is better than being a crybaby about it

He is now totally discredited. I think he should return that Nobel prize for starters, if he really is repentant. Then write a major article for a major economics journal, (ie., The Economist) explaining just why he was wrong and endorse following the policies recommended by his critics, who are right. Turns out Trump was also right to oppose Krugman's laiseez-faire brand of globalization. Krugman helped put Trump in office.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I read the entire article, and while I have become disappointed in Krugman it was nice to see where he is admitting fault.

Where our real issue is the false dichotomy of globalization vs. protectionism, framed up in the world of politics it is a light switch polarizing position that one is to take whereas in economics we already know of blending concepts and initiatives. Just as we have a mixed model of economics in this nation blending parts of planned economics to throttle market economics there is a ideology that mixed globalization for demand of products and services made elsewhere with protectionism for that demand for products and services made in a nation.

The problem is politics makes this a polarizing concept, Krugman all but sold out to political ideology over economic reasoning, and what it ultimately lead to was a concept called hyperglobalization. Now that is a bit of a made up term but all it really means is designing business profit for moving products and services production in a nation because the labor market here cannot compete with international labor markets. That happened anyway, and with it harmed what was left of the 1950's to 1970's thinking of what a middle class was.

Retail, auto manufacturing, appliance manufacturing, electronics, raw materials such as steel and aluminum, various plastics, even call center operations, etc. all figured this out a long way back looking around the globe for very inexpensive labor in comparison to domestic middle class labor demands.

Anyone think it is an accident that the "middle class" today is mostly college educated which swapped out the "middle class" back then that was mostly production and manufacturing oriented via a "trade" still set? Anyone think it is an accident that localized business was swapped out for very large international business models, or how companies like Walmart and Target became dominant forces? And does anyone think it was an accident that in the 1950's all 10 of the top employers in the nation paid a middle class wage, whereas today it is 2-3 of the nation's top 10 employers with the rest paying in the bottom 5th quintile?

Globalization has produced quite a few benefits in terms of economic capability of a nation, but it always has a consequence. In the case of the US it shifted what it takes to just be a participant in the middle class, and forced just about everyone else into the lowest income quintile.

We've become lazy, and it is catching up to us. Krugman thought that there would be enough interest in the US worker to keep enough of them in decent pay, and he was dead wrong. Wealth won the globalization fight, all evidence supporting.

 

[TheEconomist]

I used to read Krugman's blog between about 2010 and 2016. While I cannot speak for his most recent arguments, his political commentary was extremely predictable. Some of his comments on economic theory were very interesting: looking back as a PhD student, I know that he was quite skillfully conveying complicated academic debates that surrounded fiscal policy, monetary policy and business cycle analysis around the financial crisis. This part of his commentary was fair and sound in a way that many partisan conservatives often failed to appreciate. It doesn't mean you had to agree with him back then, but he did lay out the core of his claims, showcased the intuition and raised meaningful objections. There were some problems with his views of fiscal policy back in the early 2010s, but some of those problems were very subtle and were not pointed out until long after.

As for his Nobel Prize, he earned the prize for his work on international trade theory. Specifically, he expanded emerging tools of dynamic modeling and some market frictions to international trade. While it is not my field of expertise, he is a spectacularly talented writer when it comes to economic theory. His work was sufficiently revolutionary to warrant a Nobel Prize. That's how we attribute the prize: we evaluate the work, its impact and the context.

You can call him arrogant. You can call him out for being imprudent, from engaging in excessive belligerence... Sure. But he isn't an idiot, nor a fraud.

 

[Lafayette]

But when that "wrong" actually destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, "sorry, my bad" just doesn't cut it.

And you cut the BS, will you?

Krugman was not wrong in that whatever he said about "destroyed lives", and if you THINK he did then I dare you to prove it ... !

 

[Lafayette]

I read the entire article, and while I have become disappointed in Krugman it was nice to see where he is admitting fault.

Look, he's an Economics prof. They get things wrong, because THEY THINK (about some pretty profound subjects)!

I have a degree in economics, and having seen the way both the American and European economic situations have evolved over the past 30 years, aside from the basics that one learns in Year 1, there is still very little that we understand about the science. (Yes, economics is a SCIENCE!)

It aint easy to take any economic situation and, with time, not wonder about certain aspects that make for some very curious turn of economic-events. And, since economists do this more often than the ordinary-dorks on this forum, they get it publicly wrong. Or a bit wrong - especially if they are teachers of the subject-matter.

