Paul Krugman, Unfair Bully
In case people are confused, Paul Krugman drives me bananas not because he’s a Keynesian, but because he’s an unfair bully who mocks people on his blog. Look at this:
2. Paul Ryan requires that his staffers read Atlas Shrugged. I mean, I was inspired by Isaac Asimov, but I don’t think I’m Hari Seldon — whereas Ryan, it seems, really does think he’s John Galt.Time to bring out the classic quote:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Future historians will giggle at our expense.
Now it’s good that Krugman engaged in a pre-emptive strike on himself; he couldn’t merely mock Ryan for being a fan of a novel, because in the New Yorker profile of Krugman we read:
Krugman explained that he’d become an economist because of science fiction. When he was a boy, he’d read Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” trilogy and become obsessed with the central character, Hari Seldon. Seldon was a “psychohistorian”—a scientist with such a precise understanding of the mechanics of society that he could predict the course of events thousands of years into the future and save mankind from centuries of barbarism. He couldn’t predict individual behavior—that was too hard—but it didn’t matter, because history was determined not by individuals but by laws and hidden forces. “If you read other genres of fiction, you can learn about the way people are and the way society is,” Krugman said to the audience, “but you don’t get very much thinking about why are things the way they are, or what might make them different. What would happen if ?”
With Hari Seldon in mind, Krugman went to Yale, in 1970, intending to study history, but he felt that history was too much about what and not enough about why, so he ended up in economics. Economics, he found, examined the same infinitely complicated social reality that history did but, instead of elucidating its complexity, looked for patterns and rules that made the complexity seem simple. Why did some societies have serfs or slaves and others not? You could talk about culture and national character and climate and changing mores and heroes and revolts and the history of agriculture and the Romans and the Christians and the Middle Ages and all the rest of it; or, like Krugman’s economics teacher Evsey Domar, you could argue that if peasants are barely surviving there’s no point in enslaving them, because they have nothing to give you, but if good new land becomes available it makes sense to enslave them, because you can skim off the difference between their output and what it takes to keep them alive. Suddenly, a simple story made sense of a huge and baffling swath of reality, and Krugman found that enormously satisfying.
OK, so since Krugman says he’s not nearly as weird as Paul Ryan, surely if we follow Krugman’s link, we’ll read that Paul Ryan…I don’t know, is building a gulch somewhere. Nope, here it is:
Representative Paul Ryan, also of Wisconsin, requires staffers to read Atlas Shrugged, describes Obama’s economic policies as “something right out of an Ayn Rand novel,” and calls Rand “the reason I got involved in public service.”
and
“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” …
At the Rand celebration he spoke at in 2005, Ryan invoked the central theme of Rand’s writings when he told his audience that, “Almost every fight we are involved in here on Capitol Hill … is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict–individualism versus collectivism.”
So you can see why Paul Ryan is a geeky weirdo who lives in fantasy land, whereas Krugman was probably the homecoming king in high school such is his cool machismo.
(Just to be clear, I don’t think I am the Italian Stallion. In fact, Italians and Irish often don’t get along.)
Hey, I liked that Atlas Shrugged quote. You have to admit that it was funny.
It was funny. And you have to admit that Johnny beat the cr*p out of Daniel-san in Karate Kid. Johnny is still a bully.
(I mean in the beginning, not in the end.)
Oh, I am with you on that Bob…..bully is an appropriate term to use, despite Daniel K’s bizarre objections below. I’m not quite sure how Will Anderson can bully Krugman, when Krugman’s readers outnumber Anderson by many orders of magnitude.
Are we comparing bully success now?
Because I rarely see Krugman attack people personally, it’s mostly analysis, and Anderson dedicates and entire blog to attacking Krugman personally. Krugman is excitable, yes. But Anderson is mean-spirited, and not someone I’d want to get on the bad side of – even if he doesn’t have a wide following.
It seems to me that there’s a big difference between being inspired by an expansively visionary novel, but recognize the difference between novels and reality, and actually considering the novel to be a reality the way Ryan did. It’s an entirely valid critique. How in the world is that “bullying”? Critique is not “bullying”, Bob.
You publish at the Mises Institute. They call me a statist and a socialist all the time over there. And you think Krugman is a bully? You are a part of one of the most hostile, mocking economics blogs on the internet Bob!!!! If I advocated socialism and someone made a critique of socialism, and then criticized me for it that would be one thing. That wouldn’t be bullying, that would be a critique.
I don’t know… I just don’t understand why Krugman is like catnip for some people… I have a blog post about it here, if you’re interested:
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2010/12/theres-something-about-krugman-part-2.html
The picture I include at the top is a joke… it is not meant to be a threat or bullying… so no one needs to get excitable over it.
