Is Paul Krugman Leaving Princeton In Quiet Disgrace?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 3:51 AM GMT
    I doubt our resident New York Times spammer will show this, so here goes:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/07/14/is-paul-krugman-leaving-princeton-in-quiet-disgrace/

    Excerpt:

    Krugman consistently misrepresents his opponents’ positions, constructs fictive straw men, addresses marginal figures, and ignores inconvenient truths set forward by figures of probity such as the Bank of England and the Bundesbank, thoughtful work such as that by Member of Parliament (with a Cambridge Ph.D. in economic history) Kwasi Kwarteng, and, right here at home, respected thought leaders such as Steve Forbes and Lewis E. Lehrman (with whose Institute this writer has a professional affiliation).

    Professor Krugman, on July 7, 2014, undertook to issue yet another of his fatwas on proponents of the classical gold standard. His New York Times op-ed, Beliefs, Facts and Money, Conservative Delusions About Inflation, was brim full of outright falsehoods and misleading statements. Krugman: ...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 3:55 AM GMT
    Krugman_New-articleInline-v2.jpg

    NYT: Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

    Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

    Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

    At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.



    On October 13, 2008, it was announced that Mr. Krugman would receive the Nobel Prize in Economics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 3:58 AM GMT
    NYT: FEBRUARY 28, 2014 8:23 AM

    Some news: I have informed Princeton that I will be retiring at the end of next academic year, that is, in June 2015. In August 2015 I will join the faculty of the Graduate Center, City University of New York, as a professor in the Ph.D. program in economics. I will also become a distinguished scholar at the Graduate Center’s Luxembourg Income Study Center. You can read all about it in the Graduate Center’s announcement.

    None of this will have any effect on my work at the New York Times, so unless you’re just curious about the guy behind the column and blog, you needn’t read further.

    So, why am I doing this? It is in no sense a commentary on Princeton, which has been a wonderful place for me professionally and personally. In particular, I can’t praise Princeton’s intellectual quality enough: it has been a great honor to be affiliated with a superb public policy school and an equally superb economics department.

    Instead, my move reflects some hard thinking about how I can best make use of my time.

    Fairly obviously, the center of gravity of my work has shifted over time toward more of a public policy focus; and of course I also have a fairly unusual role as an academic who is also a columnist at the world’s greatest newspaper. Meanwhile, I’m now 61, and I realized that it’s time to take a hard look at where I really want to be at this point.

    In terms of geography, the answer seemed clear on reflection: somewhere near Zabar’s New York is the best place to pursue my current interests. Given that decision, I sought an academic base.

    Here too the answer seemed clear: more and more of my work has focused on issues of income inequality, and nobody does more important work producing the hard data on which all of this work relies than the Luxembourg Income Study, directed by Janet Gornick, professor of political science and sociology at the Graduate Center of CUNY. So I approached Janet about the possibility of some kind of affiliation with LIS that would give me both an office and the ability to interact with the excellent group LIS has assembled in New York.

    That is indeed going to happen, but to my surprise the Graduate Center offered me a faculty position as well, which I quickly realized would be a wonderful thing. The Graduate Center is a remarkable locus of public affairs-oriented scholarship, and is in the process of assembling an incredible team associated with LIS. I couldn’t imagine a better place for me at this point; I also, to be honest, like the idea of being associated with a great public university.

    I suppose there’s also a bit of coming home here. I grew up in the New York suburbs, and always imagined that “the city” was where intellectuals went to live once they, as my grandmother used to say, reached “mature adultery.” At any rate, I truly do love New York, so that there will be a lot more good restaurants a lifestyle gain to complement the professional advantages.

    So there you have it. Again, this will have no effect on my work for the Times.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/changes-personalprofessional/?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 3:59 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidOn October 13, 2008, it was announced that Mr. Krugman would receive the Nobel Prize in Economics.

    It only took you four minutes to respond. Congratulations but what you provide is absolutely irrelevant to the points as presented in the Forbes article. Krugman winning the Nobel Prize has as much substance as Obama winning the Nobel Prize for Peace. Why don't you quote some of the points from there or do you only quote The New York Times?

