krugman 26/02

7/21/2019 Krugman 26/02

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/krugman-2602 1/1

Paul Krugman

 joined The New

York Times in 1999

as a columnist on

the Op-Ed page

and continues

as a professor of

economics and

international

affairs at Princeton

University. He was awarded the

 Nobel in economic s cience in 2008.

 Mr. Krugman is t he author or edit or

of 21 books and more than 200

 papers in pr ofessional journ als and

edited volumes. His latest book is

“End This Depression Now!” 

Personally, I’m sick of the whole BernieSanders/Hillary Clinton debate, but one of

my mottos for column-writing has been “if itfeels bad, do it.” If I really want to avoid a topicbecause it makes my life uncomfortable andwill predictably lead to another wave of angr yemail, that’s probably a good indication thatit’s important.

There is one other aspect of this discussionthat should be aired, involving incentives andmotives.

What you get a lot from supporters of Mr.Sanders are accusations of bad faith. In gen-eral, “feeling the Bern” often seems to meanaccusing anyone who doesn’t of corruption. Sohow should we think about such thi ngs?

First of all, yes, corruption — including cor-ruption of alleged experts — really does hap-pen. It tends to be a much bigger issue on theright, simply because there’s so much moremoney and so many fewer scruples. I’ve beensaying for a while that there are three kinds ofeconomists: liberal professional economists,conservative professional economists and pro-fessional conservative economists. The box fora fourth kind is mostly empty, for lack of f und-ing. Still, it would be naïve to claim that main-taining access to corporate consulting gigs

and the like has no effect on policy a rguments.But it’s also naïve, and destructive, to pre-

sume that that’s all t here is. You don’t have tobe a corporate hireling or a shill for Mrs. Clin-ton to be taken aback when a Democratic ca m-paign endorses economic projections that areeven more outlandish than the Republican fan-tasies you were ridiculing just the other day.And you really, really don’t want to go downthe rabbit hole of assessing everyone’s argu-ments solely on their political convenience,and assuming that nobody who disagrees withyou might honestly disagree with you. That’swhat right-wing apparatchiks do, a nd youdon’t want to emulate them.

It’s also important to understand that to theextent that personal ambition distorts analy-sis, that’s not a phenomenon unique to well-connected insiders. For sure, big money orthe prospect of having big influence are muchmore powerful corrupting forces than what

I’m about to describe. But t hey’re not the onlysources of impurity.

Imagine an economist who has some fol-lowing but is, for whatever reason, not in the“nomenklatura” of policy wonks who typi-cally get called upon to advise officials or givespeeches at financial conferences. That mig htbe because said economist holds views thatare considered too heterodox. Or it might bebecause he is too honest about the corruptionof the mighty. Or perhaps insider circles don’tconsider him especially insightful or eventechnically competent — which in turn couldbe a huge injustice, or possibly kind of true.Whatever the reason, he is, or feels himself tobe, on the outside looking in.

Now imagine that our outsider encounters asituation in which another outsider, this time inthe sphere of politics, has some chance of stag-ing an upset victory. It should be obvious thatour outsider economist has every personalincentive to throw his lot in with the politica loutsider — even if the politician’s chances ofwinning are relatively small, and even if hiscampaign could bring about disaster becauseit’s not ready for the challenges of the largerworld. The point is that if the outsider politicianshould happen to emerge victorious, it will

give the outsider economist a seat at the table,which he won’t have otherwise.

It also follows that this outsider has everyincentive to vilify a nd blacken the reputationof insider types who aren’t on the challenger’sbandwagon, even if this means alienatingprogressives whose support he could reallyuse later on (after all, you don’t want to seeyour champion turn to established figures if hemakes it to office).

My point is not that outsiders are more cor-rupt than insiders, nor t hat everyone’s actionsright now should be seen as reflecting nothingbut self-interest. That’s exactly what I’m argu-ing against! What I’m saying instead is thatnobody can be presumed to be pure simplybecause he is currently without much power oraccess to power — for that very lack of powercan have its own distorting effect.

What each of us should do all the time is askourselves not just what we believe but why.

One fun thing about being a publicfigure is hearing some of the rumorsabout the terrible, terrible thingsthat you’ve done. In my case, therewas the fake story about my per-sonal bankruptcy a few years ago,and then that story about how I hadto leave Princeton because of mydrunken brawls with colleagues.

I thought that was as good as itwas going to get. But now I’m hear-ing that I’ve received lavish favorsfrom Donald Trump, including staysat his properties and free gamblingchips.

I have to say, this imaginary vil-lain sounds a lot more interestingthan the real g uy.

