[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

COVID-19 - miamizsun - Mar 3, 2021 - 5:00pm
 
The Future is here! - R_P - Mar 3, 2021 - 4:58pm
 
Terrorist Watch! - Red_Dragon - Mar 3, 2021 - 4:11pm
 
Steven Wilson - westslope - Mar 3, 2021 - 4:08pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - haresfur - Mar 3, 2021 - 2:20pm
 
volcano! - haresfur - Mar 3, 2021 - 2:10pm
 
New Music - R_P - Mar 3, 2021 - 11:58am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 3, 2021 - 11:50am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - BlueHeronDruid - Mar 3, 2021 - 10:24am
 
RP in a Tesla EV - BillG - Mar 3, 2021 - 10:23am
 
Race in America - westslope - Mar 3, 2021 - 9:12am
 
Today in History - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 3, 2021 - 8:29am
 
Minimum rating for favorites - rwyatt - Mar 3, 2021 - 8:23am
 
Trump Lies - westslope - Mar 3, 2021 - 8:21am
 
What Did You Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 3, 2021 - 8:15am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Mar 3, 2021 - 5:20am
 
Ukraine - sirdroseph - Mar 3, 2021 - 3:30am
 
Small-town news - kcar - Mar 3, 2021 - 12:40am
 
Surfing! - haresfur - Mar 2, 2021 - 11:04pm
 
What is the meaning of this? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 2, 2021 - 8:14pm
 
Share a Website you love or hate… - whatshisname - Mar 2, 2021 - 6:36pm
 
Show us your NEW _______________!!!! - haresfur - Mar 2, 2021 - 5:24pm
 
Learn something every day - Antigone - Mar 2, 2021 - 4:50pm
 
Future of Human Race (in 500 years) - miamizsun - Mar 2, 2021 - 2:35pm
 
Propaganda - R_P - Mar 2, 2021 - 2:29pm
 
Biden's Lies - haresfur - Mar 2, 2021 - 1:32pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Mar 2, 2021 - 1:02pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 2, 2021 - 9:59am
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 2, 2021 - 9:46am
 
What are you listening to now? - davidharper - Mar 2, 2021 - 8:10am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 2, 2021 - 7:42am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 2, 2021 - 7:23am
 
Where would you like to live? - westslope - Mar 2, 2021 - 7:02am
 
That's good advice - rhahl - Mar 2, 2021 - 4:52am
 
Music documentaries - miamizsun - Mar 2, 2021 - 4:50am
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Mar 1, 2021 - 6:23pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 1, 2021 - 6:18pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Ohmsen - Mar 1, 2021 - 5:54pm
 
Evolution! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 1, 2021 - 11:35am
 
Testing your Metal? - miamizsun - Mar 1, 2021 - 11:11am
 
Buddy's Haven - Coaxial - Mar 1, 2021 - 10:50am
 
Why are Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds censored? - the_jake - Mar 1, 2021 - 7:39am
 
Real Life vs. the Internet - miamizsun - Mar 1, 2021 - 5:15am
 
Things People Have Said That I'll Never Forget - sirdroseph - Mar 1, 2021 - 5:13am
 
Republican Party - westslope - Feb 28, 2021 - 3:29pm
 
Stuff I've Said Out Loud - Antigone - Feb 28, 2021 - 12:39pm
 
Australia - westslope - Feb 28, 2021 - 9:34am
 
Fitness • Health - westslope - Feb 28, 2021 - 8:15am
 
Automotive Lust - kurtster - Feb 27, 2021 - 10:50pm
 
Name My Band - Manbird - Feb 27, 2021 - 4:42pm
 
You really put butter on the hot dog? - Manbird - Feb 27, 2021 - 1:27pm
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - rhahl - Feb 27, 2021 - 8:41am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Proclivities - Feb 27, 2021 - 6:11am
 
