Is America’s Most Prominent Public Intellectual Losing His Mind?

Help me out here, people, because I really want to get to the bottom of this. I’ve been trying to see the world from Nobel-Prize-winner Paul Krugman’s perspective for months now, and I’m coming to the conclusion that either I am not sufficiently imaginative or Krugman has a screw loose.

First, last week Krugman predicted the end of the world if Republicans took control of the House of Representatives on November 2: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” But we can chalk that up to partisan silliness; anyone who reads Krugman knows he is a shill for Democrats.

What I can’t really figure out is the incredible statements about public debt he routinely makes. I think I get (although I disagree with) the basic Keynesian argument about the utility of government deficit spending to “prime the pump” when the economy is in a recession. But there are two things about Krugman’s usage of this argument that astound me. Both of them are on display in his most recent New York Times column.

First, Krugman acts as though the U.S. government hasn’t really gotten serious about attacking the recession via deficit spending. Where has he been since the summer of 2008? The last three years we have had deficits well over a trillion dollars annually, and we’re closing in on an on-budget public debt of $14 trillion. If this isn’t serious Keynesianism, what is? Krugman appears to think that if you haven’t gotten the economic results you want yet, all you have to do is borrow and spend more, more, more. As long as creditors are willing to lend, the sky is the limit. Does this really strike anyone as a reasonable proposition?

The second thing I don’t get, and this may be a contributing factor to the first one, is that Krugman appears to think that all debt is created equal: “one person’s debt is another person’s asset.” The economy is a zero-sum proposition. At any given moment in time, this might be true, but Krugman doesn’t seem to take into account what any normal person knows: easy access to credit tempts people to be stupid and destroy wealth.

Here’s an example. I borrow $10,000 dollars and use it to throw a big party for all my friends. I hire a caterer and a live band, and everybody has a great time for a few hours. The way Krugman frames his argument, it appears that he thinks my party will have exactly the same economic impact as if I had used that $10,000 to expand my business or do R&D on a new productivity tool. But it seems evident (to me at least) that the first activity results in a net destruction of wealth, whereas the second results in a net production of wealth.

The lion’s share of the borrowing done in this country over the last few years has gone towards the first kind of consumption: McMansions and the like, or what the Austrian economists call malinvestments.When we went too far in that direction, we ended up with a crisis. But Krugman doesn’t recognize any of that, and now that it’s time to deal with that reality, all he can do is denounce those who disagree with him as “debt moralizers.”

I really hope that Bob Murphy’s project to raise money for charity to persuade Krugman to debate him works out. It might help me figure out why I can’t seem to see the world from his perspective.

Advertisements

About Dr. J

I am Professor of Humanities at Faulkner University, where I chair the Department of Humanities and direct online M.A. and Ph.D. programs based on the Great Books of Western Civilization. I am also Associate Editor of the Journal of Faith and the Academy and a member of the faculty at Liberty Classroom.
This entry was posted in Academia, Current Events and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Is America’s Most Prominent Public Intellectual Losing His Mind?

  1. Jeff Jewell says:

    Krugman has seen almost all of his ideas refuted by the real-world economic experiment we have been “participating in” the last two years. He has responded the way most intellectually dishonest people do when faced with inconvenient facts – he has doubled down on his original position…

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Is America’s Most Prominent Public Intellectual Losing His Mind? | The Western Tradition -- Topsy.com

  3. Chuck Richardson says:

    From a zero-sum perspective, the “party thower” provided jobs and line the pockets of the others he hired to cater and entertain at the party. So, as long as money is moving around, the economy is working. Problem is, he put it on a credit card, and now can’t pay the Bank, and eventually claims that he’s the victim and declares bankruptcy. The Bank doesn’t get its money and eventually needs a bail-out. So Government, worried that the bank will fail, steps in to provides the needed cash, only to find that it doesn’t have it either, and has to borrow it from Mars. Eventually, Mars realizes where this cycle is headed and shuts its vault doors, forcing Government to print money. This, of course, leads the government to the conclusion that the only legitimate course of action is to print more money, which means there is so much more to go around. Isn’t that great?! After all, our goal is just to keep the money going around, isn’t it?

  4. Fred Jewell says:

    “most prominent public intellectual” ??? Heaven help us all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s