I would be more willing to listen to Krugman if he hadn’t spent so much effort during the Biden administration to find reasons why inflation wasn’t bad but just a “vibecession”.
The consequence of COVID financial measures. The flipside is that growth was maintained through that period, which wasn't the case in less expansionary countries.
I am not educated enough to criticize what was done during COVID and whether inflation could have been avoided. But the way Krugman tried to explain away the effects of inflation in the NYT almost every week wasn't right. The whole "vibecession" thing was extremely condescending from a multimillionaire like Krugman towards lower incomes and probably one of the reasons why the democrats lost.
I didn't interpret his explanations that inflation wasn't bad, but that it wasn't linked to more structural economic issues. It was due to the shock of Covid, and then the macroeconomic policies that tried (and very much succeeded, if you take other countries as counterexamples) to limit the medium- and long-term damage.
To compare and contrast, much of the current wave of inflation can be traced to tariffs and conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine, which is mostly self-inflicted and based on strongman politics. I would maybe argue even those aren't necessarily structural issues, as they could be relatively solved overnight, theoretically.
True structural economic issues are scenarios like the 2008 GFC.
tl;dr you've provided a poor reason to not be listening to Krugman, and you probably have more reasons than what you're letting on.
Sure, personally I think Krugman is a bit abrasive and political when he could be a bit more refined in his delivery. But, then again he probably wouldn’t get the clicks and the traction he’s gotten over his career.
But most people I know who don’t like Krugman are generally against monetary policy, as he’s one of the biggest mainstream proponents.
What concerns me more is that he generally has been a cheerleader for spend spend spend don't worry about the debt (just like the Trump administration) and all that has come home to roost as Ray Dali ohas been warning. In short it's hard not to view him as a partisan hack and hypocrite if he cheerleads when one party does it and castigates when the other does
Krugman is an advocate for tax & spend, and critical of any government that increases spending while simultaneously cutting taxes. No hypocrisy there.
That's an article where Krugman explains when deficits aren't appropriate. He's a Keynesian, so of course he wants deficits in the middle of the financial crisis.
"cheerleads when one party does it and castigates when the other does"
I always ask partisan people "what would you think about this issue if the other guys were in power". It's pretty sad how it has become normalized to find the same thing ok when one party is in power and being really angry about it when the other party is in power. Unfortunately Krugman can't resist that temptation either.
vjvjvjvjghv · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
vjvjvjvjghv · · focus · HN ↗
datsci_est_2015 · · focus · HN ↗
To compare and contrast, much of the current wave of inflation can be traced to tariffs and conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine, which is mostly self-inflicted and based on strongman politics. I would maybe argue even those aren't necessarily structural issues, as they could be relatively solved overnight, theoretically.
True structural economic issues are scenarios like the 2008 GFC.
tl;dr you've provided a poor reason to not be listening to Krugman, and you probably have more reasons than what you're letting on.
vjvjvjvjghv · · focus · HN ↗
Can you enlighten me on these reasons?
datsci_est_2015 · · focus · HN ↗
But most people I know who don’t like Krugman are generally against monetary policy, as he’s one of the biggest mainstream proponents.
redwood · · focus · HN ↗
bryanlarsen · · focus · HN ↗
redwood · · focus · HN ↗
bryanlarsen · · focus · HN ↗
redwood · · focus · HN ↗
vjvjvjvjghv · · focus · HN ↗
I always ask partisan people "what would you think about this issue if the other guys were in power". It's pretty sad how it has become normalized to find the same thing ok when one party is in power and being really angry about it when the other party is in power. Unfortunately Krugman can't resist that temptation either.
panarky · · focus · HN ↗
Do you have anything to contribute to the evidence and reasoning in the article?