Things You Thought Today - BlueHeronDruid - Feb 26, 2021 - 7:35pm
 
Classical Music - R_P - Feb 26, 2021 - 7:31pm
 
Birthday wishes - BlueHeronDruid - Feb 26, 2021 - 5:36pm
 
Joe Biden - KarmaKarma - Feb 26, 2021 - 3:14pm
 
Saudi Arabia - R_P - Feb 26, 2021 - 2:31pm
 
Anti-War - Ohmsen - Feb 26, 2021 - 2:01pm
 
Jazz - Ohmsen - Feb 26, 2021 - 1:43pm
 
Live Music - miamizsun - Feb 26, 2021 - 12:50pm
 
Braking News - miamizsun - Feb 26, 2021 - 12:39pm
 
Acoustic Guitar - rhahl - Feb 26, 2021 - 9:14am
 
Messages in a bottle. - Coaxial - Feb 26, 2021 - 4:27am
 
Get the Quote - sirdroseph - Feb 26, 2021 - 4:03am
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - sirdroseph - Feb 26, 2021 - 4:02am
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Feb 26, 2021 - 1:55am
 
Health Care - Isabeau - Feb 25, 2021 - 8:03pm
 
Lets Rock! - jlind - Feb 25, 2021 - 6:58pm
 
Favorite Scriptures...Leave Pontificating at the Door - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 25, 2021 - 6:57pm
 
Back to the 70's - rhahl - Feb 25, 2021 - 12:59pm
 
You're welcome, manbird. - oldviolin - Feb 25, 2021 - 11:47am
 
NETFLIX - oldviolin - Feb 25, 2021 - 10:31am
 
Skip not working on Volumio - Grarea - Feb 25, 2021 - 9:55am
 
What Did You See Today? - GeneP59 - Feb 25, 2021 - 8:58am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Trade War Page: 1, 2, 3  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 8:13pm

The United States hit the pause button on tariffs on Canadian aluminum today, agreeing to withdraw current penalties — at least until after the presidential election in November.

The move came right as Canada was set to impose a wide range of retaliatory measures that would have hit some politically inconvenient targets for President Donald Trump as he seeks re-election.

KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 8:09pm



 R_P wrote:
WTO rules US tariffs on Chinese imports broke global trade rules
Rebuke likely to increase Trump administration’s animosity towards trade body
 
If you think only tariffs are coming on Chinese products, you haven't been paying attention to the news.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Sep 15, 2020 - 1:28pm

WTO rules US tariffs on Chinese imports broke global trade rules
Rebuke likely to increase Trump administration’s animosity towards trade body
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Nov 2, 2018 - 2:39pm

How's that trade war going?
U.S. trade deficit increased to $𝟓𝟒 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 in September (reported today)
• 4th straight month of increase
• 7-month high
• Imports hit a record ($218 billion)
• Imports from China increased, pushed the trade gap up 4.3% to $40.2 billion — highest on record

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 22, 2018 - 6:36pm

Intellectual property — John H. Cochrane

Cochrane ridicules the notion that American companies operating or seeking to operate in China are 'forced' to transfer technology.  Nobody is forcing those companies to sign those contracts.

The Chinese currency manipulation story is old news.  The technology issue is real.   Though the answer appears simple if we follow Cochrane's suggestion: Just say no.

As for the Chinese distorting their own and global markets through an active, interventionist industrial policy — that is real.  

The best response would be public ridicule and active discrimination against Chinese financial activities in North American markets.  Block the Chinese from taking control of companies.

The Holy Grail of foreign direct investment (FDI) is the technology transfers — usually from the perspective of the host country.  Dumb capital is dumb capital and is relatively easy to come by.

Expertise is the key.  As most Chinese companies have little or nothing to show their North American peers, the social interest of Chinese buy-outs should be zero.   The Chinese severely restrict the activities of foreign multinationals operating on their soil, we should do the same with their multinationals on our soil.  Allow a minority interest at the outside.  

Foreign investment policy should not be predicated on simply making individuals richer.   In fact, the Chinese appear interested in buying foreign multinationals in order to acquire technology.  Some of the premiums the Chinese National Oil Companies (NOCs) have paid are fabulous.  The premium is being paid IMO to secure the technology and the opportunity for Chinese nationals to learn by doing, not the resource per se.  A simpler cheaper route would be to buy refined products in the global markets.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 22, 2018 - 12:43pm

Still waiting for Lazy8 to quit holding back and tell us what he REALLY thinks about Paul Krugman.
{#Wink}
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 21, 2018 - 11:17pm

 black321 wrote:
July 20, 2018 11:35 a.m. ET
 

President Donald Trump is steering U.S. economic policy in a radically new direction. From trying to revive steelmakers with tariffs to vetoing Chinese technology investments, he is using the federal government to direct which industries prosper and which don’t.

