Heh Noah, what superhero am I?
Noah Smith has called Paul Krugman a superhero (KrugTron) for out-forecasting his opponents. What was Krugman’s great achievement? He parroted market forecasts that inflation and interest rates would stay low. But I’m not whining . . . in the profession of the blind the one-eyed forecaster truly is the king.
OK I am complaining, I’m green with envy. But how about a bit of hero worship for those economists who predicted inflation and interest rates would remain low, and who also predicted that the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan could depreciate their currencies if they tried? Even at the zero bound.
And who also predicted that NGDP targeting would be the next big idea. If I can’t be Batman, can I at least be Robin? Even the cheesy Robin of the TV series?
HT: Saturos.
Tags:
24. April 2013 at 05:53
“…in the profession of the blind the one-eyed forecaster truly is the king.”
If we have to consider “I predict that an entity that can print money indefinitely can lower the value of money” to be a controversial pronouncement (and I think we do) then I think this might be better written as:
“…in the profession of the blind deaf armless legless mutes the blind forecaster truly is the king.”
24. April 2013 at 05:58
I’d suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggernaut_(comics)
24. April 2013 at 07:00
The Krugman fluffers make me vomit. Smith just seems like another Waldmann to me. Barf bag, please.
24. April 2013 at 07:56
OK you can be Robin and Krugman can be Robin hood.
24. April 2013 at 08:03
Krugman’s predictions have been for the most part abysmal, we just don’t see his wrong predictions being trumpeted all that much because he is relatively popular, and the popular voice can at times drown everything else out.
“I am still guessing that we will peak out at around 9 percent [unemployment] and that would be late this year.”
In March 2009, when Greg Mankiw and some other conservative economists questioned what they called Obama’s “overly optimistic” growth predictions, Paul Krugman questioned their honesty:
Krugman attacked Mankiw as attacked Mankiw as “more than a bit of deliberate obtuseness” and that “we can expect fast growth.” . Our economic growth has been nowhere close to what Krugman predicted.
His predictions abroad are no better. In 2010 Krugman criticized the reduction in German government spending as a “huge mistake,” and said: “budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues [by reducing economic growth].” Yet Germany’s unemployment rate continued falling. German GDP grew at 3 percent during 2011. Unemployment fell output grew without burdening its children with the massively higher debt that Krugman advocated.
There are many more bad predictions, but because his predictions are interchangeable with showing how evil and immoral the right wing is, it doesn’t matter if he makes lots of mistakes. What he gets right become the only things his followers mention.
————
I never much liked Noah Smith’s posts. They almost always contain glaring errors and misunderstandings.
24. April 2013 at 08:17
Yeah, if we only count the correct predictions and ignore the failed ones, we can all be superheroes.
24. April 2013 at 08:19
Not to mention that Krugman has had the ear of Barack Obama, has had dinner with him, iirc. Shouldn’t a true superhero be able to influence a mere POTUS?
24. April 2013 at 08:20
Geoff – I’m confused what you think is wrong about the first prediction.
Here’s what your link says: “As for unemployment, Krugman is predicting it will peak around 9% sometime later this year. There is a chance unemployment could reach the double digits, however, if the crisis continues to spread rapidly across the globe.”
Unemployment did peak later in 2009 (at 10% in Oct) and was relatively close to 9% but slightly higher as the crisis did continue to spread rapidly across the globe.
As for the second quote, to call that statement a prediction is laughable.
Or, you know, you could acknowledge the Noah actually linked to evidence for the relative accuracy of Krugman’s predictions: http://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/pundits-as-accurate-as-coin-toss-according-to-study
24. April 2013 at 08:37
Wouldn’t it be great if, just for a while, economists would show just a little humility. How many of them actually predicted the Great Recession, for example? It’s often interesting, and sometimes amusing, to read some of the blogs, but let’s not take it too seriously!
24. April 2013 at 08:38
I vote for Captain Marvel. According to Wikipedia, Captain Marvel has “instant access to a vast amount of scholarly knowledge” and has exceptional…”mental acuity allowing him to read and decipher”
hieroglyphicsmacroeconomics.24. April 2013 at 08:55
I was named in Noah’s post, Scott. It’s not as cool as you’re imagining it to be.
24. April 2013 at 09:24
Great PK blog post find, Scott. I remember that distinctly. It’s one of the more blatant examples of how PK has left the strong impression that monetary policy is powerless at the zero bound — despite his own research from 1998 that contradicts it.
It’s pretty funny how PK now tries to take indirect credit for the Japanese success, when he spent the past 5 years dissing the power of monetary policy.
Before PK was radicalized by Bush, he actually wrote stuff on monetary policy that made sense. Here he is in the NYT in 2000:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/09/opinion/reckonings-the-japan-syndrome.html
Notice how the tone is completely different than what he has written since GB became president. The 2000 NYT Krugman is still the Slate Krugman that we all wish would come back.
24. April 2013 at 09:43
Geoff, The 9% isn’t a horrible prediction, but the Mankiw find is a good one–I’ve posted on the same thing a couple times.
Bill, More than a little humility is required (BTW, I also failed to predict the crisis.)
Travis, Yes, Bush derangement syndrome.
24. April 2013 at 09:44
Bob, Au contraire. It’s outpredicting you that makes him a superhero.
24. April 2013 at 09:50
Krugman writes (in the blog post linked above):
“Deflationary traps are real, because fighting deflation is really hard “” just printing money doesn’t do it.”