The point being that they TRIED to think about a subject and they proposed a thought or argument. Aint nuthin' wrong with that, even when half wrong. Besides, economics is one of the few sciences that depends wholly upon human-behaviour - and in that manner there may be a theory to propose but ANY THEORY regarding economic behaviour is just supposition. Because unlike most sciences, economics depends upon Human Behaviour that is wholly unpredictable*!

But, shooting an economics prof down for what he said (and now regrets saying) is simply poor-play. It the work of someone who actually has nothing more intelligent to propose in the debate ...

 

[OrphanSlug]

Look, he's an Economics prof. They get things wrong, because THEY THINK (about some pretty profound subjects)!

I have a degree in economics, and having seen the way both the American and European economic situations have evolved over the past 30 years, aside from the basics that one learns in Year 1, there is still very little that we understand about the science. (Yes, economics is a SCIENCE!)

It aint easy to take any economic situation and, with time, not wonder about certain aspects that make for some very curious turn of economic-events. And, since economists do this more often than the ordinary-dorks on this forum, they get it publicly wrong. Or a bit wrong - especially if they are teachers of the subject-matter.

The point being that they TRIED to think about a subject and they proposed a thought or argument. Aint nuthin' wrong with that, even when half wrong. Besides, economics is one of the few sciences that depends wholly upon human-behaviour - and in that manner there may be a theory to propose but ANY THEORY regarding economic behaviour is just supposition. Because unlike most sciences, economics depends upon Human Behaviour that is wholly unpredictable*!

But, shooting an economics prof down for what he said (and now regrets saying) is simply poor-play. It the work of someone who actually has nothing more intelligent to propose in the debate ...

You are preaching to the choir, I have popcorn in hand, and mostly agree with you.

But I still consider Krugman a political sellout, which means by default he discarded the science of economics for the personal return and notoriety from commentary.

 

[ludin]

Krugman is a joke. He's on the same level as Hannity and Breitbart.

He has been a joke for a while.
Maybe he was once respected but he traded that in when he decided it was more profitable to be
a leftist hack than a source for sound economics.

of course globalization hurts american workers that has been the case for decades.
I remember growing up in the 80's where the motto was buy american. the issue is that the
american baseball glove cost 20 bucks while the chinese one cost 10.

they lasted about the same amount of time. I lived in a house that was buy american.
the issue was few items were made in america at the time and those that were it was expensive.

 

[ludin]

I used to read Krugman's blog between about 2010 and 2016. While I cannot speak for his most recent arguments, his political commentary was extremely predictable. Some of his comments on economic theory were very interesting: looking back as a PhD student, I know that he was quite skillfully conveying complicated academic debates that surrounded fiscal policy, monetary policy and business cycle analysis around the financial crisis. This part of his commentary was fair and sound in a way that many partisan conservatives often failed to appreciate. It doesn't mean you had to agree with him back then, but he did lay out the core of his claims, showcased the intuition and raised meaningful objections. There were some problems with his views of fiscal policy back in the early 2010s, but some of those problems were very subtle and were not pointed out until long after.

As for his Nobel Prize, he earned the prize for his work on international trade theory. Specifically, he expanded emerging tools of dynamic modeling and some market frictions to international trade. While it is not my field of expertise, he is a spectacularly talented writer when it comes to economic theory. His work was sufficiently revolutionary to warrant a Nobel Prize. That's how we attribute the prize: we evaluate the work, its impact and the context.

You can call him arrogant. You can call him out for being imprudent, from engaging in excessive belligerence... Sure. But he isn't an idiot, nor a fraud.

He is a leftist hack anymore he has been that way for a while. why? it is more profitable to be a leftist hack than an economist with integrity.
His monetary policy is noting we haven't seen before and seen the end result with disasterous effect.

Krugman was a classic keyes economist then he switch over to this idiotic MM theory.
which no country on earth uses for good reason the ones that have tried it have devastated their money value and their economies.

In fact the current economics plan that was rolled out in the past 4 years has seen very large market increases, jobs, and salaries and follows more
of the laffer curve and solid supply side economics theory.

 

[Waddy]

And you cut the BS, will you?

Krugman was not wrong in that whatever he said about "destroyed lives", and if you THINK he did then I dare you to prove it ... !

Krugman's misguided opinions influenced policy makers and those policies helped damage the middle class. So yeah, he destroyed lives.

 

[Fishking]

After almost destroying the American middle class, Krugman issues a mea culpa. Admits he was wrong about globalization. The ultimate "my bad". Wonder if he'll give back that Nobel prize?

