Krugman contradictions: When they matter and when they don’t

Over the years people on the right (including me) have enjoyed pointing out places where Krugman contradicts himself.  He often responds by noting that people can and should change their minds when the facts change.  Thus the famous Card and Krueger study on the minimum wage revised our view of that policy option.  Or these new facts might be theoretical innovations, such as Krugman’s very own revisionist take on liquidity traps, from 1998.  These are good arguments.

But I don’t think that fully explains the contradictions.  This dismissal of fiscal stimulus was penned a year after the famous 1998 liquidity trap paper:

What continues to amaze me is this: Japan’s current strategy of massive, unsustainable deficit spending in the hopes that this will somehow generate a self-sustained recovery is currently regarded as the orthodox, sensible thing to do – even though it can be justified only by exotic stories about multiple equilibria, the sort of thing you would imagine only a professor could believe. Meanwhile further steps on monetary policy – the sort of thing you would advocate if you believed in a more conventional, boring model, one in which the problem is simply a question of the savings-investment balance – are rejected as dangerously radical and unbecoming of a dignified economy.

Will somebody please explain this to me?

Krugman’s later conversion to fiscal stimulus seems partly based on the BOJ’s refusal to adopt his “promise to be irresponsible” suggestion.  (Gee, I wonder why the Japanese culture would be averse to a proposal framed in that fashion?) It wasn’t until 2013 that his 1999 ideas were finally adopted in Japan, by which time he had begun assuming they would never be adopted—and hence switched to favoring fiscal stimulus.  In my view the most interesting aspect of the 1999 quote is not its conflict with his current views, but that it exposes the vacuous nature of his personal insults.  When Krugman says his opponents are knaves or fools, he’s often doing nothing more than suggesting that they disagree with his current view on some issue, at that particular moment in time. But perhaps not his view a decade ago, or a decade in the future.  By 2026 he might well be an Austrian free banking type, or an MMTer.  (More likely the latter.)

But even this doesn’t fully account for the Krugman contradictions.  The hardest to explain are those where he begins by suggesting that his opponents are morons, who lack even a rudimentary knowledge of EC101, and later comes to embrace their views.  It’s very difficult, no let’s face it, it’s impossible, for new information about the elasticity of labor demand, or new theoretical approaches to the zero bound, to overturn the conviction that someone doesn’t even understand basic ideas like comparative advantage.  Either they do or they don’t, and it’s pretty obvious to anyone who does.  Full disclosure: when Krugman was calling people ignorant in the 1990s, I generally agreed with him.  If you haven’t seen him at work skewering his opponents from the right, you really ought to read Pop Internationalism.

This is what makes E. Harding’s recent exercise in Krugman contradictions so devastating.  Harding compares then and now:

Now:

“Back in 1991, in what now seems like a far more innocent time, Robert Reich published an influential book titled The Work of Nations, which among other things helped land him a cabinet post in the Clinton administration. It was a good book for its time—but time has moved on. And the gap between that relatively sunny take and Reich’s latest, Saving Capitalism, is itself an indicator of the unpleasant ways America has changed.

The Work of Nations was in some ways a groundbreaking work, because it focused squarely on the issue of rising inequality—an issue some economists, myself included, were already taking seriously, but that was not yet central to political discourse. Reich’s book saw inequality largely as a technical problem, with a technocratic, win-win solution. That was then. These days, Reich offers a much darker vision, and what is in effect a call for class war—or if you like, for an uprising of workers against the quiet class war that America’s oligarchy has been waging for decades.”

Then:

“Intellectual arrogance, you say. Maybe so–but surely my arrogance is a puny thing compared with that of men who believe themselves able to invent a new and improved economics from a standing start, who are prepared to write books with titles like The Way the World Works or The Work of Nations without bothering to read one or two of those undergraduate textbooks first. (And don’t tell me that they do too know what is in the textbooks. The circumstantial evidence that they do not–the simple things misunderstood, the garbled statistics, the statement of both standard concepts and classic fallacies as if they were revolutionary innovations–is overwhelming.)