Am I dense or is this just a completely ridiculous thing to say? Does he really believe that no amount of monetary expansion in the world could cause inflation in Japan?
24. April 2013 at 09:55
Bill,
“How many of them actually predicted the Great Recession, for example?”
And Nouriel Roubini and Stephen Roach don’t count, as they had been calling for the crash since the 90s.
Can we make a game of Fantasy Economists. Everyone will draft one economist. The one who make the documented correct calls wins?
I’ll take Jan Hatzius.
24. April 2013 at 09:59
Regarding Superhero names, I have to point out the simmialarity between you name and the X-Man Scott Summers, aka Cyclops. You can be Bicyclops.
24. April 2013 at 10:32
KrugTron destroys cities with recommendation of inflating a housing bubble.
KrugTron rules over burned out city that is macroeconomics with prediction of post-bust deflation.
24. April 2013 at 10:57
Adam:
“As for the second quote, to call that statement a prediction is laughable.”
What’s laughable is that you are denying that “we can expect” is a prediction.
24. April 2013 at 11:30
I vote for Krugman as “Mighty Louse” capable of lifting 1000x his body weight and jumping from one theory to another while taking credit for all.
24. April 2013 at 11:33
You could be SumnerMan. It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a nominal target!
24. April 2013 at 11:53
SumnerMan: Mild mannered professor by day, but capable of bending NGDP with his mind!
24. April 2013 at 11:55
Geoff – When “we can expect” refers to stylized facts and is unlimited as to when, yes, it’s not much of a prediction. Especially when it’s conditioned with “if and when.”
I will say with 100% certainty, if and when conditions are right, that we can expect a period of rapid economic growth at some time in the future.
Do I get credit for being right?
24. April 2013 at 12:30
Adam:
You’re overlooking the context. Krugman is *criticizing* Mankiw’s lack of enthusiasm about Obama’s forecast of growth (which are on the basis of Obama’s policies). He writes “..it is right to expect high growth in future if the economy is depressed now.”
The “now” was in 2009, and Krugman’s time horizon, far from being “unlimited”, is “a few years from now”. Well, a few years have passed since 2009, and no fast growth.
24. April 2013 at 12:47
Able to reason from a price change.
Target NGDP with a single futures contract.
Correctly forecast statistics within 72 hours following there release.
he is Homo Economicus!
24. April 2013 at 12:57
Professor Sumner,
Under your view of the EMH, shouldn’t there exist recessions that are impossible/very difficult to predict? Macroeconomics is (in large part) about predicting the effects of policy changes and shocks, and knowing how to respond to them. That doesn’t include predicting shocks before they happen. I think you did pretty well if this is what is expected.
24. April 2013 at 12:58
Krugman wrote today:
“First of all, many of the evil robots economic commentators I’ve sparred with clearly don’t understand IS-LM at all; in particular, they don’t understand that the effects of monetary expansion and budget deficits are different at the zero lower bound. Japan figures in this difference only to the extent that the Japanese experience demonstrated that the liquidity trap is real (pdf).”
24. April 2013 at 13:02
Geoff – I’ll give you credit for tenacity, but he just did not say what you seem to think he did. “Now” is when the economy was depressed, not when he said there would be rapid growth. He said there would be rapid growth “if and when that capacity comes back into use.”
Also notice that he’s criticizing Mankiw’s reasoning, but not endorsing the Obama administration’s forecast.
24. April 2013 at 13:10
Sumner writes: “BTW, I also failed to predict the crisis.”
This is a common question, e.g. asked by the Queen of England in 2009 (“Why did economists fail to predict the biggest global recession since the Great Depression?”) And of course we should expect our economists to give accurate predictions about the future.
But I wonder if this particular test isn’t so reasonable after all. It’s 2006. Who can look at the economy and see a recession coming? Yes, there is a subprime crisis brewing. Yes, housing is due for an asset crash.
But the problem is, if Sumner and MMs are right, that the collapse of US housing (growth) does not need to lead to a global financial crash. Yes, the subprime mortgage thing was a spark. But to get the Great Recession, you also need the Fed to be asleep at the controls.
So now return to 2006. You’re a macroeconomist, looking at the state of the economy. You correctly deduce that there is nothing about the structure of the US economy that would cause a sustained major recession. So, in order to “correctly” predict the Great Recession, you have to not only predict the subprime crisis, but also the Fed’s inadequate response, sustained for years.
The answer to the Queen’s question is: none of us expected the educated, elite, academic central bankers to act so stupidly.
It wasn’t the vulnerability in the economy that was poorly predicted. The failed prediction was about the voluntary, arbitrary behavior of the handful of important central bankers.
24. April 2013 at 13:32
He said there would be rapid growth “if and when that capacity comes back into use.”
He said there will be rapid growth if and when there there is rapid growth, but until there is there won’t be.
Wow, that’s really saying *something*! Certainly worth prime space in the NY Times.
If all the Times columnists wrote with such insight and acumen, I’d read it every day.
And nobody could ever criticize them for ever, ever being wrong!
24. April 2013 at 13:47
Jim Glass:
Krugman was simply making the point (that seems obvious to many) that recessions are followed by rapid growth as the economy returns to capacity. He was criticizing claims that predictions of fast growth made no sense. He was not saying when the economy would recover, but only that at some point rapid growth would occur. This isn’t really a forecast, as much as a theoretical claim.