Economists on the Run

Paul Krugman and other mainstream trade experts are now admitting that they were wrong about globalization: It hurt American workers far more than they thought…

getpocket.com

Has Krugman ever been right about anything? Ron Paul, the Dr...yeah, the normal type of Dr not a doctorate in economics, hits the nail on the head so many times with his predictions. Krugman looks like a child screaming for candy all the time in comparison.

Keynesian economists are just plain nuts.

 

[Lafayette]

He has been a joke for a while.

Sez you, without the slightest bonafide argumentation.

Your just trading one-liner negative nonsense here. Wakey, wakey .... !

 

[ludin]

Sez you, without the slightest bonafide argumentation.

Your just trading one-liner negative nonsense here. Wakey, wakey .... !

Not really. It has been a known fact for a while.
the fact you have to cut off my entire post says how much of an argument you actually lack yourself.

Krugman has been called out numerous times about the nonsense he has said and advocated as being wrong.

 

[CaughtInThe]

this entire issue would be solved if people in South Carolina would work for $1/day with no benefits.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The biggest failure is the lack of industrial policy in the US. It serves Germany well, it served Japan well until the abandoned it under US pressure, it serves South Korea well, and now serves China well.

Had the US formed an industrial policy to promote higher skill manufacturing and promoted high capital requirement industry in the US it could be producing large ships for logistics instead of South Korea. The US has the raw materials to be able to do it cheaper. The labour in the US south is not expensive so it could be done

 

[Lafayette]

Not really. It has been a known fact for a while.

OK, then go out and look for a reference, and post it!

Facts, please. Not intuitions, neither sarcasm - far too much of it from smart-asses in one-liner posts here!

This is a debate-forum! (I thought! Maybe I've got that wrong?)

 

[ludin]

OK, then go out and look for a reference, and post it!

Facts, please. Not intuitions, neither sarcasm - far too much of it from smart-asses in one-liner posts here!

This is a debate-forum! (I thought! Maybe I've got that wrong?)

sorry i don't have time for dishonest people that can't use the quote button.
Your not debating. Your simply stamping your feet and saying your wrong and cutting up my post.
So when you try debating then get back to me.

 

[ludin]

The biggest failure is the lack of industrial policy in the US. It serves Germany well, it served Japan well until the abandoned it under US pressure, it serves South Korea well, and now serves China well.

Had the US formed an industrial policy to promote higher skill manufacturing and promoted high capital requirement industry in the US it could be producing large ships for logistics instead of South Korea. The US has the raw materials to be able to do it cheaper. The labour in the US south is not expensive so it could be done

Econuts and labor union costs have drive most of the industry out of america.
It is hard to make nuts and bolts or other industrial material and compete with countries that have 0 labor laws.
that work people 16 hour shifts and pay them 4 bucks a day.

it makes it impossible to compete on a global scale.

Labour in the south is what the market will bear to keep the unions out of it.
The pay difference between an auto worker in the south and an auto worker in the north is almost the same.

Where auto's companies in the south win is that they do not have to pay pensions for the life of an employee.
I think they have pretty robust 401k plans instead.

 

[Lafayette]

Your not debating. Your simply stamping your feet and saying your wrong and cutting up my post.
So when you try debating then get back to me.

I suggest you look up the definition of the word "debate" - it should look like this:

a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

We are all here very much having a "public meeting" ...

 

[Lafayette]

Econuts and labor union costs have drive most of the industry out of america.
It is hard to make nuts and bolts or other industrial material and compete with countries that have 0 labor laws.
that work people 16 hour shifts and pay them 4 bucks a day.

it makes it impossible to compete on a global scale.

You conveniently forget that what has happened to the US has happened to the world, and namely Europe PLUS the US - which makes for one helluva lotta GDP!

China happened to the world, and like fools, we let it happen. But, even more so, what occurred and is even more important. It's the Internet. It has changed profoundly the way we organize Consumer Demand and the way we Supply it. And, when a country does that, they also alter one whole helluva lotta jobs!

Moreover, economically myopic people like you don't see Economic Evolution in the long-term. Things change, and sometimes they change drastically. It's not China that siphoned off production by means of lower-labor costs. I was living in central-Massachusetts when my town's principal employer (production of plastic goods) went off a cliff. Where my parents worked in a plastics-factory is now a supermarket parking lot.

That was decades ago and since then the workplace has changed profoundly. The Computer Age has also come and gone. We are now in the Internet Age, and computers are museum-pieces ...

PS: So, what next? Good question!

 

[ludin]

I suggest you look up the definition of the word "debate" - it should look like this:


We are all here very much having a "public meeting" ...

YOu should try it so far you are not debating. You are simply stamping your feet.