Krugman Is Too Short to Be a Good Economist

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/the-war-on-demand/

I would define intellectual honesty as engaging with your opponents' arguments, either showing why they are wrong, or conceding that they are correct, and changing your opinions accordingly.

Krugman, naturally, apparently feels differently. He doesn't deign to actually engage with his opponents' arguments. Instead, he asserts that their arguments are based strictly on morality. In other words, he engages in wild speculation as to his opponents' subjective state of mind, rather than actually discussing the objective merits of their position. In fact, by assumption, Krugman's opponents don't even think, just blindly lashing out in anger at the truth he bestows upon them.

As you read this column, you'll learn nothing about economics, but plenty about Krugman's smug assumptions and failure to engage with his opponents' arguments.

"It’s becoming clear to me that a substantial number of writers on economics find the whole idea that the economy can suffer because people are too thrifty, insufficiently willing to spend, deeply repugnant."

This is a classic ad hominem attack. Instead of attacking the arguments of his opponents, he is calling them irrational. If Krugman's opponents are wrong, he should focuse on showing why they are wrong, not stating they're unduly emotional.

And, you'll note the implicit assumption here, namely that because his opponents' arguments coincide with their moral beliefs, they aren't to be taken seriously. But, an argument can be supported by both moral and factual bases, and the fact that an argument is being made by a person who also believes in its morality doesn't undermine its veracity. Imagine if a "scientist" said "I believe that global warming is a serious environmental risk." Would it undermine his conclusion if you knew that he was a committed environmentalist that cared deeply about preserving the Earth? Of course not.

(Note: the quotes around "scientist" are because science can not, by its very nature, resolve the global warming debate)

"I’m the sort of person who finds the notion that sometimes virtue is vice and prudence folly interesting"

Its great that Krugman is just the sort of guy who loves deep philosophical explorations. But, the relevant question isn't whether its "interesing" to reward bad behavior, its whether its either ethical or wealth-maximizing. This little self-congratulatory aside adds nothing to the debate.

"but it’s clear that a number of people find that notion just plain evil. The world shouldn’t be like that — and therefore it isn’t."

Krugman here engages in an obnoxious, self-serving characterization of his opponents' thought processes. In contrast to his Olympian willingness to consider all ideas, Krugman's opponents are portrayed as narrow-minded, irrational people who are too stupid to give complex or counterintutive ideas any thought.

In fact, there are hundreds of free-market economists who have thought deeply about the failures of Keynesian economics -- they just don't believe that the Keynesiam paradigm works. Krugman's dismissal of them as unthinking, ironically, makes him guilty of the very think he condemns, namely a refusal to actually think through an opponent's arguments.

Note: Krugman makes several other assertions in this column that I will discuss in a separate post.