24. April 2013 at 15:10
I’d go for one of the ridiculously overpowered supervillains, like Apocalypse or Galactus. Or Zha-vam the Invincible, who had the powers of the Classical gods and therefore just about everything except the power to not have a stupid name.
Geoff and Mr. A have so many similarities, it’s chilling-
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qsKs2-M1ZyQ/T2TEARVGgvI/AAAAAAAAApU/ADDJvwu0rNw/s1600/ditko_mr_a.jpg
– note the shared conciseness.
24. April 2013 at 15:41
Jim Glass: Krugman was simply making the point (that seems obvious to many) that recessions are followed by rapid growth as the economy returns to capacity.
Except that is not always true, sometimes they are followed by slow growth as the economy slowly returns to capacity. For instance: recent years, through today. Among other examples.
Which was Mankiw’s point. Sometimes recessions are followed by slow growth. For which Krugman attacked him personally.
He was not saying when the economy would recover, but only that at some point rapid growth would occur. This isn’t really a forecast…
In other words you are claiming PK was saying nothing. He could with equal validity have said at some point another recession would have occurred … or inflation would zoom up … or the trade deficit would reverse … or whatever. All of which are equally theoretically true and not a forecast. This is how he spends his column inches.
And his criticism of Mankiw was based on his firmly saying nothing himself.
My word, there are people who rationalize the true word of PK to deny any possibility of it ever being in error more than hard-core evangelicals do for the true word of the bible. They actually prefer to reduce his words to meaningless nothingness than consider that, by their plain face meaning, he might have made a little mistake about the future like, you know, a human being.
On another forum recently someone pointed out the irony of Krugman pounding repeatedly on Rogoff/Reinhart for positing a relationship between high debt and slowed growth, after he, Krugman, a few years ago made the same claim far more dramatically, so you could almost see him stamping his foot for emphasis…
Wow, who was afraid (“terrified”!) of debt and deficits there? It seems a bit … inconsistent … of him to go bang, bang, banging on R&R for making a far milder presentation of the very same concern, eh?
But in response to this comment the Krugmanistas poured out, claiming “No! No! No! He didn’t make a mistake! There is no inconsistency. Things changed. The situation today is different, now we are at the zero bound. He could not possibly have foreseen that! To criticize him for not seeing the future only shows what an ideologue you are…”
Just as if…
(1) Krugman then and R&R now weren’t both talking about normal, *non*-zero bound circumstances, and Krugman now isn’t banging on them for doing so, and
(2) Somehow the fiscal disaster that had “already started” un-started, was “inescapable” was easily escaped, and “simply impossible” to avoid easily was, when ooops! something changed unexpectedly, so (logical jump!) he *wasn’t* wrong to use those words.
If before the last Super Bowl Krugman had written…
“The 49ers are going to soundly defeat the Ravens, this fact is inescapable, it is simply impossible that it won’t occur, the 49ers victory has already started, and it is a sign of Mankiw’s malignant right-wing character that he won’t admit it”.
… then after the Ravens won we’d have had the PKistas explaining:
PK wasn’t wrong, he said at some point in the future the 49ers would beat the Ravens — but this wouldn’t happen until it actually did. That wasn’t really a prediction, but only a theoretical claim, and a true one. Moreover, the events of a particular game are unpredictable as we all know, so holding PK to the standard of predicting the future accurately — simply because he used the words “inescapable”, “impossible to avoid”, etc. — and claiming he made a mistake in not doing so, can only be the act of a right-wing ideologue… 🙂
24. April 2013 at 15:47
Adam,
Yes Noah did link to the study, but I wonder how many Krugman supporters dug deep enough to see the actual “predictions” used.
Here they are (from the appendix):
“Home prices are in free fall. Unemployment is rising. Consumer confidence is plumbing depths not seen since 1980. When will it all end?…Probably not until 2010 or later.”
“[the home value recovery process] took more than five years…if the current housing slump runs the same schedule, we won’t be seeing a recovery until 2011 or later.”
“We probably won’t find another bubble [to invest in]–at least not one big enough to fuel a quick recovery.”
“If the current slump follows the typical modern pattern, the economy will stay depressed well into 2010 if not beyond.”
“[This slow economy will leave] plenty of time for the public to start blaming the new incumbent and punish him in the midterm elections.”
“Proponents of expanded [financial] regulation…will have to contend with very well-financed opposition from the financial industry.”
“Even if we don’t have a formal recession–and the odds are now that we will”
“Whoever receives the Democratic presidential nomination will receive labor’s support in the general election.”
“[in the Summer of 2009] President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. His health policy experts have…concluded that the plan really needs to include a…mandate.”
“If [President Obama] tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form.”
“Raising fuel efficiency is something we can and will do.”
“That’s going to be hard–if [Obama] is the nominee–to refute Mr. McCain when he makes similar arguments on behalf of such things as privatizing veteran’s care.”
“The only way the Fed’s action could work is through the slap-in-the-face-effect: by creating a pause in the selling frenzy, the Fed could give hysterical markets a chance to regain their sense of perspective.”
“Things [in the economy] will probably get considerably worse before they get better”
“Once the economy is on the road to recovery, the wheeler-dealers will be making money again–and will lobby hard against anybody who tries to limit their bottom lines.”
“If and when [a German recession] happens, Mrs. Merkel and her ministers will surely reconsider their position [about giving aid to other EU countries]”
“Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq–as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.”
Yes, mostly correct, but hardly earth-shattering, and lots of overlap.
Seems to have some selection bias also?