Many countries have long tilted the playing field toward favored companies and industries, a practice economists call industrial policy. American presidents have traditionally resisted this as “picking winners.”

The president has broken with that tradition, unveiling a series of actions on trade, foreign investment and energy he hopes will revive favored industries and beat back the competitive challenge of other countries—but which risk creating domestic losers.

His administration pushed strongly for a bill Congress is about to pass significantly expanding Washington’s power to scrutinize foreign investment and transactions that could compromise U.S. technological leadership.

These aren’t easily labeled a single, coherent policy because they reflect a mix of motives: nostalgia for America’s past industrial greatness, devotion to Mr. Trump’s electoral base and deep suspicion of China. What they do share is a willingness to override private business and investor decisions in the interests of national security, as Mr. Trump defines it.
Whether they will work is another question. The premise of industrial policy is that the private market doesn’t fully value all the benefits some companies and sectors bring the country: their contribution to national security, or to innovation and knowledge that spills over to the broader economy.
(not sure if this needs PW or not)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-emerging-economic-policy-picking-winners-and-losers-1532100935?mod=hp_lead_pos4

 
Which is perhaps the best reason not to endorse it. Governments are notoriously bad at picking winners. I understand the grievance of the intetllectual property theft institutionalised by China, and agree there should be some push-back in that regard, but China has pursued this policy for decades. Years ago I remember a German manager half-joking that Germany had a technological lead over China in his field of about two months, not more.  In the end it is what you do with the expertise and how efficiently you apply it. Some countries still seem better than others just as some companies seem better than others. In the end it is going to be issues of corruption and nepotism that will place the biggest brake on economic output and that will hold as true in China as it does in the USA or anywhere else.
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 21, 2018 - 4:18pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Sounds like he could be an economist.

 
{#Lol}
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 21, 2018 - 1:30pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

 
To their credit the NYT considers Krugman's articles to be editorials rather than news. He isn't reporting facts, he's giving his opinions and analysis on events. He has deadlines but his partisan inconsistencies aren't mistakes. He's writing his opinions, and he is the world's foremost authority on what his opinions are. The world's only authority on what his opinions are, in fact.
 
Actual journalists cop to their errors, print retractions, eventually try to correct the record—even if it's buried among the garage sale ads. Krugman never admits he was wrong, and his prognostication track record is abysmal.
 
 
 
Sounds like he could be an economist.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 21, 2018 - 1:03pm

 westslope wrote:
The mistakes that Krugman has made and the criticism he has received figure importantly among the reasons that most academics eschew popular writing.  It detracts from research for peer review journals and the frequency of output means ex ante a higher probability of misses.   

Look at main stream journalism regardless of the period or the country.  Journalists are always making mistakes.  Comes with the pressure to create content on a daily or weekly basis.  There is no conspiracy here. 

When I was very active in the 1980s peace and disarmament movement and closely followed the press, particularly media agenda setters I often wondered if up to 15% of the content was somehow wrong.  The nature of the beast that is all.  

Which in some respects is too bad. Look at the US cultural wars become even more polarized with the election of la Trumpette.   The USA has some of the most educated best brains on the planet and yet we constantly talk about American Exceptionalism which is code for the following.

Other rich, developed countries pay close attention to US policy experts and scientists while many US voters ignore them or go so far as to support policies diametrically opposed to the recommendations of hated experts. 
 
 
To their credit the NYT considers Krugman's articles to be editorials rather than news. He isn't reporting facts, he's giving his opinions and analysis on events. He has deadlines but his partisan inconsistencies aren't mistakes. He's writing his opinions, and he is the world's foremost authority on what his opinions are. The world's only authority on what his opinions are, in fact.
 
Actual journalists cop to their errors, print retractions, eventually try to correct the record—even if it's buried among the garage sale ads. Krugman never admits he was wrong, and his prognostication track record is abysmal.
 
None of which would matter if he weren't brought up so often as a genius authority on economic matters. He's no more credible on economics than Ariana Huffington or George Will, ad he's almost always out of his depth when he spouts off on politics.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 21, 2018 - 8:45am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 westslope wrote:
That is off the mark. 

The "Dems" came into power right after the 2008 Great Recession started.  When the GOP candidate was elected president, 9 years had elapsed since the Great Financial Recession and the US economy was already growing strongly.  