This Is What a Wall Street

Shill Sounds Like

The estimable Mike Konczal at the

Roosevelt Institute recently pointedout in a blog post that the Republicanpresidential candidate Marco Rubiois even more radical in his desire toscrap all regulation of the financialindustry than the rest of the Repub-lican field. Mr. Rubio wants to getrid of the Dodd-Frank Wall StreetReform and Consumer ProtectionAct, with no replacement, and hewants to eliminate all taxes on capi-tal income.

The Florida senator has also fullybought in to the “Big Lie” (as thecommentator Barry Ritholtz puts it)that private sector abuses had noth-ing to do with the financial crisis,and that somehow it was big govern-

ment that forced banks to make allthose bad loans. This is dangerousnonsense. We should, however, notethat one other potential candidate

is peddling the same stuff: MichaelBloomberg.

Running Away

From the annals of they can di shit out but they can’t take it: “Mega-Donors Shy Away From Fight WithTrump,” according to Politico.“Fearful of counterattacks, richconservatives and their allies aremostly holding their fire.” (Read thearticle here: politi.co/1mW9RWK.)

Or to put it another way, the Re-publican Party has decided — to runaway.

I still predict that once Mr. Trumplocks up the nomination, judicious,chin-stroking Republican moder-

ates will declare, after much cogita-tion, that given Hillar y Clinton’s,um, something or other, Mr. Trumpis the more responsible choice.

PAUL KRUGMAN

 How ‘Feeling the Bern’ Can Lead to Distortions

PAUL KRUGMAN

 Debunking the Latest Tall Tales

On Feb. 20, former Secretaryof State Hillary Clinton won the

Nevada Democratic caucus, her

first significant victory in the par-

ty’s presidential nominating con-

test. A year ago, Mrs. Clinton was

widely expected to have a rela-

tively easy path to the nomina-

tion, but in recent months she has

faced an unexpected challenge

from Senator Bernie Sanders, a

self-described “democratic social-

ist” from Vermont who is popular

among younger voters.

In the American nomina-

tion process, the contests in ear-

ly states tend to receive outsized

media attention, and victories

can sometimes propel largely un-

known candidates to national

prominence. The long-term suc-

cess of Mr. Sanders’s campaign

was predicated on besting Mrs.

Clinton in enough early states toboost his national profile, and af-

ter he effectively tied Mrs. Clin-

ton in Iowa and beat her in New

Hampshire, national polls showed

that the race was tightening.

Shortly before the Nevada cau-

cus, polls there showed Mr. Sand-

ers running even with Mrs. Clin-

ton. However, Mrs. Clinton held

on to achieve a five-point victory

over Mr. Sanders, and some an-

alysts have speculated that her

win effectively stopped the Ver-

mont senator’s early momentum.

The upcoming nomination sched-

ule heavily favors Mrs. Clinton,

and Mr. Sanders will have few op-

portunities to change the national

narrative in the coming months.

Still, while some political pun-

dits believe that Mrs. Clinton once

again has a clear path to the nom-

ination, others expect Mr. Sand-ers to continue to dominate with

younger voters, which he won by

70 points in Iowa, and by similar

margins in the other contests.

“Whether or not Bernie Sand-

ers wins the Democratic nomina-

tion outright, he’s already won in

another, perhaps more important

way: His brand of politics is the

future of the Democratic Party,”

wrote the Vox commentator Mat-

thew Yglesias earlier this month.

“What’s clear is that there’s ro-

bust demand among Democrats

— especially the next genera-

tion of Democrats — to remake

the party along more ideological,

more social democratic lines, and

party leaders are going to have

to answer that demand or get

steamrolled.”

BACKSTORY

 A ShiftIn the Race

Mr. Krugman, when it comes to

Bernie Sanders’s economic pro-posals, I agree with the central

points of your arguments. How-ever, the constant criticism can gettiring.

Someone should put together anactual economic analysis of Mr.Sanders’s plans and provide a dataset that a broad swath of liberal pro-fessional economists can agree on.

Only then can we move on fromthis sorry episode.

— C.D.P., CALIFORNIA

I find the criticism of your recent

columns to be quite puzzling.

After the 1960s, I became skepti-cal of all the “come the revolution”talk, and Mr. Sanders’s supportersseem to be using similar rhetoricthese days.

It seems to me that your criticismis simply intended as a message toMr. Sanders that he should get his

ducks in a row. I have yet to readsomething of yours that would leadme to believe that you are shilli ng forHillary Clinton, nor have I ever seena sign that you are an esta blishmentfigure.

I am sorry that the debate ha scome to this. If Mrs. Clinton holdsenough support to win the Demo-cratic nomination and the disap-pointed Sanders fans decide to siton their hands on Election Day, theUnited States could end up electingDonald Trump, or even worse, TedCruz or Marco Rubio.

— STEPHEN BERWIND, BRITAIN

Mr. Krugman, just explain why

Mrs. Clinton’s policies are better

for America.