Now apply the same standard to this list as you did to the two statements referenced by Geoff.
24. April 2013 at 16:02
‘He was not saying when the economy would recover, but only that at some point rapid growth would occur. This isn’t really a forecast, as much as a theoretical claim.’
Why just make him a superhero, let’s go all Roman and make him a god.
24. April 2013 at 16:06
Jim Glass:
Let’s bring the data in. Here is Mankiw’s post challenging the growth forecast:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/team-obama-on-unit-root-hypothesis.html
and here is Krugman’s response:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/roots-of-evil-wonkish/
I am not claiming that Krugman said nothing. I am simply pointing out that he does not make any forecast about growth over the next year, two years, or even 5 years, and he certainly does not say that he agrees with the Obama administration’s forecast.
He just challenges Mankiw’s view that real GDP has a unit root, i.e. that a drop in GDP by one percent today should not have any bearing on our predictions of growth from today onward. Mankiw argues that If GDP falls by one percent today, then our forecast of GDP 10 years from now should drop by one percent. Krugman argues that much of the time the drop in GDP is not due to supply-side issues, and so it is reasonable to expect GDP to recover, to grow more strongly at some point in the future. If you believe this is obvious — that sometimes recessions are demand-side and are followed by above-normal growth and that such a recession might have been the one the US experienced recently — then you disagree with Mankiw and agree with Krugman.
Obviously, Mankiw doesn’t agree, so it is hard to claim that Krugman is saying nothing of substance. He just isn’t making a forecast about what will happen to economic growth over any particular time frame. Now, to be fair, Mankiw only expressed skepticism about Obama’s forecast and didn’t say that it was impossible. Mankiw and Krugman each thought the other was making stronger assertions than he really was. The feud was definitely fueled by some bad feelings between them.
Finally, all this took place on Krugman’s blog, not his column in the NYTimes.
24. April 2013 at 16:12
@Geoff 8:03:
I think that you misinterpreted the Mankiw/Krugman dispute as a defense of the administration’s growth expectations. The link you provided appears to a methodological dispute. As evidence, look at this article the following month warning against over estimating growth: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/the-bounce-and-the-revision-thing/
And note this article from October 2008 predicting a lengthy recession: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/look-out-below/
Similarly, this article from February 2008 warned against relying upon historical recoveries to assume a rapid recovery driven by improving housing data: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/postmodern-recessions/
On the other hand, reading Mankiw’s article doesn’t leave one with the impression that Mankiw predicted permanent drift from trend. He seems to be discussing the unit root hypothesis as a more reasonable way to condition expectations given uncertainty about the timing of recessions.
24. April 2013 at 16:15
I know this is going on kind of long……
Suppose someone claims that the economy will not grow at 4% next year because it has never grown at faster than 3% in a year in which the digits sum to 7 (I don’t know if this is actually the case). I can challenge that claim as absurd. If the economy fails to grow above 4%, that doesn’t make me wrong. Moreover, if the economy does grow above 4%, then I was right, but I shouldn’t be given credit for predicting the growth of the economy. I didn’t make a forecast, but just a theoretical claim that the sum of the digits in a year don’t affect economic growth.
Krugman can be and is wrong on occasion, but let’s at least point to real examples.
24. April 2013 at 18:26
Scott Sumner is my super-hero! (And the rest of the MM gang are his near-equal sidekicks).
24. April 2013 at 19:06
Funny that you are trying to measure up against Krugman. Remember your prediction that austerity in the UK would be harmless b/c of zero multiplier? Yeah, didn’t work out that well…
24. April 2013 at 21:22
‘He just challenges Mankiw’s view that real GDP has a unit root….’
Which wasn’t ‘Mankiw’s view’. Krugman wasn’t being responsive at all to his real ‘view’.
24. April 2013 at 22:12
“If I can’t be Batman, can I at least be Robin? Even the cheesy Robin of the TV series?”
That role is already filled by Brad DeLong.
24. April 2013 at 23:00
[…] me for some cheap sniping at the great Professor, but I couldn’t resist. Via Travis Allison here is Paul Krugman writing in 2000 about […]
24. April 2013 at 23:12
The good kind! Separately, what about this?
http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-ongoing-dereliction-of-duty.html
24. April 2013 at 23:34
OhMy,
“Remember your prediction that austerity in the UK would be harmless b/c of zero multiplier? Yeah, didn’t work out that well…”
This is fairly typical of the fiscal-kick-the-can-down-the-road crowd. If something has a short term negative effect, intended to create a long term positive effect, you look merely at the short term and proclaim it hasn’t worked. Fiscal consolidation can take years or decades, especially from such an indebted starting point.
25. April 2013 at 01:07
UK AVOIDS TRIPLE DIP RECESSION: Q1 GDP Beats Expectations, British Pound Spikes
http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-avoids-triple-dip-recession-2013-4
25. April 2013 at 05:49
In a world without Krugman, would econ blogs be as popular and would you have started yours? It’s easy to forget, but in the world of non-economists, Krugman is by far the most well-known.
25. April 2013 at 06:36
This, I would happily grant to you.
I’ve often maintained that since Krugman thinks it’s mostly aout AD, and since he believes what is truly special about monetary policy is currency (or anything else that pays 0% interest), he should just give up his entrenched position and hand over the mic to you,
Adam Posen, who clearly argues that the way to get AD up is to reduce the credit risk spreads and thus recommends LSAPs with private sector assets is arguably much more Keynesian than Krugman.