I can't think of anything in Krugman's writing that would have him sympathizing with the President la Trumpette's pro-cyclical Marxist Keynesian fiscal policy.  
 
Krugman has been pontificating in print since George HW Bush was president, so he has a paper trail longer than the 2008 recession.
 
I can't think of anything I've written that would imply Krugman approves of anything to do with Mango Mussolini.


 

Agreed, Krugman has put out a lot of excellent, insightful op/eds since George HW Bush.

Mango Mussolini is good.  La Trumpette constantly has me asking:  is this corporate fascism?
 
The mistakes that Krugman has made and the criticism he has received figure importantly among the reasons that most academics eschew popular writing.  It detracts from research for peer review journals and the frequency of output means ex ante a higher probability of misses.   

Look at main stream journalism regardless of the period or the country.  Journalists are always making mistakes.  Comes with the pressure to create content on a daily or weekly basis.  There is no conspiracy here. 

When I was very active in the 1980s peace and disarmament movement and closely followed the press, particularly media agenda setters I often wondered if up to 15% of the content was somehow wrong.  The nature of the beast that is all.  

Which in some respects is too bad. Look at the US cultural wars become even more polarized with the election of la Trumpette.   The USA has some of the most educated best brains on the planet and yet we constantly talk about American Exceptionalism which is code for the following.

Other rich, developed countries pay close attention to US policy experts and scientists while many US voters ignore them or go so far as to support policies diametrically opposed to the recommendations of hated experts.  

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 20, 2018 - 1:57pm

 westslope wrote:
That is off the mark. 

The "Dems" came into power right after the 2008 Great Recession started.  When the GOP candidate was elected president, 9 years had elapsed since the Great Financial Recession and the US economy was already growing strongly.  

I can't think of anything in Krugman's writing that would have him sympathizing with the President la Trumpette's pro-cyclical Marxist Keynesian fiscal policy.  
 
Krugman has been pontificating in print since George HW Bush was president, so he has a paper trail longer than the 2008 recession.
 
I can't think of anything I've written that would imply Krugman approves of anything to do with Mango Mussolini.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 20, 2018 - 1:46pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
....
 
But that doesn't seem to be the motivation for Krugman to renounce a position. Do deficits matter? Republican deficits do, Democratic deficits don't. Tariffs? Ditto. And on and on.
 
......


 
That is off the mark. 

The "Dems" came into power right after the 2008 Great Recession started.  When the GOP candidate was elected president, 9 years had elapsed since the Great Financial Recession and the US economy was already growing strongly.  

I can't think of anything in Krugman's writing that would have him sympathizing with the President la Trumpette's pro-cyclical Marxist Keynesian fiscal policy.  
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 20, 2018 - 12:24pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 aflanigan wrote:
I was careful to quote you exactly, I think. You're now backpedaling it seems from "Krugman never met a tariff he didn't like" to apparently admitting that narrowly tailored tariffs or surcharges can achieve some narrow policy goals if done judiciously. I'm pointing out that you're sounding inconsistent, starting with what is tantamount to accusing Krugman from being a full-throated proponent of any and all tariffs under any circumstances to owning up to their having some limited utility under some circumstances, and that he allegedly has "in the past" supported such occasional judicious application of them. 
 
If you're going to quote me exactly kindly refrain from quoting things (quotation marks are the little"" symbols) that I never said. In fact, I never said anything like the above. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else?
 
I said Krugman supports tariffs when his party wants to impose them and opposes them when Republicans (at least a Republican) wants them.That he's a partisan shill. And this isn't limited to tariffs; pick a topic. Any topic. Chances are he's been on both sides depending on who's in power or whose idea it was.
 
But how dare I criticize a Nobel Prize-winner? Where's my endorsement by a team of crack Swedish political hacks? I mean, if they say you're an Authority you must be one, even if the award was given for work on a narrow topic (how international trade promotes urbanization, say) and passed over much more influential thinkers.
 
As to what his fellow economists think of him...well, I suppose that depends on which ones you ask. Since economics isn't just descriptive but proscriptive (that is economists advocate policy as well as describing its results) it's also highly political. Political affiliation can trump academic rigor within a discipline like economics—there are still Marxist economists despite the evidence of the 20th century soundly refuting everything Marx thought about how the world works, for instance. There aren't any universities with astrologers or alchemists on staff as far as I know, but being utterly wrong about everything to do with economics is not a disqualifier for holding tenure in Economics.
 