There’s lot’s more, read the whole thing.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Krugman still thinks that Reich is a mediocrity, lacking even a basic understanding of EC101.  Once you get to be as brilliant as Krugman, there’s no going back.  The fact that Krugman is now willing to praise Reich illustrates that he’s shifted from being an academic to being a partisan in policy street fight.  All that matters now is winning, and to do so he’ll ally himself with anyone on the same side of the policy debate, no matter how uninformed their ideas.

PS.  E. Harding really needs to take down that “Trump, Make America Great Again!” sign.  You don’t want to turn off potential readers, by making them think you are a right-wing nut.  In any case, I’ve never seen any definitive proof that Trump was born in America.  Have you?

HT:  Bob Murphy


Tags:

 
 
 

47 Responses to “Krugman contradictions: When they matter and when they don’t”

  1. Gravatar of Peter K. Peter K.
    10. January 2016 at 09:16

    As time goes on, Krugman recognizes his mistakes and improves. Also the Republican Party has moved to the right so this makes it seems like Krugman has moved left. Another way to say it is that things change. Politics and the economy change.

    Here he hits the nail on the head about monetarists and conservatives:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/milton-friedman-unperson/

    “….

    [Milton] Friedman’s larger problem, I’d argue, is that he was, when all is said and done, a man trying to straddle two competing world views — and our political environment no longer has room for that kind of straddle.

    Think of it this way: Friedman was an avid free-market advocate, who insisted that the market, left to itself, could solve almost any problem. Yet he was also a macroeconomic realist, who recognized that the market definitely did not solve the problem of recessions and depressions. So he tried to wall off macroeconomics from everything else, and make it as inoffensive to laissez-faire sensibilities as possible. Yes, he in effect admitted, we do need stabilization policy — but we can minimize the government’s role by relying only on monetary policy, none of that nasty fiscal stuff, and then not even allowing the monetary authority any discretion.

    At a fundamental level, however, this was an inconsistent position: if markets can go so wrong that they cause Great Depressions, how can you be a free-market true believer on everything except macro? And as American conservatism moved ever further right, it had no room for any kind of interventionism, not even the sterilized, clean-room interventionism of Friedman’s monetarism.

    So Friedman has vanished from the policy scene — so much so that I suspect that a few decades from now, historians of economic thought will regard him as little more than an extended footnote.”

  2. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    10. January 2016 at 09:34

    E. Harding really needs to take down that “Trump, Make America Great Again!” sign.

    -How about no?

    You don’t want to turn off potential readers, by making them think you are a right-wing nut.

    -If Rand Paul supported the Iran deal and Russia’s reunification with Krim and didn’t go to Black-majority places to try to get support, I’d support him. But no Republican candidate supports the Iran deal, Trump is the most pro-Russia (and, therefore, most sensible on foreign policy) candidate, and does not go to Black-majority areas to try to get support. And, besides, by most academics’ definitions, I am a right-wing nut. Big deal.

    In any case, I’ve never seen any definitive proof that Trump was born in America. Have you?

    -I honestly don’t think that counts as a point against Cruz. What does count are his phoniness, his basic lack of understanding of the issues, and his contradictory stances on them (esp. on monetary and foreign policy). I really wouldn’t care if Trump was born overseas like John McCain was.

  3. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    10. January 2016 at 09:36

    @Peter K

    -Did you read my post? Did you even read Sumner’s post? You do realize Krugman has moved to the Left on several important issues? Don’t leave behind such pig-headed comments.

  4. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    10. January 2016 at 09:39

    “The fact that Krugman is now willing to praise Reich illustrates that he’s shifted from being an academic to being a partisan in policy street fight. All that matters now is winning, and to do so he’ll ally himself with anyone on the same side of the policy debate, no matter how uninformed their ideas.”

    I fully agree.

    It’s interesting to see that Krugman used name-calling already back then. In this respect he did not change at all, except that the political affiliations of his victims changed. It seems to be a flaw of character really.

  5. Gravatar of Gene Callahan Gene Callahan
    10. January 2016 at 09:49

    E. Harding thinks this is a PLUS POINT: “does not go to Black-majority areas to try to get support.”

    Warning, warning, we are entering white power territory!