Krugman is mostly a confused monetarist who likes fiscal policy because of his teacher Bob Solow.
25. April 2013 at 06:55
J, Krugman is a johnny-come-lately to the econosphere. Even I predate him.
And, notoriety among the ill-informed isn’t anything to be proud of.
25. April 2013 at 07:56
Krugman derangement syndrome is in over drive on this thread…
Krugman Always said (ever since his work on Japan ) that unconventional monetary policy could be effective at the ZLB operating through the inflation expectations channel. He has been completely consistent on this.
Which is basically the same place the M&M’s ended up.
The K’s and the M’s DO have big conceptual differences on how they got there. When Monetarist’s argue that Krugman is being inconsistent they are confusing his arguments against the reasoning employed by the monetarist for his conclusion on what is the right monetary policy…
The practical difference between Keynesians and Monetarists in today’s major policy debate can be boiled to this…
Monetarists believe that only Monetary policy can save the world, and that fiscal stim is either ineffective or harmful. Krugman and the Keynesians believe that both Monetary and fiscal policy have to be expansive to shorten the “natural” corse of this depression we are mired in.
Often the final arguments for one side or the other leave the realm of economics… and come down to which policy one believes is most Politically possible.
For example…”The Sumner Critique ” Which around here is is treated more like “The Sumner Axiom” is ultimately a political argument.
Guys…If you must bash PK…. at least bash him for the right reasons.
25. April 2013 at 09:22
Can we bash PK because he is (apparently) constitutionally incapable of making an argument without ad hominem?
25. April 2013 at 10:42
Paul Andrews
Yeah, still waiting for those positive effects of austerity. What are they btw? How do you know UK government has too much debt?
25. April 2013 at 11:07
OhMy,
All else held equal, which is better: a balanced budget, or a large deficit? Why?
25. April 2013 at 12:45
“Can we bash PK because he is (apparently) constitutionally incapable of making an argument without ad hominem?”
Krugman does make it personal. And if you want to bash him for that I wont bitch about it. But he is not the only economist blogger to make it personal. In fact I would say it is the norm…
I just don’t like when the personal stuff is conflated with the conceptual stuff. It happens all the time…. from both sides.
25. April 2013 at 12:48
Ceteris paribus, which is better… laying people off when the economy is operating under capacity or hiring them ?
25. April 2013 at 13:10
I don’t think any model has been successful as NGDPLT aka market monetarism. I think it is only a matter of time before everyone acknowledges this.
25. April 2013 at 13:18
“Krugman Always said (ever since his work on Japan ) that unconventional monetary policy could be effective at the ZLB operating through the inflation expectations channel. He has been completely consistent on this.”
Oh God, not this again. Don’t we repost the quotes where he says “we need fiscal because monetary is ineffective” at least once a week here? Maybe they could go in a FAQ.
25. April 2013 at 14:10
Adam:
Sorry, but your interpretation of what Krugman said is just wrong. The “now” was when he wrote the article, in 2009. At that time, he said to expect growth in the next few years because the unit root stuff is nonsense.
The “if and when” is in a context that removes the “if” because of his attack on the lack of enthusiasm about Obama’s forecast due to (what Krugman believes to be) nonsensical unit roots.
Yes, he’s criticizing Mankiw’s reasoning, but if you notice, the reason for the criticism is because he doesn’t buy Mankiw’s argument that fiscal stimulus won’t do anything.
——————-
Al:
The first link you cited has Krugman predicting positive growth “later this year”, meaning later in 2009. I don’t see how him saying “This will not be the end of our problems however” stands in the way of growth rate predictions.
An Oct 2008 article that says the recession will be “long” isn’t saying much, especially since he didn’t qualify it with any definition for what he means.
25. April 2013 at 15:27
TallDave,
“I don’t think any model has been successful as NGDPLT aka market monetarism.”
Where is the model – can you provide a link to something other than a loose collection of natural-language narratives?
As of May last year there was no such thing: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=14479
25. April 2013 at 15:33
OhMy,
You said:
“Remember your prediction that austerity in the UK would be harmless b/c of zero multiplier? Yeah, didn’t work out that well…”
I said:
“This is fairly typical of the fiscal-kick-the-can-down-the-road crowd. If something has a short term negative effect, intended to create a long term positive effect, you look merely at the short term and proclaim it hasn’t worked. Fiscal consolidation can take years or decades, especially from such an indebted starting point.”
OhMy:
“Yeah, still waiting for those positive effects of austerity. What are they btw? How do you know UK government has too much debt?”
Do you agree that some UK government spending could be targeted more productively than it is at present? If so, do you also agree that some UK government spending is likely wasted?
26. April 2013 at 04:56
Paul Andrews,
Without taking a side myself, I would like to point out that you are not responding to the true arguments for stimulus. First, if interests rates will not rise when the government spends more, then the government is supposedly using resources that would otherwise go unused. Indeed, if the Fed has to go to some effort to prevent interest rates from rising, then you also get some monetary stimulus and inflation — which is why Keynesians such as Krugman want fiscal stimulus.
Second, if fiscal stimulus boosts the economy today, then it may also boost private sector output as well as government output. By creating growth and raising expectations about the future, it helps more unused resources be put to productive uses, not less.
Again, I am not saying I agree with these points. Also, you can just take the negatives of these statements as why austerity is bad, rather than why stimulus is good.
26. April 2013 at 05:41
The best part of recent Krugman developments is knowing the right will cower and policy may change.