    You can post all you want but you can't cover up the bullshit that you spew.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 4:01 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidNYT: FEBRUARY 28, 2014 8:23 AM

    Some news: I have informed Princeton that I will be retiring at the end of next academic year, that is, in June 2015. In August 2015 I will join the faculty of the Graduate Center, City University of New York, as a professor in the Ph.D. program in economics. I will also become a distinguished scholar at the Graduate Center’s Luxembourg Income Study Center. You can read all about it in the Graduate Center’s announcement.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/changes-personalprofessional/?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 4:05 AM GMT
    woodsmen said
    woodsmen saidNYT: FEBRUARY 28, 2014 8:23 AM

    Some news: I have informed Princeton that I will be retiring at the end of next academic year, that is, in June 2015. In August 2015 I will join the faculty of the Graduate Center, City University of New York, as a professor in the Ph.D. program in economics. I will also become a distinguished scholar at the Graduate Center’s Luxembourg Income Study Center. You can read all about it in the Graduate Center’s announcement.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/changes-personalprofessional/?

    Doesn't matter. So he's found another gig. Doesn't erase the disgrace that he's earned at Princeton. And you can flood the thread with all the bullshit that you can come up with but it doesn't change the substance of the OP.

    Are you in panic damage control mode? It seems like it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 4:11 AM GMT
    “We’re aware that he will be retiring from Princeton,” Martin Mbugua, a spokesman for the university, said in a statement. “He’s been a valued member of our faculty and we appreciate his 14 years at Princeton. We wish him well in his future endeavors.”

    Jonathan Lack, a Princeton student enrolled this term in Krugman’s class “The Great Recession, Causes, Consequences, and Remedies,” said he’s a very good lecturer with great enthusiasm for teaching.

    “It’s a loss for the university whenever someone who’s a Nobel laureate decides to leave, so I think it will be tough for Princeton to see him go,” said Lack, 21, a senior. “That being said, it’s great that he’s going to pursue things that he’s passionate about and will continue with his productive professional career.”

    Krugman declined a request to be interviewed.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-28/paul-krugman-to-leave-princeton-in-2015-to-take-role-at-cuny.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 4:32 AM GMT
    Additional excerpts from the article:

    Krugman goes wrong through and through.  No wonder Ferguson wrote: “I agree with Raghuram Rajan, one of the few economists who authentically anticipated the financial crisis: Krugman’s is “the paranoid style in economics.” Krugman, perversely standing with Nixon, takes a reactionary, not progressive, position. The readers of the New York Times really deserve better.

    Volcker is right. “The responsibility of any central bank is price stability.” Krugman is wrong.

    Prof. Krugman was indicted and flogged publicly by Niall Ferguson. Krugman thereafter announced his departure from Princeton.  On his way out Krugman, it appears, was reprimanded by Paul Volcker.  Krugman has been a disgrace to Princeton.  Is he leaving Princeton in quiet disgrace?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 4:40 AM GMT
    The author of the opinion piece socalfitness cited is Ralph Benko not a reporting article. This is his bio. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/

    d685a39d875f592f7cac57ce88e0a111?s=136&d

    The opinions here expressed strictly are my own. I serve as senior advisor, economics, for American Principles in Action and advisor to and editor of the Lehrman Institute's The Gold Standard Now. I was a junior official in the Reagan White House; and a member of the original Supply Side movement.

    Really impressive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 5:07 AM GMT
    What we see in this thread is an extremely feeble ad hominem attack. That simply means when you can't defend someone, go after the attacker in a manner not relevant to the specific issues.

    That's the same thing the liberals did in attempting to discredit Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson, who has also come out against Krugman. Fergusen is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 5:08 AM GMT
    niall-ferguson.jpg
    Professor Niall Ferguson, Harvard University.