  6. Gravatar of Gene Callahan Gene Callahan
    10. January 2016 at 09:52

    @Peter K: “And as American conservatism moved ever further right, it had no room for any kind of interventionism, not even the sterilized, clean-room interventionism of Friedman’s monetarism.”

    I can’t imagine what universe you are talking about: the Bush administration intervened very energetically after 2007. Many on the right support tariffs / trade sanctions on China. We could keep going, but laissez-faire is only the stance of a tiny libertarian fringe of the GOP.

  7. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    10. January 2016 at 10:32

    Buying various assets like the BOJ does is sort of price fixing. The Fed fixes prices more secretly, by mispricing risk. How do you think houses bubbled up in the last decade?

    At least the BOJ is out in the open about it. They buy ETF’s and REITS.

    But is price fixing just hurting the consumer in Japan? I would like to know. Wages aren’t going up, nor is fixed income purchasing power, so, while I would like them to get off zero, does this really work?

    Perhaps they should buy the Japanese people, giving each a pile of cash. After all, a cashless society as the alternative will make us slaves anyway.

  8. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    10. January 2016 at 11:01

    Best White-majority country: Norway

    Best Black-majority country: Bahamas (which had a higher GDP per capita in 1969, before independence from a White-majority country, than in 2014).

    Worst White-majority country: Afghanistan (outside the Middle East: Moldova)

    Worst Black-majority country: Democratic Republic of Congo (outside Africa: Haiti)

    There are pretty big quantitative and qualitative differences there.

    What do you have against White power, Gene? It’s good for both Blacks and Whites. Of course, I am not at all racist in my policy prescriptions. For example, Clarence Thomas is my second-favorite Supreme Court justice. I have no problem with high-IQ, conservative Blacks taking positions of power. But 70%+ of Black power is worse than 90%+ of White power. If you’d like me to, I could show you a chart I made a year or so ago showing this.

    That’s why Republican candidates running for President shouldn’t be campaigning in Black-majority areas in the United States if they’re serious about running, winning, and standing up for the cause of civilization. They should understand their base, and who their base is and is not.

  9. Gravatar of Bob Murphy Bob Murphy
    10. January 2016 at 11:16

    E. Harding, I can’t take you anywhere. I feel like the Cobra Kai kid who introduces Daniel to Johnny and the rest of the gang in the beginning of Karate Kid.

  10. Gravatar of Eric johnson Eric johnson
    10. January 2016 at 11:18

    Anyone who thinks Krugman hasn’t moved to the left isn’t paying attention. I was, at one time, a big fan of his writing. I have a number of his books, including pop internationalism, and read his columns at slate.com religiously. When he got his op-Ed column for the New York Times, it was like it was written by a different person. The change was pronounced and immediate.

  11. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    10. January 2016 at 11:33

    Bob, I’ve been commenting on this Money Illusion for over a year. And Sumner has previously linked to findings of mine.

  12. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    10. January 2016 at 11:46

    Peter K.:

    “As time goes on, Krugman recognizes his mistakes and improves.”

    Are you kidding? You actually believe that the reason Krugman now holds his latest view over Reich’s book is because he is more correct?

    How in the world can a book that Krugman said back then doesn’t even stand up to Econ101 level knowledge, abound with “classic fallacies”, now all of a sudden be “groundbreaking” and “good for its time”?

    The Econ101 level knowledge and “classic fallacies” PREDATE the initial publication of Reich’s book and they also PREDATE Krugman’s initial review.

    It is literally incomprehensible that there was something that changed in the world since the publication that warranted this sudden reversal of opinion.

  13. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    10. January 2016 at 11:56

    Krugman is first and foremost a liberal political activist so his economic views can simply be dismissed. The reason Krugman, Gore, and Obama won Nobel prizes is because the committee wanted to use their platform to repudiate Bush and thus those awards are worthless, i.e., they won for something they were against and not for something they actually did.

  14. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    10. January 2016 at 12:01

    E. Harding, the Bahamas is experiencing a huge spike in violence.

  15. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    10. January 2016 at 12:11

    Peter, That quote is laughably idiotic. Friedman will be one of the two giants of 20th century economics, long after Krugman is totally forgotten . Even Krugman’s pal DeLong doesn’t agree with him on Friedman.