DK, I am not defending the tone of every Austrian economist (though I think most of the actual columnists–as opposed to bloggers–at Mises.org are pretty tame).
DK, there is no “critique” Krugman did in that post. The title was, “Rule by the Ridiculous.” Krugman didn’t then point out what he objected to; he said that this guy liked Ayn Rand, then repeated a quotation from someone who was quite obviously mocking people who like Ayn Rand.
Finally, Krugman said future people will giggle at this.
You can’t understand why that might annoy some people? That would be like me saying, “What are all these people getting offended by Hoppe for? They apparently have a problem with time preference.”
I’m not asking you to say Krugman is wrong in his positions, I’m asking you to recognize that he is an unfair bully. The write-up about him and Asimov is arguably geekier than the blurb about Paul Ryan. That would be like me making fun of Steve Landsburg for not having a lot of hair, or for diverging from economics on his blog.
Right – the post itself wasn’t a full-fledged critique. I think the issues with Ayn Rand are fairly widely understood. I’m not comparing Ayn Rand to Hitler or anything, but as an analogy you don’t review why Nazism and gas chambers are bad every time you make a critical claim about Hitler.
Also, how is Rand like making fun of people for having a lot of hair? Rand advocates a specific organization of society that a lot of people find distasteful. Hair is… just hair. The connections you’re drawing strike me as completely unrelated. Criticizing someone for how they look/who they are is bullying. Criticizing someone for an idea they hold is not bullying, unless you’re really nasty about it. Finding someone’s idea so untenable that it merits a giggle does not strike me as being really nasty about it, even if you disagree with Krugman’s assessment.
As for this: “though I think most of the actual columnists–as opposed to bloggers–at Mises.org are pretty tame”
I’m curious what you think of Will Anderson. That’s what I would call an internet bully. The man approaches being a stalker.
Daniel,
Krugman makes fun of politician who was inspired to do what he does because he read a Rand novel, when he himself was inspired to do what he does because he read an Asimov novel. What makes Krugman different? The politician liked a novel…
“leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.”
…ha, ha.
You may not like being called a socialist or statist, but plenty of people who are would accept being called one or the other. I don’t know anyone who would accept being called emotionally stunted, socially crippled, and a person unable to deal with reality because a particular sociopolitical philosophy appeals to them. Furthermore, I think such language qualifies as “criticizing someone for how they look/who they are”; that is, psychologically maladjusted because of the sociopolitical philosophy they embrace. (I mean, all in “good fun” of course).
It’s a valid critique of Rand that a lot of literary critics, social scientists, and philosophers share. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with taking such a low view of her work, and you shouldn’t be so thin-skinned about it because a lot of people agree with the assessment.
I completely fail to see what’s wrong with criticizing a person who adopts Randian work or philosophy as a major part of their world view.
Think of socialists, for example. A wide variety of social scientists and philosophers make harsh critiques of socialist works, do they not? Don’t you think its reasonable to criticize a person who adopts socialist views?
God knows lots of people have criticized Krugman for embracing Asimov. It’s interesting what a meme that has become. I think it’s far more reasonable to criticize Ryan for actually seeing and wanting and pursuing a Randian society than it is to criticize Krugman for wanting social engineering a la Asimov. You know why? Because Krugman has directly stated he realizes its just fiction.
I think it’s far more reasonable to criticize Ryan for actually seeing and wanting and pursuing a Randian society than it is to criticize Krugman for wanting social engineering a la Asimov. You know why? Because Krugman has directly stated he realizes its just fiction.
OK DK, so the important point is that Paul Krugman directly stated, “This is just fiction”? You think if someone asked Paul Ryan, “Hey, do you know that Atlas Shrugged is a novel?” he would hem and haw?
As someone else noted (from this screen I can’t see the previous comments), Krugman is far more “pretending he’s the fictitious hero” than Ryan is. Krugman is trying to be the social scientist who uses his immense brain to save humanity from its foibles. In contrast, Ryan isn’t leaving society in disgust. In fact, Ryan joined the class of looters and is trying to reform the system from within. If anything he’s the opposite of John Galt.
My point in this post wasn’t to say Asimov is less worthy than Rand; I actually have never been that big of a Rand fan. My point is that it’s ridiculous for Krugman to say, “This guy actually believes he’s John Galt, whereas I don’t think I’m the fictional character that inspired me,” when if you follow his link, the evidence is much weaker for Ryan than for Krugman.
Bob – I’m a little confused by your point. I never got the impression Paul Ryan said he was John Galt. I’m referring to the fact that he called Obama’s administration “something out of a Randian novel”. He know’s the novel is fiction but he sees the novel in the world – to call our current situation something out of a Rand novel is disconcerting because it demonstrates a real detachment from reality by a member of Congress… or he’s just playing politics with the libertarian vote, which could be all it is.
