Paul Krugman's Counterpart

wizardstaff wrote:

The main difference between Will and Krugman, however, is that Will is FAR less of a partisan than is Krugman.

Here's a 2007 ranking of how partisan columnists are. Krugman topped the Democratic list and was #2 overall (Ann Coulter was #1). Will ranked as one of the least partisan.

Nice....PK is telegraphing the same shrillness as Coulter? And coming across more partisan that Malkin (who is dimmer than a 3 watt bulb)?

He is not doing himself any favors.....

asdefjh wrote:

wizardstaff wrote:

The main difference between Will and Krugman, however, is that Will is FAR less of a partisan than is Krugman.

Here's a 2007 ranking of how partisan columnists are. Krugman topped the Democratic list and was #2 overall (Ann Coulter was #1). Will ranked as one of the least partisan.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/partisan-columnists-1-coulter-2-krugman.html

The people on the list from the right are far superior writers to anyone on the list from the left.

Good list. The most important part is the last sentence - Conclusion: Don't take Krugman and Coulter too seriously.

That's what I've been saying.

luv2run wrote:

Here's a 2007 ranking of how partisan columnists are. Krugman topped the Democratic list and was #2 overall (Ann Coulter was #1). Will ranked as one of the least partisan.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/partisan-columnists-1-coulter-2-krugman.html

The people on the list from the right are far superior writers to anyone on the list from the left.[/quote]

What's funny about that list is that Coulter, not surprisingly, scored the highest, but the big difference is, no one takes her seriously, everyone realizes she is an "editorialist" with a partisan axe to grind, and very few would represent her as anything more than a self-promotion machine using her forum to peddle her wares and books.

Sagarin wrote:

What's funny about that list is that Coulter, not surprisingly, scored the highest, but the big difference is, no one takes her seriously

The "big difference is no one takes her seriously" . What "big difference" are you talking about? Are you talking about the "big difference" between her and Krugman? Well, yeah, of course more people should take Krugman seriously than Ann Coulter. There is also a "BIG difference" in education level, expertise, and seriousness between the two.

Sagarin wrote: everyone realizes she is an "editorialist" with a partisan axe to grind, and very few would represent her as anything more than a self-promotion machine using her forum to peddle her wares and books.

Well, that is all she is, and that IS how she should be represented. Unfortunately, MANY on the right consider her "brilliant" and an excellent source of truth of information, and a hero. So many more on the right than you think take her extremely seriously.

Not for the 'humor-impaired'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK3-HAdUJx0

Senior Software Engineer wrote:

This guy is a moron that lacks economic vision.

As an economist who almost completely disagrees with Krugman's policy positions, this is still one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

joe carter wrote:

Senior Software Engineer wrote:

This guy is a moron that lacks economic vision.

As an economist who almost completely disagrees with Krugman's policy positions, this is still one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

As an economist who almost completely disagrees with Krugman's policy positions, I'd agree with the lacking vision part. Krugman is definitely not a moron, though his regurgitating minions may be.

The point that was missed earlier in regard to partisanship wasn't with deference to pedigree (some of which is largely partisan accolades in and of themselves); it was simply pointing out the obvious that these two are no different in terms of the role they play - demagogues who are paid to editorialize to their respective niches, which, thankfully, occupy a very small part of the political, socioeconomic universe. However, this polarity is why very little constructive ever comes out of the legislative branch.

where is your phd from?

Sagarin wrote:

joe carter wrote:

As an economist who almost completely disagrees with Krugman's policy positions, this is still one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

As an economist who almost completely disagrees with Krugman's policy positions, I'd agree with the lacking vision part. Krugman is definitely not a moron, though his regurgitating minions may be.

The point that was missed earlier in regard to partisanship wasn't with deference to pedigree (some of which is largely partisan accolades in and of themselves); it was simply pointing out the obvious that these two are no different in terms of the role they play - demagogues who are paid to editorialize to their respective niches, which, thankfully, occupy a very small part of the political, socioeconomic universe. However, this polarity is why very little constructive ever comes out of the legislative branch.

The University of Phoenix.

Yours?

A top 5 program. You might have an economics phd, I don't know - but unless you have one, you are no economist

Sagarin wrote:

The University of Phoenix.

Yours?

luv2run wrote:

Krugman, former Enron advisor? Yeah, the guy is brilliant (ha ha).

Are you saying that he contributed to the Enron bankruptcy?

From Wikipedia:

In early 1999, Krugman served on an advisory panel (including Larry Lindsey and Robert Zoellick) that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. He resigned from the panel in the fall of 1999 to comply with New York Times rules regarding conflicts of interest, when he accepted the Times's offer to become an op-ed columnist.[106] Krugman later stated that he was paid $37,500 (not $50,000 as often reported - his early resignation cost him part of his fee), and that, for consulting that required him to spend four days in Houston, the fee was "rather low compared with my usual rates", which were around $20,000 for a one-hour speech.[106] He also stated that the advisory panel "had no function that I was aware of", and that he later interpreted his role as being "just another brick in the wall" Enron used to build an image.[107]

In the strictest academic sense of the word, you are correct. You are also missing the point. Off the Grid had it right, and there is a chasm of a difference between academics, policy wonks, demagogues, and legislators. My advanced degree is in financial math and econometrics, though, for proprietary reasons and with respect to my consultive relationships, I withhold my credentials and maintain my anonymity (which I'm sure you can empathize with).

I was a senior managing market analyst on the institutional side of one of the big brokerage houses and I've worked with and for some every esteemed strategists, most of who greeted Krugman with nothing more than slight amusement. A former employer (do you really think the chief strategists do all of their own work?) was on the President's tax council to restructure and clarify the byzantine tax code, one of the proposals of which was to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, both because it was too regressive and it improperly distorted credit markets (amongst any number of the other brilliant ideas that came out of government and the "sovereign" Fed).

Not that any of this matters or that I really care. I also possess a degree from a TOP public university, but credentials are just that - credentials. Some of the most ignorant people I've ever met or worked with went to some of the most esteemed universities. My lawyer and EVP wife has said the same about her Harvard and Yale colleagues.

Krugman>Krauthamer

Friedman>Krugman

Chomsky>Friedman

Suck on it.

anEconomist wrote:

where is your phd from?

Somewhere with a ranking between 8-15, depending on who you ask.

Off the Grid wrote:

Why should his Nobel Prize count for anything? It was in trade economics. What the hell does that have to do with social policy?

You don't think trade affects social policy? You must been pre-zygotic or unconscious in the late 80s, early 90s, when Japan was eating our lunch and daddy Bush went begging to Tokyo, only to puke in the PM's lap.

Seen any pictures of Detroit lately? It looks like a bombed-out ruin. Al-Qaeda could only dream of doing that much damage.

Krugman's model explains why a country chooses to compete in a certain industry even if that country lacks a comparative advantage in that industry. If you don't think that's socially relevant, I suggest you think again.

Krauthammer's nothing more than a knee-jerk right-wing pundit. That's how he makes his living, not by producing knowledge or anything else of real value.

You're actually bragging about having a PhD from the University of Phoenix? I picked up a Masters from there a few years back for sport and I swear most freshman in high school could pick one up, too.