    You said:

    “As time goes on, Krugman recognizes his mistakes and improves.”

    If you think this comment has any bearing on this post, then I seriously have to question your reading comprehension. No one denies that he has a right to change his mind as new facts come in. That’s not what the post is about. Do you seriously believe Krugman no longer considers Reich to be ignorant of basic economics? Seriously?

    E. Harding, I suppose you also supported Hitler’s reunification of the Sudetenland. After all, it was ethnically German, wasn’t it?

    Gene, Yup, Friedman is far more libertarian than the rest of the GOP. To suggest otherwise doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

  16. Gravatar of TravisV TravisV
    10. January 2016 at 12:12

    Prof. Sumner,

    You have GOT to watch Breaking Bad. You would love it! If you watch until about the 10th or 11th episode, you’ll be completely addicted! Notice that Yglesias (a smart guy) wrote about the show frequently at Slate. Breaking Bad is the Great Hallmark American TV show.

  17. Gravatar of Chuck Chuck
    10. January 2016 at 12:12

    “Worst White-majority country: Afghanistan (outside the Middle East: Moldova)”

    You consider Afghanistan to be majority white? Wow. Never heard that before.

  18. Gravatar of Ram Ram
    10. January 2016 at 12:16

    In the 90s, Krugman’s chosen tribe was economists, and he did everything he could to signal his loyalty to and affiliation with economists, and to distance himself from fake experts and know-nothings. Today’s his chosen tribe is the Democratic party and/or progressivism. Same habits, just different targets.

  19. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    10. January 2016 at 12:39

    Travis, I tried, it’s just not my cup of tea. I really don’t like TV in general.

    Ram, As usual, a very astute comment.

  20. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    10. January 2016 at 12:47

    “E. Harding, I suppose you also supported Hitler’s reunification of the Sudetenland. After all, it was ethnically German, wasn’t it?”

    -Of course. Also, unification with Austria. But the invasion of the USSR, Greece, the rest of Czechoslovakia, etc., nope. Kinda sad Germany lost Konigsberg.

    “E. Harding, the Bahamas is experiencing a huge spike in violence.”

    -More evidence in support of my positions.

    @Chuck

    If not, then what is it? It was, after all, invaded by Indo-European migrants from Central Asia and doesn’t have much Ancestral South Indian admixture like North India does.

    @Ram, bingo.

  21. Gravatar of Thanatos Savehn Thanatos Savehn
    10. January 2016 at 14:25

    The business of The New York Times is selling a certain sort of narrative. Krugman was hired as a salesman to flatter its current customer base (by confirming their biases) and to court customers of competitors selling the same sort of narrative (by demonstrating the superiority of the Times’ product). Was anybody ever surprised when the Avon Lady’s sales pitch changed to match the company’s “New and Improved!” product?

  22. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    10. January 2016 at 15:16

    Has anyone noticed there is a blatant misspelling in the title of this post? The second “they” is a “the”.

  23. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    10. January 2016 at 16:14

    @E. Harding
    I overread it. Like most people I guess. In quite a lot of posts you can also find “that” instead of “than”.

    For example: “So Steil and Smith have picked a good that is more easily traded that Big Macs, but less easily traded than gold.”

    I assume it’s some kind of auto-correct.

  24. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    10. January 2016 at 16:20

    I never got what’s so great about Breaking Bad. Bryan Cranston is a great actor but that’s about it. Aaron Paul is average at best. For the love of Cranston I would rather see Malcolm in the Middle again than Breaking Bad. I think that says it all.

  25. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    10. January 2016 at 17:10

    @Christian List: I never saw the final season or so of Breaking Bad, but if Sumner likes Tarantino films (as he says… and I do too… at least the 1st three), then he’d probably like BB.