The second best part is knowing that Scott Sumner (who tries his best to be a gnat in the Krugman stew in the pathetic hope that maybe some of the deserved attention Krugman gets will drip down his pathetic little way) would be incensed and green with envy as Krugman became even more important while the whining Sumner even an even more obscure and useless bit of carbon waste matter to the world.
All Sumner’s miserable fame-seeking unjust swipes at Krugman have amounted to exactly nought.
Nice to see. 🙂
26. April 2013 at 06:11
Tyler Joiner
“All else held equal, which is better: a balanced budget, or a large deficit? Why?”
All else is never equal, because deficit drives profits and private savings. http://pragcap.com/hussman-does-kalecki
The bigger deficit the more it supports aggregate demand (to the point of being inflationary if excessive).
If you insist that all else is equal then I answer: it is IRRELEVANT if you have a balanced budget or a deficit, why would it be relevant for a money-issuer entity? It can have any deficit it wants, it controls the rates it pays on it. Remember you cannot assume that your intuition on money-borrowing entities (such as households or corporations) ports to a money issuer, such as sovereign governments.
26. April 2013 at 06:15
Paul Andrews,
“Do you agree that some UK government spending could be targeted more productively than it is at present?”
Yes, so could the private spending. So what?
“If so, do you also agree that some UK government spending is likely wasted?”
Spending = income. “Wasted” spending is someone’s income. I say spending on diets, junk food and Vioxx (that can kill you) and computer games is “wasted”. Irrelevant, it is a emotional statement with no relation to economics. All these “wasted spendings” are someone’s income and count to GDP. The crisis happens not because ppl spend money stupidly, it happens because they DON’T SPEND ENOUGH.
26. April 2013 at 06:21
I’m green with envy.
Green, eh?
26. April 2013 at 06:35
OhMy,
Well I feel even more secure in dismissing Keynesians than I did before, which is a tough bar to hit.
Suffice to say that I disagree that all spending is good spending, and I also disagree that governments can run any deficit they want without consequence.
26. April 2013 at 07:34
Tyler:
“Suffice to say that I disagree that all spending is good spending”
Welp, poof goes market monetarism, for it is a theory that does not call for private spending targeting, or government spending targeting, or specific industry spending targeting, but aggregate spending targeting.
This of course implies government spending and private spending are interchangeable, which means if NGDPLT 5% consisted of gradually growing government spending and gradually declining private spending, market monetarism doesn’t have anything to say about the facts on the ground. Market monetarists would have to arbitrarily jump ship to some ethical norm that provides them with a reason to reject the increasing government spending tendency, thus revealing the incompleteness of market monetarism itself.
26. April 2013 at 07:43
Geoff,
Hmm. So do you advocate competing currencies then? If you accept that market monetarism creates winners and losers, then clearly stabilizing inflation or any other kind of coherent monetary policy deriving from a central bank and forced on the open market create winners and losers too – just different ones.
I agree that MMs seem to put their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the interaction of the Fed and the Feds, under their proposed plan. Not sure why the government would not pursue a policy of large deficits, or why it would have any incentive to fix structural issues, when they know that a recession will cause the Fed to inflate away bad debt.
26. April 2013 at 07:44
Tyler,
You are welcome.
“Suffice to say that I disagree that all spending is good spending”
You don’t have to agree, enough if you agree what the definition of NGDP is.
“I also disagree that governments can run any deficit they want without consequence.”
Yes, because you have no understanding of monetary systems, so you can’t even tell a monetarily sovereign entity from a non-sovereign entity.
26. April 2013 at 07:46
The Joyner Critique(tm) states that the state will choose to pursue politically popular but structurally unsound policy when they know the Fed will offset with monetary policy anyways.
Yes, I’m jealous of people with concepts named after them.
26. April 2013 at 08:12
OhMy,
“You don’t have to agree, enough if you agree what the definition of NGDP is.”
Okay.
“Yes, because you have no understanding of monetary systems, so you can’t even tell a monetarily sovereign entity from a non-sovereign entity.”
I’m aware that countries with their own currency can avoid a default on their debt. Believe it or not, owning a printing press does not guarantee a successful economy. Large deficits and accompanying inflation has caused serious economic problems before. If you don’t believe me, try reading up on, oh let’s think of an example or two….
Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Brazil, Croatia, Georgia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Yugoslavia.
26. April 2013 at 08:51
Tyler Joyner,
But you said “all else equal.” Perhaps you should specify what ‘all else’ includes…
26. April 2013 at 09:28
J,
“All else” includes pretty much what it sounds like. I asked the question originally in response to OhMy’s comment:
“Yeah, still waiting for those positive effects of austerity. What are they btw? How do you know UK government has too much debt?”
Austerity is essentially an attempt to balance the budget. If you concede that having a balanced budget is better than owing a lot of money (all else held equal), then the question becomes one of priorities. To say that attempting to balance the budget during hard economic times is a bad idea is an argument at least worth entertaining. To imply that having a balanced budget has no positive effects is unforgivably ignorant.
26. April 2013 at 09:33
Geoff – That reading is simply impossible to square with Krugman’s repeated predictions of a lost decade and other gloom and doom.
Note that even though Scott’s running with your example, he’s not reading Krugman as predicting imminent fast growth. That’s because it should be obvious that he wasn’t.
26. April 2013 at 09:55
Tyler Joyner,
Good laughs. Before you get to inflation thanks to deficits, you get to full employment first, which is exactly what we want to achieve. Nobody tells you to keep increasing deficits past that point.
