He goes there-claiming that Krugman is woefully out of step with 'his peers.' Now right away this begs certain questions? By peers, Goodman means respected economists. So the first question is, who died and made Goodman a respected economist? Certainly nothing in his personal information at the end of the article makes it clear that he is in anyway a respected economist or even an economist at all.
"John C. Goodman is Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute and author of the widely acclaimed book, Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis. The Wall Street Journal and National Journal, among other media, have called him the "Father of Health Savings Accounts."
So there is nothing to show that he is an economist of any stripe and that he is a 'Senior Fellow' at a Right wing outfit like The Independent Institute tells you a lot. He seems less an economist than the Wall Street Journal's idea of an economist-they also think Stephen Moore is an economist.
Wiki though does humor him and calls him a 'libertarian economist' a kind of contradiction in terms.
"John C. Goodman is a libertarian economist. He was the founding chief executive of the free-market think-tank the National Center for Policy Analysis.[1] He is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute.[2] The Wall Street Journal and The National Journal have called Goodman the "father of Health Savings Accounts".[3]"
I wonder how many respected economists believe in Health Savings Accounts. Again, I ask about who is he because he's making a pretty strong statement-almost certainly too strong. If he's going to claim Krugman has become an embarrassment among respected economists where are his credentials to be a card carrying respected economist.
I mean he needs to be coming from a pretty strong place in standing to throw mud like this:
"Paul Krugman has become an embarrassment to the economics profession. Despite his Nobel Prize and despite his previous high regard in the profession, his twice-a-week editorials in The New York Times are causing even progressive economists to treat him as somewhat of a kook."
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2015/01/17/paul-krugman-rejected-by-his-peers-n1944174/page/full
As is symptomatic for Right wing Krugman haters he goes from calling Krugman a kook to whining that Krugman resorts to name calling and gets personal.
"It’s one thing to be wrong. But whether right or wrong, most economists don’t attack the character intelligence and general sanity of those who disagree with them. Krugman, by contrast, writes that the leaders of the United Kingdomremind him of the Three Stooges."
Again, is it worse or better to call someone a kook or say they resemble the Three Stooges? I'd say it's at best a wash. As Goodman is not above insulting Krugman personally he ought to lose the sanctimony.
Now how about all those 'progressive economists' who are also so embarrassed by Krugman? I'd love to see names and we can certainly think of plenty who are not so?
Goodman comes up with one: Jeffrey Sachs, which is something of a misnomer as Sachs has never been a fan of Krugman's so there is nothing new in this.
"Sachs, who is every bit as left wing as Krugman, writes:
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/sachs-and-age-of-diminished-expectations.html
"John C. Goodman is Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute and author of the widely acclaimed book, Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis. The Wall Street Journal and National Journal, among other media, have called him the "Father of Health Savings Accounts."
So there is nothing to show that he is an economist of any stripe and that he is a 'Senior Fellow' at a Right wing outfit like The Independent Institute tells you a lot. He seems less an economist than the Wall Street Journal's idea of an economist-they also think Stephen Moore is an economist.
Wiki though does humor him and calls him a 'libertarian economist' a kind of contradiction in terms.
"John C. Goodman is a libertarian economist. He was the founding chief executive of the free-market think-tank the National Center for Policy Analysis.[1] He is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute.[2] The Wall Street Journal and The National Journal have called Goodman the "father of Health Savings Accounts".[3]"
I wonder how many respected economists believe in Health Savings Accounts. Again, I ask about who is he because he's making a pretty strong statement-almost certainly too strong. If he's going to claim Krugman has become an embarrassment among respected economists where are his credentials to be a card carrying respected economist.
I mean he needs to be coming from a pretty strong place in standing to throw mud like this:
"Paul Krugman has become an embarrassment to the economics profession. Despite his Nobel Prize and despite his previous high regard in the profession, his twice-a-week editorials in The New York Times are causing even progressive economists to treat him as somewhat of a kook."
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2015/01/17/paul-krugman-rejected-by-his-peers-n1944174/page/full
As is symptomatic for Right wing Krugman haters he goes from calling Krugman a kook to whining that Krugman resorts to name calling and gets personal.
"It’s one thing to be wrong. But whether right or wrong, most economists don’t attack the character intelligence and general sanity of those who disagree with them. Krugman, by contrast, writes that the leaders of the United Kingdomremind him of the Three Stooges."
Again, is it worse or better to call someone a kook or say they resemble the Three Stooges? I'd say it's at best a wash. As Goodman is not above insulting Krugman personally he ought to lose the sanctimony.
Now how about all those 'progressive economists' who are also so embarrassed by Krugman? I'd love to see names and we can certainly think of plenty who are not so?