    E. Harding: good catch on the typo… I missed that several times. Also an interesting post! I used to be a right-leaning swing voter, but the Iraq War changed that (I’ll give Trump credit for at least opposing Billy “Cake Walk” Krystal and his neocon nonsense). Since then the neocons have been replaced with something even worse IMO, so it’ll be a long time before I return. I’ll consider the GOP again when they nominate a committed secularist who’s not desperately fearfull of science. It’d help if he/she was an evolutionary biologist or a geologist… somebody who’s got enough sense to realize the Earth isn’t 6000 years old… and that it’s not flat or held up by pillars or giant turtles. That way I’ll know it’s not a full-on religious fruitcake or just an out and out moron. After Bush I vowed I’d never vote moron again. But I am a Trump Democrat: I want to see Trump win the primary. Life long Republicans I’ve talked to in my dad’s & my older sibling’s generation say they’ll stay home if he’s the nominee (something I’ve NEVER heard these people say). My Dad is 98 years old… he remembers Calvin Coolidge with fondness (he was too young to vote for him, but he’s been a Republican ever since). Same goes for his “spring chicken” 85 year old wife. But then we all live on the West coast… I think Trump’s appeal is maximum in the Old Confederacy. Plus my dad’s old enough to remember Mussolini, the KKK with 5 million members, Huey Long and Father Coughlin… so there’s that.

  26. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    10. January 2016 at 20:08

    Ooops! Sumner cites the neo-Nazi E. Harding …all the while criticizing Nobelian Krugman while suggesting Friedman, a popularizer of other people’s work and a simplifier of complex economics into a ‘one-variable’ easy-to-digest form (“velocity is constant!”) will be remembered while fellow Nobellian Krugman will be forgotten (very unlikely)….a bizarre post, like our host. BTW Sumner also promotes the nostrum of NGDPLT to make everything right, ala one-variable Friedman. Cut from the same cloth, as they believe in money non-neutrality despite the evidence. Their only concession over the years is to admit money is neutral long-term (but they will quibble over what is ‘long-term’).

    @E. Harding – you’re disgusting. “-Of course. Also, unification with Austria.” – these actions were illegal, as illegal as the invasion of other countries by your hero. I have relatives killed by Hitler, while you are some naive youngster who’s probably never traveled outside the USA…but it’s OK, this being the internet.

  27. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    10. January 2016 at 22:14

    Ray, did I not explicitly say I oppose the Nazi invasions of Greece, the rest of Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union? My opinion of you is sinking by the minute. I have relatives who lived under the Nazi occupation. Why would you accuse me of such things without basis? You should be ashamed of yourself.

  28. Gravatar of Chuck Chuck
    11. January 2016 at 01:22

    @E. Harding

    If you want to go that route; humans originated in Africa, so really we’re all African.

  29. Gravatar of N.Res. N.Res.
    11. January 2016 at 02:04

    I agree that Mr. Krugman has become too extreme and I feel that his endless bashing of the GOP actually hurts his cause. However, a blog post like this one leaves me even more worried about the partisan divide. If even a respected economist like Mr. Sumner refers to a racist and fascist blog in order to discredit Mr.Krugman and leaves outrageous comments on his own website unanswered, I cannot help but feel that Mr . Krugman’s side is the lesser evil.

  30. Gravatar of Seo Sanghyeon Seo Sanghyeon
    11. January 2016 at 02:10

    Trump was born in America.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/donald-trump-proves-was-born-in-queens.html

  31. Gravatar of Ben J Ben J
    11. January 2016 at 03:46

    Don’t try E.Harding – Ray is just an angry internet troll

  32. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    11. January 2016 at 04:47

    Indo-European invasion of Afghanistan happened after the construction of the Pyramids, Chuck. That’s way more recent than the out-of-Africa migration.

  33. Gravatar of Aaron J Aaron J
    11. January 2016 at 07:36

    I agree with your analysis about Krugman-Reich; I think Krugman has decided to play nice with Reich because he thinks they are on the same team now.

    I don’t believe Krugman has made the total 180 on fiscal policy you are claiming. He still advocates fiscal policy much more in the U.S./Europe context than in Japan. He discusses monetary policy more than fiscal policy when discussing Japan, and his fiscal policy focus on Japan seems more about avoiding austerity than massive deficit spending.