    Business Insider: In one key way, Professor Ferguson now concedes, his adversary Paul Krugman has been right: The U.S. can carry a much-higher debt-to-GDP ratio than he thought. In fact, Ferguson now says, even his Harvard colleague Ken Rogoff, who wrote a seminal book about debt crisis called This Time It's Different, may be too pessimistic about the United States.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-paul-krugman-was-right-2012-1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 5:16 AM GMT
    Ferguson only conceded that the US can carry a much higher debt to GDP ratio then he thought. Business Insider was making a big deal about that but it didn't change the fundamental assessment of Krugman's positions. Add Voelker to the mix as well and you have a strong rebuke of Krugman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 5:22 AM GMT
    Here is Ferguson's two versions. Here’s his 2012 version:

    FERGUSON: I think the issue here got a little confused, because Krugman wanted to portray me as a proponent of instant austerity, which I never was. My argument was that over ten years you have to have some credible plan to get back to fiscal balance because at some point you lose your credibility because on the present path, Congressional Budget Office figures make it clear, with every year the share of Federal tax revenues going to interest payments rises, there is a point after which it’s no longer credible. But I didn’t think that point was going to be this year or next year.

    But here’s what he actually said in our original 2009 debate:

    You can’t be a monetarist and a Keynesian simultaneously—at least I can’t see how you can, because if the aim of the monetarist policy is to keep interest rates down, to keep liquidity high, the effect of the Keynesian policy must be to drive interest rates up.

    After all, $1.75 trillion is an awful lot of freshly minted treasuries to land on the bond market at a time of recession, and I still don’t quite know who is going to buy them. It’s certainly not going to be the Chinese. That worked fine in the good times, but what I call “Chimerica,” the marriage between China and America, is coming to an end. Maybe it’s going to end in a messy divorce.

    No, the problem is that only the Fed can buy these freshly minted treasuries, and there is going to be, I predict, in the weeks and months ahead, a very painful tug-of-war between our monetary policy and our fiscal policy as the markets realize just what a vast quantity of bonds are going to have to be absorbed by the financial system this year. That will tend to drive the price of the bonds down, and drive up interest rates, which will also have an effect on mortgage rates—the precise opposite of what Ben Bernanke is trying to achieve at the Fed.

    [Emphasis added.]

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/a-qualified-apology-to-niall-ferguson/?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 5:40 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidHere is Ferguson's two versions.

    Rather than just googling, cutting and pasting, are you able to explain in your own words the difference between the versions, and more importantly the relative significance or insignificance of the differences in the total context of the discussion or debate? Can you even claim that the two versions are in fact contradictory?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 5:51 AM GMT
    Facts are facts. Ferguson argued that debt caused slow growth to support Republican's ideology of austerity. But using economic data from all countries in the world going back to just after World War II, the inference is incorrect. The reverse correlation is the relationship which is slow growth causes debt. Only one country did not fit and it was New Zealand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 6:04 AM GMT
    Is Paul Krugman Leaving Princeton In Quiet Disgrace?

    So quiet is seems to be undetectable. Except to his ideological & political opponents, who make hollow & unsubstantiated claims, more opinion than objective facts.

    Krugman's new academic position appears sufficiently distinguished, hardly a demotion, and does fit his stated goals at this time. Neither Forbes nor Ferguson have made a convincing case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 6:08 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidFacts are facts. Ferguson argued that debt caused slow growth to support Republican's ideology of austerity. But using economic data from all countries in the world going back to just after World War II, the inference is incorrect. The reverse correlation is the relationship which is slow growth causes debt. Only one country did not fit and it was New Zealand.

    You did not address the question about the two statements from Ferguson. Nevertheless, you and the Left have oversimplified things by suggesting austerity is a binary condition. There are degrees of austerity just as there are degrees of debt increase. The arguments from the Left deliberately made this broad brush simplification to assert if a policy did not provide for a specific degree of spending and debt increase, then that policy was labeled as austere and harmful.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jul 24, 2014 8:18 AM GMT
    probably the most overrated hack economist who ever lived - he got nothing right, just a NYT trumpet man

    jerks like this is why people making $27k buy a $25k car at 11% with nothing down lol

    the sole reason the US can carry so much debt is because the Fed has a $3 trillion balance sheet now
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 12:19 PM GMT
    One of many of his mistakes. Oh remarkably his bio doesn't show how he was an advisor to Enron...