I don’t get your point on Krugman. I haven’t read Asimov, but my understanding is that the psychohistorians were practically central planners. Macroeconomic management is not central planning, Bob.
Either way you miss my point. People have written about Krugman’s Asimov fetish too. I find their concerns unsubstantial for the reasons I stated above, but I don’t think presenting the criticism is an ad hominem attack on Krugman. Krugman’s criticism of Ryan is in the same vein. It’s not ad hominem. It’s a reasonable criticism (in my experience Randians don’t exactly have the firmest grasp on reality), and if Krugman is wrong he’s wrong – but he’s not a bully. If people can’t handle criticism without accusing others of ad hominems then they shouldn’t read newspapers or blogs.
And round and roung we go! Randians don’t have grasp on reality, Daniel Kuehn says so. So it is okay to call them numbnuts, but if you think Daniel is delusional, it is not okay to call him out. That’s way it is. Period.
DK, I didn’t title this post, “Daniel Kuehn Is an Unfair Bully.” Krugman said that Paul Ryan actually believes he is John Galt. Go re-read the post.
” I mean, I was inspired by Isaac Asimov, but I don’t think I’m Hari Seldon — whereas Ryan, it seems, really does think he’s John Galt.”
I don’t recall John Galt opting for a career in public service. I also don’t recall Paul Ryan advocating that we bring the world to a halt so we can rebuild it in a sensible manner. Krugman isn’t any better at creating analogies than macro models.
The only reason Krugman drives me bananas is because people actually read him and give him the time of day.
“The only reason Krugman drives me bananas is because people actually read him and give him the time of day.”
Totally.
The thing that most annoys me about Krugman is that he behaves as he does and still manages to largely avoid the hack label he is so very deserving of. Whereas someone like Coulter is ‘Righwing firebrand Ann Coulter’ and Michael Moore is ‘Controversial liberal filmmaker Michael Moore’ Krugman almost always gets the ‘Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman’ treatment as if his analysis comes from the position of a disinterested academic when he is one of the most ridiculously tribal, unfair, nasty and downright stupid commentators in the media.
As I was introduced to Rothbard a year or so before reading Rand, I always found Rand to be quite a kook and over-the-top. That being said, whatever the literary merits of Atlas Shrugged, the basic concepts are important and profound:
1. We no longer live in mud-holes thanks to visionary entrepreneurs who create our wealth which can only happen under laissez faire.
2. Most people haven’t the faintest familiarity with those concepts and are generally irrationally hostile to them.
Further, the fact that the novel sold so well and introduced so many people to these ideas speaks for itself. It’s no coincidence that Krugman would want to emulate a technocratic Nazi while mocking people who admire entrepreneurs. Just another day in the land of Krugman hack-dom.
Bob,
Oops…not used to my wife’s laptop.
I think you’re looking for justice that’s never going to come. Krugman is THE intellectual enabler for the powerful, so there’s no way he’s going to fall from his perch unless the whole system is reset. One person at a time, one column at a time. God will take care of the rest.
Dr. Tibor Machan explains Krugman’s Trashy Debating Style:
One thing does clearly stand out in his approach to making a case for more and more government involvement in the economy. This is that he relies extensively on name calling, on besmirching those with whom he disagrees. In a recent column he went so far as to dismiss all those who hold views opposed to his as zombies! Yes, zombies. That means that people, some very distinguished scholars, who are convinced that a public policy of laissez-faire when it comes to a country’s economic affairs is best are all mindless. They do not merely think mistakenly but cannot think at all.
When a critic of a position needs to resort to this kind of technique with which to attract readers of his missives to his own outlook, it suggests that the intellectual merits of that position are truly hopeless. And that is precisely so. Statism in economics has for a long time been proven and shown to be utterly unsupportable, be this the Draconian sort one found in Soviet Russia and finds in North Korea or the less drastic kind that has just produced the worldwide financial meltdown, namely the more or less interventionist welfare state.
http://tinyurl.com/26jv7pl
You really coudn’t make this stuff up.
“Krugman explained that he’d become an economist because of science fiction.”
GIven his economics, this makes perfect sense.
“When he was a boy, he’d read Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” trilogy and become obsessed with the central character, Hari Seldon. Seldon was a “psychohistorian”—a scientist with such a precise understanding of the mechanics of society that he could predict the course of events thousands of years into the future and save mankind from centuries of barbarism. He couldn’t predict individual behavior—that was too hard—but it didn’t matter, because history was determined not by individuals but by laws and hidden forces. ”
Again, this makes sense – Hari Seldon sounds like the platonic ideal of a Keynesian, progressive statist.