As for hyperinflations, nice list of countries, all of which had pegs or huge debt in foreign currency. You forgot Weimar and Hungary too. The cause of hyperinflation is never simply government spending (eg. in Zimbabwe private spending grew faster than govt spending – explain that), hyperinflations are always policitally driven – imposed too much external (foreign currency) debt, reparations, collapse in productivity (farmers driven out – Zimbabwe).
Again, having large or small debt is irrelevant for a sovereign issuer. Not a matter of default, but interest rates and stability – you can control them. You keep thinking in isolation. If GDP and unemployment are functions of debt and deficits, you cannot choose small deficits/debt and have “all else equal”. You need debt to have full employment. Especially after a bubble wipes out a ton of equity.
26. April 2013 at 10:36
Adam:
“Geoff – That reading is simply impossible to square with Krugman’s repeated predictions of a lost decade and other gloom and doom.”
Agreed, Krugman does tend to say things that don’t square with each other.
“Note that even though Scott’s running with your example, he’s not reading Krugman as predicting imminent fast growth. That’s because it should be obvious that he wasn’t.”
I think it’s obvious he was.
26. April 2013 at 10:47
OhMy,
Speaking of laughs, how many countries do not have debt in foreign currencies?
You conceded the point anyways when you said that you should stop growing the deficit at full employment. That’s an implicit statement that deficits do have negative side effects, and you’re simply assigning full employment a higher value.
I’m not thinking in isolation at all. Rather, you’re the one who – in complete contravention with history and logic – seems to think that any country with its own currency need never have unemployment. If only they had someone with your stunning intellect at the helm!
26. April 2013 at 12:50
Tyler Joyner,
US and Japan are examples of countries with little foreign currency debt. UK stupidly once took a USD loan from IMF!
Yes, I conceded that we can solve the unemployment problem with deficits, and then we should stop. So yes, UK can be in a position it needs to slash deficits, but now it is in a position it needs to widen them. Pretty simple. Saying that it needs to shrink deficits now (with raging unemployment) is as stupid like saying to an obese person she should eat more because starvation is harmful. Yes, harmful if your weight is below what it should be. How complicated is that?
You think in isolation, you think you can choose deficit and unemployment separately. You can’t. That is why you need your won currency – to be able to choose full employment and the deficit can be whatever it needs to be.
Yes, countries with own currency can have very low unemployment. Historical evidence is on my side, sorry. Think 50s and 60s (with massive public debts and no side effects other than full employment). Unemployment was 2% (!!!) for decades. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=20027
26. April 2013 at 17:36
OhMy,
You said:
“Remember your prediction that austerity in the UK would be harmless b/c of zero multiplier? Yeah, didn’t work out that well…”
I said:
“This is fairly typical of the fiscal-kick-the-can-down-the-road crowd. If something has a short term negative effect, intended to create a long term positive effect, you look merely at the short term and proclaim it hasn’t worked. Fiscal consolidation can take years or decades, especially from such an indebted starting point.”
OhMy:
“Yeah, still waiting for those positive effects of austerity. What are they btw? How do you know UK government has too much debt?”
Paul:
“Do you agree that some UK government spending could be targeted more productively than it is at present?”
OhMy:
“Yes, so could the private spending. So what?”
It’s important because we want the economy as a whole, public and private, to be as productive as possible. Fiscal stimulus encourages unproductive public spending and monetary stimulus encourages unproductive private spending – something that Keynesians and Monetarists seem not to notice.
Paul:
“If so, do you also agree that some UK government spending is likely wasted?”
OhMy:
“Spending = income. “Wasted” spending is someone’s income. I say spending on diets, junk food and Vioxx (that can kill you) and computer games is “wasted”. Irrelevant, it is a emotional statement with no relation to economics. All these “wasted spendings” are someone’s income and count to GDP. The crisis happens not because ppl spend money stupidly, it happens because they DON’T SPEND ENOUGH.”
Above you agreed that UK government spending could be targeted more productively. Here you say that spending is spending. So it seems you are saying that government spending could be more productive, but it doesn’t make any difference to the health of the economy whether it is more productive or less productive. Is that correct?
26. April 2013 at 17:48
J,
You said:
“Without taking a side myself, I would like to point out that you are not responding to the true arguments for stimulus. First, if interests rates will not rise when the government spends more, then the government is supposedly using resources that would otherwise go unused.”
That’s part of the story but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It ignores that resources tied up by government today are very difficult to free up for private enterprise later. It ignores the effect of the burden of government debt on the economy in coming years. It ignores the fact that monetary stimulus undertaken simultaneously artificially lowers the interest rate by reducing the supply of government bonds available on the open market.
The story is based on a set of mathematical models that do not, and cannot, capture all of the salient features of a complex economy. The most salient feature being that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, that the economy does not act as if there was only a single rational consumer, and that most of the interesting economic phenomena are emergent – i.e. founded in the complex individual interactions between agents, not merely an aggregate sum of individual behaviors.
“Indeed, if the Fed has to go to some effort to prevent interest rates from rising, then you also get some monetary stimulus and inflation “” which is why Keynesians such as Krugman want fiscal stimulus.”
I’m not sure what you mean here. If you mean the two go hand in hand – fiscal and monetary – in a symbiotic relationship then I agree,
“Second, if fiscal stimulus boosts the economy today, then it may also boost private sector output as well as government output. By creating growth and raising expectations about the future, it helps more unused resources be put to productive uses, not less.”