Goodman comes up with one: Jeffrey Sachs, which is something of a misnomer as Sachs has never been a fan of Krugman's so there is nothing new in this.
"Sachs, who is every bit as left wing as Krugman, writes:
Not one of [Krugman’s] New York Times commentaries in the first half of 2013, when “austerian” deficit cutting was taking effect, forecast a major reduction in unemployment or that economic growth would recover to brisk rates. On the contrary, “the disastrous turn toward austerity has destroyed millions of jobs and ruined many lives,” he argued, with the US Congress exposing Americans to “the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.” As a result, “Full recovery still looks a very long way off,” he warned. “And I’m beginning to worry that it may never happen.”
"And Sachs makes the more general point that you can believe in progressive government without buying into Krugman’s kooky economic theories:
"There is nothing progressive about large budget deficits and a rising debt-to-GDP ratio. After all, large deficits have no reliable effect on reducing unemployment, and deficit reduction can be consistent with falling unemployment."
Again, though, Sachs has always been a fan of austerian policies whether or not he likes to call himself a progressive. He's been a fan of 'structural reforms' for 20 years. Yet Goodman's narrative is supposed to make you think that it's the recent arguments that has revealed to Sachs that Krugman is 'an embarrassment.'
Goodman himself again shows that he is no worthy peer of Krugman's by claiming that it's kooky to believe that a recession is the wrong time to go on a deficit cutting crusade. Most economists actually agree with him and by the way most also agree with Obama's fiscal stimulus so who exactly is the embarrassment to most economists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/upshot/what-debate-economists-agree-the-stimulus-lifted-the-economy.html
Finally, Goodman brings out the big guns: Scott Sumner. Sumner is this 'economic peer' so embarrassed by Krugman. This is funny as Sumner himself is an embarrassment to most economists the way he comports himself on his blog.
"Krugman took a victory lap in his end-of-2014 column on “The Obama Recovery” … [making] the incredible claim … that everything has turned out just as he predicted.
"University of Chicago economist John Cochrane writes that Krugman’s economic view of the world is not taught in any major economics graduate schools, is not taken seriously at academic conferences and is not considered acceptable by any professional economics journals."
"Monetary economist Scott Sumner points out that there is no empirical evidence to support Krugman’s views:
… it would be useful to do a more systematic study of fiscal austerity, but the Keynesians don't seem to know how to do so. All I see are cross sectional studies that mix together countries with an independent monetary policy, with those that lack an independent monetary policy (like the Eurozone members.) Mark Sadowski did a regression with only those countries having an independent monetary policy, and found the effect went away. No correlation between austerity and growth. This objection to Krugman's graphs has been made over and over again, but he never responds.
"So what is this theory that Krugman believes but most all other economists reject? More on that in Part II."
Well, gee, there's more? We're certainly looking forward to that! Maybe that's when he lists all these notable respected economists even progressive economists who have lost all respect for Krugman,
In part 1, all Goodman could come up with Jeffrey Sachs-who is not held in such high respect by most respected progressive economists-then John Cochrane-John Cochrane?!-and finally Sumner who is something of an embarrassment among economists himself. I like how Cochrane speaks dismissively about how the economic journals and conferences don't agree with Krugman as if any respected and respectable economist holds the economic journals and conferences in such high regard.
Everyone knows, the journals are the RBCers personal fiefdom.
As for Sumner, I have said again and again that Krugman needs to take him more seriously. This whole monetary offset idea is something Krugman really should answer in my opinion.
This is not because Sumner is right but that his disinformation campaign gives hope to all the fake economists like Goodman-all the Senior Fellows at the various Right wing think tanks that they have a winning argument.
In truth Sumner's argument-Sachs uses it here as well-is specious. Yes, the American economy seems to be doing a little better now but it sure took a long time. If Sumner and Sachs-we won't even mention Cochrane who doesn't even make any intellectual arguments just gloats about who gets invited to conferences-are such great economists how come they forget here that causation is not proof of correlation?
Krugman never said the economy would fall off a cliff if there was austerity just it wouldn't grow as fast as it otherwise would. There are also human costs of the policy for Americans effected whether or not it shows up in GDP numbers as well to consider.
I mean historically speaking this has been a very slow recovery-anyone who is any kind of economist knows that. I mean it's taken us 6 years. As the last 4 years have been a period of fiscal consolidation it's tough to see why austerity's champions are crowing.
P.S. For more on Sachs' criticisms of Krugman see here
http://angrybearblog.com/2015/01/29208.html
UPDATE: Simon Wren Lewis does a very interesting counter-factual of what growth rates might have been if there was no austerity in the U.S.
This review of Goodman's article is bullshit
ReplyDeleteSo is your Mom. I say this as apparently this is about childish insults for you.
Delete