    Moreover, he has admitted his views have evolved. I don’t see anything wrong with this. It seems more this is a complaint about tone- why are you calling other people knaves when you yourself used to be believe this? I would agree with your point here- but he would surely counter that new evidence should change your viewpoint, and if it doesn’t, well, you’re a fool.

  34. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    11. January 2016 at 07:43

    N. Res, You said:

    “If even a respected economist like Mr. Sumner refers to a racist and fascist blog in order to discredit Mr.Krugman and leaves outrageous comments on his own website unanswered, I cannot help but feel that Mr. Krugman’s side is the lesser evil.”

    Where do I begin?

    1. Citing another blog doesn’t mean you endorse it’s contents. I don’t even read his blog, nor do I know anything about its contents–the link was sent to me by someone else. I also cite Krugman a lot—does that mean I endorse what he has to say? If Hitler had a blog I’d cite it if it had something interesting to say. I quote precisely two words written by Harding, “Then” and “Now” So which of those words is fascist? Is it then? Or now?

    2. I specifically criticized Harding, drawing a comparison the the Sudetenland, right in this comment section. Don’t you know how to read?

    3. Since when did guilt by association become valid?

    4. If I answered ever offensive comment I’d have no time to post my own stuff. You should be praising me for not censoring respectable comments, like the Brad DeLong’s of the world do all the time. I have a free speech policy.

    I would respect you a lot more if you addressed the specific points made in this post, instead of whining about how bad right-wingers are.

    Seo, Are you saying a billionaire is not capable of getting a good forged birth certificate? Seriously?? Did you actually see Trump being born with your own two eyes? Were you a nurse in the hospital at the time?

  35. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    11. January 2016 at 07:46

    Aaron. You said:

    “Moreover, he has admitted his views have evolved. I don’t see anything wrong with this.”

    Did you even read my post? I said:

    He often responds by noting that people can and should change their minds when the facts change. Thus the famous Card and Krueger study on the minimum wage revised our view of that policy option. Or these new facts might be theoretical innovations, such as Krugman’s very own revisionist take on liquidity traps, from 1998. These are good arguments.”

    So I agree with you, but that has no bearing on this post. Surely you aren’t claiming that Krugman now thinks that Reich understands EC101? You either understand comparative advantage or you don’t. There is zero probability that Krugman has changed his mind on Reich being ignorant of basic economics. That’s not something Krugman would ever forget—trust me.

  36. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    11. January 2016 at 08:15

    Aaron, Sorry if my tone was too negative.

  37. Gravatar of Doug M Doug M
    11. January 2016 at 10:11

    At one time Krugman was an economist with a column that was occasionally political. Then came Iraq, and Krugman’s column became one of politics that occasionally discussed economics.

    Unfortunately, as a political columnist he is a hack. He a cheerleader for his party. He isn’t the only one out there, he just has the biggest megaphone on his side line. And the R’s have a few notables doing the very same thing.

    But, these cheerleaders can only see one side to any issue. Their analysis is useless. Their only value is to excite their own partisans.

  38. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    11. January 2016 at 19:09

    Sumner: “Aaron, Sorry if my tone was too negative.” – wow, Sumner will stoop to groveling if it’s for a new reader. Obviously he gets paid according to page hits on this blog. Imagine him saying sorry to me, for all his negative toned replies to me.

  39. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    11. January 2016 at 21:15

    Ray, it’s kinda hard to say sorry to you when you don’t say sorry for calling me a neo-Nazi and flagrantly denying the veracity of the Krugman quotes I posted.

  40. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    12. January 2016 at 06:39

    @ E.Harding – your apology is accepted. I see you are ashamed to be labeled a neo-Nazi, and that’s a good thing. You are forgiven, carry on.

  41. Gravatar of N.Res. N.Res.
    12. January 2016 at 14:20

    Thank you for taking the time to answer to my concerns, ssumner. We just seem to have different opinions on 1,2 and 4.

    1) I would probably not cite/link Hitler’s blog on my own website, even if he’d write something interesting, because I’d not want to give him a platform for the other stuff he stands for.