Again, the “may” here is based on incredibly oversimplified models. Even their proponents admit “no model is right, but some models are useful”, but then go on to push them as correct descriptors of the economy anyway.
“Again, I am not saying I agree with these points. Also, you can just take the negatives of these statements as why austerity is bad, rather than why stimulus is good.”
How so?
26. April 2013 at 18:37
Paul Andrews,
“So it seems you are saying that government spending could be more productive, but it doesn’t make any difference to the health of the economy whether it is more productive or less productive. Is that correct?”
It makes a difference but is beside the point. Do you understand that unemployment means that the economy is MORE, not less productive than the purchasing power of the private sector? We don’t have a too low productivity problem, we have MORE productivity than purchasing power. Marxists would say it is an overproduction problem, Keynesians (and SS) says it is an aggregate demand problem. So if you make the private and public spending “more productive” the unemployment will RISE. We need to raise the demand, not productivity. More productivity is of course good and desired but *it is not the problem we are trying to solve*, it is a more long term problem. Solve unemployment with the given, present level of productivity and then worry about productivity itself, you are mixing problems.
26. April 2013 at 20:56
OhMy,
You said:
“Remember your prediction that austerity in the UK would be harmless b/c of zero multiplier? Yeah, didn’t work out that well…”
I said:
“This is fairly typical of the fiscal-kick-the-can-down-the-road crowd. If something has a short term negative effect, intended to create a long term positive effect, you look merely at the short term and proclaim it hasn’t worked. Fiscal consolidation can take years or decades, especially from such an indebted starting point.”
OhMy:
“Yeah, still waiting for those positive effects of austerity. What are they btw? How do you know UK government has too much debt?”
Paul:
“Do you agree that some UK government spending could be targeted more productively than it is at present?”
OhMy:
“Yes, so could the private spending. So what?”
It’s important because we want the economy as a whole, public and private, to be as productive as possible. Fiscal stimulus encourages unproductive public spending and monetary stimulus encourages unproductive private spending – something that Keynesians and Monetarists seem not to notice.
Paul:
“If so, do you also agree that some UK government spending is likely wasted?”
OhMy:
“Spending = income. “Wasted” spending is someone’s income. I say spending on diets, junk food and Vioxx (that can kill you) and computer games is “wasted”. Irrelevant, it is a emotional statement with no relation to economics. All these “wasted spendings” are someone’s income and count to GDP. The crisis happens not because ppl spend money stupidly, it happens because they DON’T SPEND ENOUGH.”
Paul:
“Above you agreed that UK government spending could be targeted more productively. Here you say that spending is spending. So it seems you are saying that government spending could be more productive, but it doesn’t make any difference to the health of the economy whether it is more productive or less productive. Is that correct?”
OhMy:
“It makes a difference but is beside the point. Do you understand that unemployment means that the economy is MORE, not less productive than the purchasing power of the private sector? We don’t have a too low productivity problem, we have MORE productivity than purchasing power. Marxists would say it is an overproduction problem, Keynesians (and SS) says it is an aggregate demand problem. So if you make the private and public spending “more productive” the unemployment will RISE. We need to raise the demand, not productivity. More productivity is of course good and desired but *it is not the problem we are trying to solve*, it is a more long term problem. Solve unemployment with the given, present level of productivity and then worry about productivity itself, you are mixing problems.”
First you start by saying that productivity is beside the point in the short term.
At the end you say: “solve unemployment with present level of productivity” in the short term.
Which is it? Is it irrelevant, or does it need to stay at the present level?
27. April 2013 at 02:18
Bob Murphy posts Josh Ammons’ caricature of Krugman: http://consultingbyrpm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Two-face-Krugman.jpeg
27. April 2013 at 02:21
This post should be read consecutively with Noah’s post: http://uneconomical.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/paul-krugman-deficit-hawk/
27. April 2013 at 06:11
Doug, Jan’s a good choice.
J and Don, Yes, the Queen doesn’t know about the EMH.
OhMy, You said;
“Funny that you are trying to measure up against Krugman.”
Funny that you can’t recognize a joke.
Of course I never forecast fast growth in the UK, which is why you don’t produce any quotations.
J, Yes, I often describe Krugman as a great blogger, so what is your point?
Max. Touche.
Bill Ellis, You missed the point. I linked to a post where Krugman denied that the Swiss National Bank could depreciate the franc. How’s that claim working out?
EconomistDuNord, You said;
“The second best part is knowing that Scott Sumner (who tries his best to be a gnat in the Krugman stew in the pathetic hope that maybe some of the deserved attention Krugman gets will drip down his pathetic little way) would be incensed and green with envy”
Is there anything more pathetic than a commenter repeating a joke from the post, as if it was serious? At least come up with different joke, if you have no grounds to criticize my economic analysis.
27. April 2013 at 11:38
Scott Sumner wrote:
Is there anything more pathetic than a commenter repeating a joke from the post, as if it was serious?
Scott, I feel your pain regarding EconomistDuNord’s critique, but by the same token: Did you really think I didn’t get why Noah was saying Krugman beat me? You think after all this time, I was not aware that my views on inflation are cause for chortling on Team Krugman?
28. April 2013 at 07:42
Bob, My reply to you was intended as a joke. But then you are much better at humor than I am.
28. April 2013 at 20:19
[…] MM is gaining converts as its predictions seem to pan out. As Scott put it: […]