But here's a sampling of what his peers think of him. It's about as vitriolic as what he thinks of...well, almost every economist who isn't Paul Krugman. He can be remarkably petty and thin-skinned, but when you write an article about the 2008 crisis titled "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"—without including himself in their number, of course—you tend to make a few enemies and you invite criticism of your own.
 
He's a bit of a dinosaur. He clings to Keynesian dogma regardless of the evidence. But who's to say he's wrong? Well, he is. Whatever positoin he's just declared The Obvious Truth Visible to Anyone Who Isn't a Complete Moron he'll denounce it himself as soon as the political winds shift.


 
You're right, I was paraphrasing, and shouldn't have used quotes. Your exact statement was "He's all for trade wars...when Democrats get to wage them". My apologies.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 20, 2018 - 12:22pm

July 20, 2018 11:35 a.m. ET
 

President Donald Trump is steering U.S. economic policy in a radically new direction. From trying to revive steelmakers with tariffs to vetoing Chinese technology investments, he is using the federal government to direct which industries prosper and which don’t.

Many countries have long tilted the playing field toward favored companies and industries, a practice economists call industrial policy. American presidents have traditionally resisted this as “picking winners.”

The president has broken with that tradition, unveiling a series of actions on trade, foreign investment and energy he hopes will revive favored industries and beat back the competitive challenge of other countries—but which risk creating domestic losers.

His administration pushed strongly for a bill Congress is about to pass significantly expanding Washington’s power to scrutinize foreign investment and transactions that could compromise U.S. technological leadership.

These aren’t easily labeled a single, coherent policy because they reflect a mix of motives: nostalgia for America’s past industrial greatness, devotion to Mr. Trump’s electoral base and deep suspicion of China. What they do share is a willingness to override private business and investor decisions in the interests of national security, as Mr. Trump defines it.
Whether they will work is another question. The premise of industrial policy is that the private market doesn’t fully value all the benefits some companies and sectors bring the country: their contribution to national security, or to innovation and knowledge that spills over to the broader economy.
(not sure if this needs PW or not)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-emerging-economic-policy-picking-winners-and-losers-1532100935?mod=hp_lead_pos4
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 20, 2018 - 12:16pm

 westslope wrote:
- just because Paul Krugman is off-side on the professional economist consensus on some issues and just because Krugman can be prickly and child-like on occasion does not mean that everything he writes is irrelevant or should be ignored.  

- as a general rule, when 'experts' stray outside their area of immediate expertise, they tend to make a lot of mistakes.  
 
I don't dismiss Krugman because others disagree with him, I dismiss him (in part) because he doesn't agree with him. If you want to change your mind then say so, and if you insulted people who disagreed with you the first time you should apologize. Changing your mind is a good thing—when you're wrong. The first step tho is admitting you were wrong.
 
But that doesn't seem to be the motivation for Krugman to renounce a position. Do deficits matter? Republican deficits do, Democratic deficits don't. Tariffs? Ditto. And on and on.
 
I'm not an economist. I'm not going to predict next quarter's unemployment figures, but I can spot an absurd fallacy when I see one. And if Paul Krugman gets to predict the future of the internet then I get to comment on his prognostications.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 20, 2018 - 10:20am

Lazy8,

You are correct in much of your criticism of Paul Krugman.  I recall post Great Recession feeling really angry towards Krugman. In particular because of the NYT September 2009 article that you posted.  I also recall stopping reading Krugman on a regular basis after that.  

I agree that some of the name calling is childish and provocative in an unproductive way.  He writes like he is having a heated seminar discussion with colleagues that he knows well.

The Neo-Classical Keynesian synthesis may no longer be taught in graduate in schools but it is still taught at the under-graduate level and is pervasive in the media/business press.  

Krugman's obsession with the liquidity trap was unconvincing.

His advice to run bigger deficits after 2008 was not one that many agreed with given the exceptionally loose, stimulative monetary policy at the time.  But certainly in hindsight, the US had the room to increase deficit-financed expenditures.   For better or worse, Krugman's prescription fits with traditional Keynesian macroeconomic management.  

