Paulie Two-Face
Yet another example of Paul Krugman's transition from economist to partisan hack
One of America's new intellectual stars is a young writer named Michael Lind, whose contrarian essays on politics have given him a reputation as a brilliant enfant terrible. In 1994 Lind published an article in Harper's about international trade, which contained the following remarkable passage: "Many advocates of free trade claim that higher productivity growth in the United States will offset pressure on wages caused by the global sweatshop economy, but the appealing theory falls victim to an unpleasant fact. Productivity has been going up, without resulting wage gains for American workers. Between 1977 and 1992, the average productivity of American workers increased by more than 30 percent, while the average real wage fell by 13 percent. The logic is inescapable. No matter how much productivity increases, wages will fall if there is an abundance of workers competing for a scarcity of jobs -- an abundance of the sort created by the globalization of the labor pool for US-based corporations." (Lind 1994: ) What is so remarkable about this passage?...if you are an economist with any familiarity with this area, is that when Lind writes about how the beautiful theory of free trade is refuted by an unpleasant fact, the fact he cites is completely untrue. More specifically: the 30 percent productivity increase he cites was achieved only in the manufacturing sector; in the business sector as a whole the increase was only 13 percent. The 13 percent decline in real wages was true only for production workers, and ignores the increase in their benefits: total compensation of the average worker actually rose 2 percent. And even that remaining gap turns out to be a statistical quirk: it is entirely due to a difference in the price indexes used to deflate business output and consumption (probably reflecting overstatement of both productivity growth and consumer price inflation). When the same price index is used, the increases in productivity and compensation have been almost exactly equal. But then how could it be otherwise? Any difference in the rates of growth of productivity and compensation would necessarily show up as a fall in labor's share of national income -- and as everyone who is even slightly familiar with the numbers knows, the share of compensation in U.S. national income has been quite stable in recent decades, and actually rose slightly over the period Lind describes.
Such scholarship. Such integrity. Such a willingness to say what needs to be said instead of what gets him more readers, book sales and cheers in partisan circles. Would the new Krugman ever have the temerity or the guts to stand up and something like this today? I think not. And by "like this", I mean the act of fearlessly correcting populist nonsense from political writers...even on the Left...in the name of unvarnished truth and good sense. No he wouldn't. Krugman likes his new found celebrity too much. Krugman now uses his economic expertise to give cover to Democrats and liberals...not expose them. Krugman is now selective in who he bashes. The old Krugman would take anyone to task for spewing sophistry and self-serving inaccuracies. I seen many articles like this one. It's truly amazing how much Krugman has changed. Back then, economics came first and his politics seemed more moderate and were definitely more reserved. Now, it's the total opposite. Shameful.
- John's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
How does this relate to Krugman?
I didn't see his signature on the petition. Wouldn't Brad Delong, who did the sign the peition, be a more appropriate target here?
The petition doesn't
It's the link to an article he wrote he wrote on wages that is on the page at Cafe Hayek in the same post. Roberts just included it for a laugh.
My link was broken
(stupid work browser filter), but I simply don't believe you. I read every Krugman piece and there is no way he intentionally conflated the manufacturing sector with the business sector. Either he was only making a point about manufacturing or whoever authored your unsigned blockquote is the one leaving things out.
As for:
Krugman does nothing of the sort and never has. He was scathing about Obama's healthcare plan, if you remember. Yes, he is almost always harsh with Republicans, but that's because Republican economic theory is faith-based nonsense. What Krugman doesn't do is pretend their ideas have merit when they don't. I don't always agree with him. I think his themes get shakier when they drift too far into pure politics, and I think he undervalues psychological factors. But Krugman doesn't cherry-pick à la Fox News. Other hacks have sneeringly tried to dissect him (including the lazy former Times Ombudsman Okrent) and have wound up rhetorically howling for mercy or slinking away in shame. The few times Krugman has slipped up technically, he has posted a correction in his next column.
If you can post the original Krugman piece with context and the study and prove me wrong, I'll eat crow. Sure, Krugman's "partisan" in the sense that he never sides with Republicans. How can he? They'd need to be right about something first. But if by "partisan" you mean always cheering for your own team no matter what, then no, he isn't.
Bit of a misunderstanding here
It's not Krugman that intentionally conflated the manufacturing sector with the business sector - it was Michael Lind. Krugman is the one who called him out on it. John is praising Krugman for doing so. That's the old, non-partisan Krugman, according to John. It's only lately that he has become partisan (again, according to John). You may now continue with your disagreement on that point! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ah I see.
Glad that's cleared up. But the last paragraph about Krugman's supposed hackery should stand.
People can't change their views....
Progressive means evaluating ones views in a step by step process as things change.
I don't know who is right or wrong here but it's no surprise that Cafe Hayek would go after Krugman.
I'm only half stupid
Whether it's surprising or not of Cafe Hayek to do this,
it is a rather irrelevant point unto itself.
You say you don't know who is right or who is wrong so you've decided to make an issue out of the fact that Cafe Hayek's bloggers have been known to make an issue of Krugman's shift in behavior between the 1990s and today instead evaluating their point on its own.
That doesn't help anything. It simply chooses to discard the point that Russ Roberts is making in favor of choosing to dwell on that fact that he made it.
The economists at Cafe Hayek are not the only ones to point this out. I've seen many instances where economists and writers have posted links to Krugman material he wrote in the 1990s up to about 2000 and compared it to what he writes today in terms of tone, priors and subject matter.
The pattern is clear to see...if you choose to look into it.
Perhaps you could explain what's wrong with it.
Look, I don't doubt Krugman's ability to be a fair-minded and insightful economist. I only doubt his integrity to do it anymore.
There was a time when Krugman defended ideas on the merit of economic principles and concepts that he knew to be true. And he was indiscriminate in doing so.
Now, his time at the NYT Op-Ed page has changed him. He's now a political writer and pundit who uses his economic expertise in deliberate ways to forward a partisan and ideological agenda....his professional vocation be damned.
If Michael Lind wrote that today, Krugman would either simply ignore it to not rock the boat or look for something redeeming in it and inflate it into some tangent and downplay the rest.