And don’t begin your argument bysaying: “While I support [specificprogressive policy], there is no wayit can happen.”

We will never have progressivepolicies implemented in this countryif we give up on them before we evenhave a substantial debate.

— SCOTT W., NORTH CAROLINA

As an ardent supporter of Mr.

Sanders, I greatly appreciate your

honest criticism and clear desire

to remain transparent about your

views.

Whether we want to admit it ornot, there is a certain strain of Sand-ers supporter who shows up onvarious online comments sectionssimply to disparage anyone who

disagrees with him. This i s not thepath forward — this tactic will onlydiscredit the genuine concerns thetmillions of people have about healthcare, inequality, wages and per-petual war.

— NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Krugman, you have yet to

provide a direct analysis of either

of the Democratic candidates’

economic policy proposals.In-stead, you have chosen to lash outagainst your critics, lumping themtogether in a homogeneous mass.

A true wonk would engage withthe candidates’ proposed policiesand at least evaluate the ana lyses ofother liberal economists and com-mentators, while checking their as-

sumptions and math.— NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA

The thing that’s most worri-

some about some of Mr. Sanders’s

supporters is their tendency to

vilify Mrs. Clinton and her fans as

though they were Republicans. When the center-left of the party

becomes the enemy, it feels like the2000 election all over again, whenthe Democratic candidate Al Gorewas treated as if he was par t of theproblem, and Ralph Nader, of theGreen Party, was considered bymany to be the only candidate worthvoting for.

— AMY MULLEN, NEW YORK 

Mr. Krugman, when you find

yourself to be the target of legiti-

mate criticism from the left , your

response is seldom to apologize.

Instead, you pull out your tatteredvictim card and l ist some of the mostunhinged, ridiculous attacks thatthe right has waged against you.Why, it must be a vast rig ht-wingconspiracy!

Sorry, but I am turning down theinvite to your pity party this time,with no reg rets whatsoever. Your

misguided adventures in the Hill-ary Clinton apologist racket havehad the sad effect of destroying your

reputation and credibility with morethan a few erstwhile admirers.

— T.B., NEW YORK 

Donald’s Trump’s economic plan

could be called “casino econom-

ics”: The house always wins. Andthe gamblers, who have been soft-ened up with free drinks, won’t real-ize that they’ve been had until theywake up the next morning.

— ANDY W., ILLINOIS

Imaginary villains are alwaysmore villainous than real villains.

— STEPHEN BEARD, OHIO

Mr. Krugman, I would like to see

you write about how Mrs. Clinton’s

policy decisions might be affected

by the tens of millions of dollars

that her and her husband have

received in speaking fees from

special interest groups over the

years.

Mrs. Clinton says that if she iselected president, she will get toughon Wall Street. But do you really be-lieve that someone who accepted $3million in fees from financial firmsin one year alone is going to deliveron that pledge?

I suggest that you start writingabout your preferred candidatewith a critical pen, and explain why

money in politics is a good thing.In the end, the real sca ndal for me

is how Mrs. Clinton’s supporters

refuse to explain how her presidencywould be anything but a continua -tion of the status quo.

Please explain why that won’t bethe case, and don’t bring Mr. Sand-ers into the conversation in order touse him as a cover for not addressingthe issue.

— S., NORTH CAROLINA

No matter how badly we paint

the opposition in our minds, they

remain human beings attached to

ideals.Some of them — sadly, I must ad-

mit — considertheir expression offavor and preference as a matter ofloyalty.

But can we blame them?I am especially well versed in

intellectual matters, and despite my

best efforts and knowledge, it stillbugs me when someone exposes myflaws.

There are times for self-criticism,and then there are times to supportyour friends. Such is the humancondition.

— S., CANADA

The Republican Party has be-

come dangerous to American

democracy, as well as to our

economy.

I am an old-fashioned conserva-tive voter, and right now even Mr.Sanders seems much more desirablethan any of the candidates in the Re-publican stable. He seems to be far

less radical and much more knowl-edgeable.

— STEPHEN, FLORIDA

READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM

Less Criticism and More Analysis

READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM

 Who’s the Victim Here?

RUTH FREMSON/THE NEW YORK TIMES

Donald Trump addresses supporters in Las Vegas earlier this month after winning the Nevada caucuses.

ROWE/AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW - SYDNEY/CARTOON ARTS INTERNATIONAL/THE NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE

DEBATING POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND OTHER TIMELY TOPICS WITH PAUL KRUGMAN OF THE NEW YORK TIMES FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2016

ONLINE: COMMENTS 

Comments have been edited for clarity and

length. For Paul Krugman’s latest thoughts

and to join the debate online, visit his blog at

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.