07
Jul
2015
Let Me Show Mercy
Josiah was cracking a joke, but he brought up something important: I really do not remember things that I wrote only a few years ago. So now I am amending my harsh view. When I see Krugman totally contradict some principle that he espoused in 2011 because now it hurts his political conclusion, I no longer think he is consciously contradicting himself and hopes his readers won’t notice. I think he doesn’t realize he’s doing it.
With the money he has, couldn’t he and/or the NYT afford to hire someone to look into these things and alert him about it pre-publication?
You know, someone like you, but more sympathetic to his cause?
Why pay someone? Krugman has kind of his own fandom. He should just float the idea for someone to start a Krugman wiki. Krugfans can then populate it with all kinds of obscure bits of Krugman trivia and jealously guard the Krugman canon. If he says something that doesn’t fit the canon, they can retcon his earlier comments to fit it into the new reality.
Krug-con might be a little scary though.
Bob, speaking of your old blog posts, I remember you writing a blog post years ago in which you stated what would have to happen in order for you to rethink your Austrian worldview. You said that if the Fed’s balance sheet as a percentage of GDP got back down to 2008 levels, and there was a 12-month period in which the unemployment rate was below 6% and CPI inflation never went above a certain level, then you would have to rethink your whole Austrian worldview. Do you remember writing such a post, and if so do you have a link for it? I think it was back in 2011 or 2012.
Yes, I think I remember. We all went out to that Chinese place to eat which is where he said it. I think he was drunk on too much soy sauce, however, so I’m not sure if that really counts.
I definitely remember writing something like that. It may have been just a comment embedded in a broader post though. I’m not sure how to find it.
I’m pretty sure it was an actual blog post. In any case, let me try to reproduce the blog post from memory as best I can (I have a really good memory), in the hope that someone can find it:
“If the Fed unwinds its balance sheet to 2008 levels (we can do it as a percent of GDP if you want), and annual CPI inflation (as currently measured) never goes above [X%], and there’s a 12 month-period where unemployment (as currently measured) is below 6 percent, and if nothing catastrophic happens for a year after (e.g.the stock market doesn’t crash 2 months after the above conditions are met), then I wouldn’t just have to tweak my beliefs, I would have to reevaluate my whole Austrian worldview.
One exception: if Ron Paul gets in and adopts a gold standard and dramatically cuts spending, then it’s possible that we could have a short depression and then grow very quickly, so all of the above conditions may actually be met. I won’t invoke this exception if Republicans cut 1% off the baseline. I’m talking about crazy Austrian dream stuff.
What I’m trying to rule out with the above conditions is a scenario where the Fed just gradually unwinds its balance sheet and we have a recovery without huge price inflation.
I know these are pretty stringent conditions, but I don’t want to say something too flippant in a blog post.”
Yeah, that’s what he said. it was definitely just the soy sauce speaking.
Holy cow Keshav that is you trying to quote me as closely as possible, purely from memory? That’s amazing.
Keshav:Murphy :: Murphy:Krugman
Yeah, I’m trying to reproduce from memory the exact words you wrote, down to the tiny details of the parenthetical comments you made. Like I said, I have a phenomenally good memory (and clearly no humility).
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/05/even-supercore-inflation-might-not-do-the-trick.html
Thanks Zack! It’s amazing how closely I reproduced Bob’s words:
“If the Fed’s balance sheet goes back to where it was pre-crisis (we can make it % of GDP to make it fair), and unemployment (as currently defined) goes under 6%, and we don’t have CPI (as currently defined) inflation higher than 5% over any 12-month period, there’s not some major event that could totally falsify the measures (like a war and Obama drafts everybody and imposes wage and price controls), and (just to cover myself) that situation lasts for at least a year without any hiccups in the economy (i.e. there’s not a stock market crash two months after the above conditions are met), then sure I don’t just need to tweak things a bit, I would have to question Austrian business cycle theory itself. (I realize those are strong conditions, but I don’t want to say something too flippant on a blog post.)…
It occurs to me that if Ron Paul became president and took my free advice (since I can’t accept taxpayer money, at least on net), it’s possible the above “anti-ABC” scenario would occur! So let me clarify that I am saying I find it inconceivable (given my current worldview) that we are going to sluggishly grow out of this malaise, and Bernanke will let the Fed’s balance sheet unwind naturally until we’re back to normal. That’s the kind of scenario I was trying to codify above….
So to add another condition to the above, I am barring any incredibly radical pro-growth measures. I’m not going to be a jerk and say, “Oh, Boehner shaved $3 billion from Fiscal Year 2013 spending, so I’m off the hook.” I’m talking crazy Austrian heaven stuff.”
Thanks Zach! My paraphrase was pretty close to Bob’s actual words:
“If the Fed’s balance sheet goes back to where it was pre-crisis (we can make it % of GDP to make it fair), and unemployment (as currently defined) goes under 6%, and we don’t have CPI (as currently defined) inflation higher than 5% over any 12-month period, there’s not some major event that could totally falsify the measures (like a war and Obama drafts everybody and imposes wage and price controls), and (just to cover myself) that situation lasts for at least a year without any hiccups in the economy (i.e. there’s not a stock market crash two months after the above conditions are met), then sure I don’t just need to tweak things a bit, I would have to question Austrian business cycle theory itself. (I realize those are strong conditions, but I don’t want to say something too flippant on a blog post.)”.
My paraphrase was out of order, so some of the sentences come after this paragraph.
That is unbelievable. Although you did say “stringent conditions” instead of “strong conditions” 🙂
Bob, now that Zack found the post, can you tell me whether the Fed’s balance sheet as a percentage of GDP is anywhere close to pre-crisis levels?
I want to hate you so bad because you tend to spin all the Lefty failings in the best plausible light.
Even after you gave me a non-paywalled link to a WSJ article way back when.
But that’s some pretty cool memory you have there.
You’re a much better Concern Troll than am I.
😀
Haha, it must have pained you to say it, but thanks for the compliment all the same! Let me return your niceness by giving you a book recommendation: “Red Plenty” by Francis Spifford. It’s a great book related to the socialist calculation debate and the economy of the Soviet Union. I thought it might be up your alley.
Keshav,
Impressive memory!
I just eye-balled some Fed balance sheet and GDP graphs and it appears that the % is still several points higher now than in ’11 when Bob made that post and about double from its highest point in ’08. The Fed’s balance sheet really took off again around the beginning of ’13.
Thanks Mike T! OK, so I guess Bob’s conditions won’t be met any time in the near future then. I expect the Fed to unwind its balance sheet relatively slowly.
Now we need to recalibrate your interpretation of “totally contradict” 🙂
Doesn’t really really matter does it, Bob? Krugman has fanboys that not only remember it for him, but offer to rewrite the history behind it all.
Sorry Murphy, I don’t buy it.
This is not merely forgetting about some tangential point one has made.
Krugman’s kontradictions almost all concern heated, antagonistic, ideological clash, use one tactic to defend and then attack that tactic when used by opponents, type economic arguments.
When you make economic arguments that are of that sort, I have never seen you contradict yourself.
There has never been a time where you engaged your ideological opponents and did what Krugman does.
Everybody has at some point said something that they don’t remember, or is inconsistent with something they said in the past. If one is learning, and improving, and identifying flaws in one’s previous beliefs, such a thing is an inevitability.
What you don’t do is the kind of smarmy, do as I say and not as I do, I can do what I say you can’t do, type stuff.