Krugman's call for increased deficit financing post 2008 does not fit with Conservative Keynesian macro management which emphasizes the use of automatic fiscal stabilizers and eschews discrete fiscal stimulus or discrete fiscal withdrawal.  

A couple of more comments:

- this discussion is more insightful than many of the comment pages on economic blogs by heavy hitters.  You Lazy8 and others are to be commended.

- just because Paul Krugman is off-side on the professional economist consensus on some issues and just because Krugman can be prickly and child-like on occasion does not mean that everything he writes is irrelevant or should be ignored.  

- as a general rule, when 'experts' stray outside their area of immediate expertise, they tend to make a lot of mistakes.  


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 19, 2018 - 2:21pm

 aflanigan wrote:
I was careful to quote you exactly, I think. You're now backpedaling it seems from "Krugman never met a tariff he didn't like" to apparently admitting that narrowly tailored tariffs or surcharges can achieve some narrow policy goals if done judiciously. I'm pointing out that you're sounding inconsistent, starting with what is tantamount to accusing Krugman from being a full-throated proponent of any and all tariffs under any circumstances to owning up to their having some limited utility under some circumstances, and that he allegedly has "in the past" supported such occasional judicious application of them. 
 
If you're going to quote me exactly kindly refrain from quoting things (quotation marks are the little"" symbols) that I never said. In fact, I never said anything like the above. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else?
 
I said Krugman supports tariffs when his party wants to impose them and opposes them when Republicans (at least a Republican) wants them.That he's a partisan shill. And this isn't limited to tariffs; pick a topic. Any topic. Chances are he's been on both sides depending on who's in power or whose idea it was.
 
But how dare I criticize a Nobel Prize-winner? Where's my endorsement by a team of crack Swedish political hacks? I mean, if they say you're an Authority you must be one, even if the award was given for work on a narrow topic (how international trade promotes urbanization, say) and passed over much more influential thinkers.
 
As to what his fellow economists think of him...well, I suppose that depends on which ones you ask. Since economics isn't just descriptive but proscriptive (that is economists advocate policy as well as describing its results) it's also highly political. Political affiliation can trump academic rigor within a discipline like economics—there are still Marxist economists despite the evidence of the 20th century soundly refuting everything Marx thought about how the world works, for instance. There aren't any universities with astrologers or alchemists on staff as far as I know, but being utterly wrong about everything to do with economics is not a disqualifier for holding tenure in Economics.
 
But here's a sampling of what his peers think of him. It's about as vitriolic as what he thinks of...well, almost every economist who isn't Paul Krugman. He can be remarkably petty and thin-skinned, but when you write an article about the 2008 crisis titled "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"—without including himself in their number, of course—you tend to make a few enemies and you invite criticism of your own.
 
He's a bit of a dinosaur. He clings to Keynesian dogma regardless of the evidence. But who's to say he's wrong? Well, he is. Whatever positoin he's just declared The Obvious Truth Visible to Anyone Who Isn't a Complete Moron he'll denounce it himself as soon as the political winds shift.



NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 1:07pm

 Proclivities wrote:

"More to lose" seems an awkward (if not inappropriate) phrase for an "economics" writer to use when they are trying to say it would be "worse" for one side.  China doesn't  literally have "more" of everything, but they could be more adversely affected by a prolonged trade war.  I guess I always think of that phrase in relation to something like a card game or some other sort of gamble, when one party literally has "more to lose" than another. I don't know, I guess I'm getting too literal lately - need more beer, or sleep, or something...

 
agreed. You need more beer. It is also far too early to tell yet. Just wait till the higher costs hit the consumers.


westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 12:17pm

 aflanigan wrote:

{#Yes}

It is of course unsurprising that people of a libertarian bent have little respect for Krugman, as he does occasionally hold Austrian school economic beliefs up to ridicule.

 
I have a libertarian bent but also have a lot of respect for Krugman. I find him weakest in the macroeconomic sphere but he is still most worthwhile.  

The Austrian school had/has some interesting ideas but insufficient empirical support for many ideas.  

Krugman has been critical of the Israeli nation-building process and has lamented the difficulty of discussing the Israeli project.   I trust everybody knows what happens to "Bad Jews" or "Soft Jews".  

Ring, ring!   At 2:00 AM.   "Hello?"   "You are going to die."  
Page: 1, 2, 3  Next