By Steven Hansen: This past week Nobel Laureate Professor Paul Krugman OpEd: Even if Republicans take the Senate this year, gaining control of both houses of Congress, they won't gain much in conventional terms: They're already able to block legislation, and they still won't be able to pass anything over the president's veto. Show More Summary
Yves here. Unfortunately, correcting Paul Krugman continues to be a staple at Naked Capitalism because he keeps asking for it.
The deficit is now down to under 3% of GDP, and in contemplating that fact, Paul Krugman asks why the deficit hawks aren’t celebrating the precipitous fall from nearly 10% of GDP a few years ago. He then explains that: Far from celebrating the deficit’s decline, the usual suspects — fiscal-scold think tanks, inside-the-Beltway pundits [...]
In Building a Green Economy, NYT Magazine, April 7, 2010, Paul Krugman wrote,As Harvard’s Martin Weitzman has argued in several influential papers, if there is a significant chance of utter catastrophe, that chance — rather than what is most likely to happen — should dominate cost-benefit calculations. Show More Summary
Not much time this morning, but I’d like to respond to the dustup between Mark Buchanan and Paul Krugman over whether energy (and other resource) use can be decoupled from GDP growth.1. I get the impression that Buchanan identifies GDP with “stuff”, at least subconsciously. Show More Summary
Paul Krugman has finally come around to a fair assessment of Barack Obama's term in office: not perfect, by any means, and he probably could have accomplished more with better tactics and a better understanding of his opponents. Still and all, he accomplished a lot. Show More Summary
Paul Krugman: Why Weren’t Alarm Bells Ringing?: "Focusing, as Martin Wolf does, on the measurable factors--the 'shifts'--that increased our vulnerability to crisis is incomplete.... >...Rising... debt... shadow banking... international imbalances... Show More Summary
The federal deficit continues to decline, so why aren't deficit hawks happy?
Why isn't America celebrating the large fall in the deficit?: Secret Deficit Lovers, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: What if they balanced the budget and nobody knew or cared? O.K., the federal budget hasn’t actually been balanced. But the...
President Obama will want to keep the latest issue of Rolling Stone handy to counter reports of his down-in-the-dumps approval ratings. The cover story is by economist and New York Times pundit Paul Krugman, and its headline of "In Defense of Obama" might understate things. Consider this line: “Despite bitter...
Paul Krugman is a hero of mine. Because of his brilliance, his integrity, his batting average at being right, and the choice piece of journalistic real estate he occupies, Krugman has my vote for MVP among all the pundits of our times. But...Show More Summary
Paul Krugman has new Rolling Stone article, In Defense of Obama, but he decides he needs some historical revision for his defense. He claims the Affordable Care Act is "working better than anyone expected."
The economist defends Obama -- and proposes a theory of what's behind the administration's achievements
Paul Krugman's column the other day, invoking William Nordhaus's "demolition" of the forecasting model in The Limits to Growth, got me wondering about how well Nordhaus's indictment has stood up over the years. So I started poking around in the archives. Show More Summary
In Rolling Stone, frequent Obama critic Paul Krugman rises to the president’s defense: Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn’t deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. […]
The New York Times columnist says we can keep our economy growing even while we cut CO2 emissions. But is that true if we cut emissions as dramatically as we need to?
ves here. Readers may know that we regularly savage neoliberal economics, which we often refer to as "mainstream economics." For instance, that's why we so often take aim at Paul Krugman, who despite his leftist inclinations, never takes...Show More Summary
In his "Slow Steaming..." column today, Paul Krugman blatantly misrepresented and trivialized Mark Buchanan's argument: Buchanan says that it’s not possible to have something bigger — which is apparently what he thinks economic growth has to mean — without using more energy.Wrong. Show More Summary
Krugman:"But it is, I think, a useful corrective to the rigorous-sounding but actually silly notion that you can’t produce more without using more energy."Of course you can produce more while using less energy. That is what has been happening throughout history. Show More Summary
Paul Krugman's "Voodoo Economics, The Next Generation" does not make any more sense today than it did back in 1980 when presidential candidate G. W. Bush used this term to criticize Ronald Reagan's claim that cutting taxes on the rich would actually - "magically" lead to greater economic growth. It remains as derogatory now as it was then. Show More Summary