    Paul Krugman’s Love Affair With The Scandal-Plagued VA

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/14/paul-krugmans-love-affair-with-the-scandal-plauged-va/
    Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist, was calling the VA’s Veteran’s Health Administration “a huge policy success story” that “offers important lessons for future health reform” as recently as 2011.

    “Multiple surveys have found the V.H.A. providing better care than most Americans receive, even as the agency has held cost increases well below those facing Medicare and private insurers,” Krugman wrote in a piece attacking Republican plans to reform the department.

    Krugman goes on to insist that the V.H.A. is a model of “socialized medicine” that works by controlling costs.

    “Crucially, the V.H.A. is an integrated system, which provides health care as well as paying for it,” Krugman wrote. “So it’s free from the perverse incentives created when doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures, whether or not those procedures actually make medical sense.”

    Reason’s Peter Suderman pushed back on Krugman’s celebrating of the VA at the time, in part by noting that the agency breaks veterans up into “priority groups” to determine who will get treatment faster.

    “The VA is a government-run system that controls spending by creating a strict prioritization hierarchy in which certain people are more entitled to care than others, and by relying on outside providers and payers to cover a lot of what it doesn’t do,” Suderman wrote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 12:19 PM GMT
    One of many of his mistakes. Oh remarkably his bio doesn't show how he was an advisor to Enron...

    Paul Krugman’s Love Affair With The Scandal-Plagued VA

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/14/paul-krugmans-love-affair-with-the-scandal-plauged-va/
    Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist, was calling the VA’s Veteran’s Health Administration “a huge policy success story” that “offers important lessons for future health reform” as recently as 2011.

    “Multiple surveys have found the V.H.A. providing better care than most Americans receive, even as the agency has held cost increases well below those facing Medicare and private insurers,” Krugman wrote in a piece attacking Republican plans to reform the department.

    Krugman goes on to insist that the V.H.A. is a model of “socialized medicine” that works by controlling costs.

    “Crucially, the V.H.A. is an integrated system, which provides health care as well as paying for it,” Krugman wrote. “So it’s free from the perverse incentives created when doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures, whether or not those procedures actually make medical sense.”

    Reason’s Peter Suderman pushed back on Krugman’s celebrating of the VA at the time, in part by noting that the agency breaks veterans up into “priority groups” to determine who will get treatment faster.

    “The VA is a government-run system that controls spending by creating a strict prioritization hierarchy in which certain people are more entitled to care than others, and by relying on outside providers and payers to cover a lot of what it doesn’t do,” Suderman wrote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 12:22 PM GMT
    There are few people who have been so consistently wrong and who have been so thoroughly documented.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/10/21/much-bigger-than-the-shutdown-niall-fergusons-public-flogging-of-paul-krugman/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 1:38 PM GMT
    More on Krugman:

    http://www.cato.org/blog/missing-data-krugmans-german-austerity-narrative
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 1:42 PM GMT
    "Welfare Queen Probed, Krugman Hardest Hit"
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/27/welfare-queen-probed-krugman-hardest-hit/

    Old Lib CW: Reagan was wrong because his “bogus” story was “a gross exaggeration of a minor case of welfare fraud.” (Paul Krugman)

    New Lib CW: Reagan was wrong because his accurate story minimized Taylor’s crimes!

    This new anti-Reagan line is of course perverse. If the left had publicized, say, a gun dealer who’d repeatedly violated laws on the sale of firearms to minors–and it turned out that this person was also a murderer and a kidnapper, would you say the left’s argument had been weakened or strengthened?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 1:50 PM GMT
    Hint: it wasn't Hazlitt.

    "Krugman vs. Hazlitt on Minimum Wage: Who Is Really ‘Wrong About Everything’?"

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/22/krugman-vs-hazlitt-on-minimum-wage-who-is-really-wrong-about-everything/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 24, 2014 2:31 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    woodsmen saidKrugman_New-articleInline-v2.jpg

    NYT: Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

    Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

    Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

    At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.



    On October 13, 2008, it was announced that Mr. Krugman would receive the Nobel Prize in Economics.



    Now I'm CONVINCED you work in the Sales Department of the New York Times.


    I think you give him far too much credit. I doubt many of them even believe what's printed in the paper they try to sell.