    2) If I did link to a person which turns out to spread an ideology I don’t share, my criticism would involve more than a reference to his support of a politician and a question about his opinion on Sudetendeutschland

    4) I’d not treat that person as just any offensive troll on the Internet but assume responsibility for me giving that person an audience

    With regards to the specific points made in the post: I think I’ve mentioned that I do agree with the critique but will not question your ability to read. However, I had more respect to you if you just wrote something along the lines of: “Thank you for your research on the Krugman/Reich relationship Mr. Harding, but I don’t wanna read sentences like ‘what’s wrong with white power?’ on my website”

  42. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    12. January 2016 at 15:34

    @N. Res.

    “I don’t wanna read sentences like ‘what’s wrong with white power?’ on my website”

    -Why not? The fact you are so unwilling to entertain the question tells me a lot more about your refusal to notice the obvious than about that question’s value. I understand the value of shutting down debate on certain questions. This is not one of them. The only areas that were substantially harmed by White power on net were in Asia (e.g., the Indian subcontinent, Vietnam, Indonesia, the DRC was harmed by it to some extent under Leopold, but experienced a net gain due to Belgian accomplishments from the 1930s-1950s). South Africa is the most electrified country in Sub-Saharan Africa. As you well know, it was also the only Sub-Saharan African country (other than Rhodesia) to have a substantial degree of White institutional guidance after independence. Yes, Botswana has managed a similar level of raw GDP/capita, but it’s so unequal in both wealth and income, it’s not even funny. A good portion of its people work in agriculture, and its unemployment rate is even higher than that of South Africa. And it remains less electrified than South Africa.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/163739/powering-africa-challenge-charge-wellbeing.aspx

    The Black Caribbean was already much richer than Sub-Saharan Africa when it was cast off by its overwhelmingly White ruling powers into the vagaries of independence. The poorest country in it, Haiti, was precisely the one that first and most thoroughly rejected White power.

    So let us not pretend that the question I posed to Gene in this thread is one without legitimacy. As a rule, Black people do not benefit from being ruled by other Blacks as compared with being ruled by Whites. Outside the imperialist context, the same remains true for most of southern Asia. Would any region of Europe have been better off were it ruled primarily non-Whites? Would Mexico? Would Brazil? Think about this. If White power was so bad, would anyone complain about White flight, instead of, as you might expect, celebrating it?

  43. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    12. January 2016 at 17:52

    Ray, Sorry that I occasionally don’t have time to point out the idiotic logic in your posts, or your ignorance of basic economic theory.

    N. Res, You don’t seem to understand that the internet is saturated with offensive material, it’s drowning in oceans of it. I’ve complained in the past about E. Harding comments, and other comments that are offensive. I recently had people like Harding complain that I was calling commenters racist. So either way I can’t win. But I don’t have to to repeat those complaints over and over and over again. Those who read me often know my views on racial issues–I’d be happy if America became a non-white country. I have no interest in censoring each and every offensive comment—I have an open comment policy, at least for ideas (not necessarily obscenities, etc.)

  44. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    12. January 2016 at 18:48

    “I’d be happy if America became a non-white country.”

    -IMO, it would strongly depend on which non-whites. Best, Koreans, worst, Congolese.

  45. Gravatar of N.Res. N.Res.
    13. January 2016 at 01:53

    Alright, I still think that linking to his blog creates a special kind of responsibility but let’s just leave it at that, your explanation is good enough for me. I did not know about your history with Harding and I don’t want to engage in a discussion on the limits of open comments, it’s a thin line and censorship is indeed not a good solution.

  46. Gravatar of Thiago Ribeiro Thiago Ribeiro
    18. January 2016 at 07:05

    “Best Black-majority country: Bahamas (which had a higher GDP per capita in 1969, before independence from a White-majority country, than in 2014).– E. Harding
    It doesn’t seem right.
    https://www.google.com.br/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=BAHAMAS%20GDP%20PER%20CAPITA&oq=BAHAMAS%20GDP%20PER%20CAPITA&aqs=chrome..69i57.5987j0j7″

  47. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    25. February 2016 at 12:01

    Thiago, it is right for real GDP per capita, but not nominal GDP per capita.

Leave a Reply