Talk:Paul Krugman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the importance scale
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.


Comments during financial crisis. Joseph Stiglitz writes in his book that Krugman wrote an open letter urging Malaysia to impose capital controls during the Asian financial crisis and Malaysia did so. Is there any info?


WHERE DID HE GO TO HIGH SCHOOL ON LONG ISLAND??

Disclaimer - I'm a fan of Paul Krugman and used to attend his lectures when he was at MIT. But we don't need to get down to the vitriolic details, even though I do remember a time when he actually had time to answer his mail.

Hi Stirling, just curious, why did you delete this text:
He has hired an assistant to delete the massive barrage of hate email he receives every day on his computer.
He said as much himself in an interview some months ago.
BTW, it would be most helpful if you could sign your posts. Just type in four tildes at the end of your message and the system automatically enters your name and a date stamp. Thanks. -- Viajero 13:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Getting hate email is part of the business these days. Krugman isn't unique in this respect. While he is a lightening rod, it's not in context, and some how implies that many of the other contemporary figures here aren't in the same boat to one degree or another

Given a limited amount of a reader's attention span, it could be better served by talking about his move to simpler models, his ideas on currency exchange rates, central banking - or a summary of his critique of the Executive in The Great Unravelling. Petty details are, well, petty.

Stirling Newberry 16:28, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] What about Krugman and the Draft?

Krugman turned 18 in 1971, when the Vietnam War was raging. Although one would assume that he did everything within his power to avoid serving, it isn't clear how he did so. Perhaps a safe lottery number?

[edit] Link to conservative blog

The "Conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid" link is to a right-wing blog that attacks Krugman, but also attacks the New York Times news coverage in general (including photo captions, which I don't think Krugman writes), the Times's use of section 338 of the tax code in connection with a recent stock purchaase (Krugman also doesn't handle the paper's accounting), and some completely unrelated favorite right-wing targets, like George Soros. There's no reason to link this blog here. The article on George W. Bush doesn't link to every left-wing blog that criticizes Bush. JamesMLane 20:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this article link to every right-wing blog that criticizes Krugman, either. Luskin of late has been doing critical analysis on almost every Krugman column, has gone on TV to criticize Krugman, and has also been interviewed about the "stalking" accusation. There are a bunch of Krugman-related or pro-Krugman links in that section, so what's wrong with having 2 anti-Krugman links for balance? Ellsworth 22:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to including criticisms of Krugman. I haven't touched the "Truth Squad" link. But the "Conspiracy" site is not a site about Krugman. Luskin writes about Krugman but also about many other topics. Furthermore, it's a blog, so it changes more than most websites. If a reader clicks on that link next month, he or she might be looking at a page that's full of denunciations of the UN or Hillary Clinton or whatever, with nothing about Krugman except in the archives. We generally don't link to blogs. (With regard to Bush, I thought we had gotten rid of all the blog links, but I see that one was smuggled in under the heading "Official and news links". I've now removed it. I shouldn't have said that we don't link to every left-wing blog that criticizes Bush; in general, I see no reason to link to any of them.) JamesMLane 23:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
However, the Luskin article contains a link to his blog, and if the reader of the Krugman article is interested in Luskin's criticism, then the reader would be able to access the Luskin blog from the Luskin article. So I will not put the Luskin blog link back in this article, it's not worth getting in a revert war over. I reserve judgment on whether we wiki-editors "generally don't link to blogs". Peace. Ellsworth 00:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A link to Luskin's blog from the article about Luskin is entirely appropriate. It seems to me that the link should make clear that it's to the blog, not something about the work-in-progress book of the same title, given that both are mentioned in the Donald Luskin article, but I'll let the Luskinites worry about that. JamesMLane 01:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I labelled it. Ellsworth 15:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yeah, Krugman actually majored in History as an undergraduate, not economics. just letting y'all know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.67.55 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 22 March 2005

[edit] Link to Krugman Truth Squad

This external link led to a Cafepress site of the National Review full of Krugman Truth Squad merchanside, which is obviously an inapproriate link and the fact that it is basically advertising makes me question the intentions of the original editor. This is not politically motivated; if anyone finds a link to an actual KTS site, I would have no problems with that being there, but I think you all will agree with me that the link to the Cafepress store was inappropriate. --BDD 23:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I read this article the only mention of Donald Luskin was to say he also works with Kudlow at NRO. There is no reason to mention this unless Luskin is mentioned latter on in the article, which he was not, so I removed the mention of his name from the article. Some brief mention of Luskin and his blog might be warranted as he is probably Krugman's most persistent, but I'll leave that up to someone else. I actually think this article is pretty darn good and fair (and I am NOT a Krugman fan). --209.117.148.2 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations, not quotes

I'm changing the section heading back to "quotations". Many people use "quote" as a noun, but there are also many people who consider this usage substandard, especially in formal writing. [1] Everyone agrees that "quotation" is acceptable, so we might as well use that. JamesMLane 15:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times editor admitted this year Krugman is inaccurate

i just read the article and i couldn't believe that it wasn't mentioned how Krugman got called out by his own editor in the New York Times for being inaccurate. Wiki articles are supposed to present a complete picture and this is something that is definitely noteworthy and significant enough to mention. especially if the article is going to say something overly simplistic such as he is only criticized because he is "willing to address controverstial issues", gmab.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RonMexico (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 November 2005

Daniel Okrent wasn't Krugman's editor. See below. Please sign your posts.--RattBoy 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Well-known critics of Krugman..."

A few points: I don't see why this passage is included under the biography heading. In fact, this section needs to broken off from the discussion of Krugman's views and the latter expanded. If I can find the time, I'll do it; if somebody with more time wants to take a crack at it, by all means go ahead. As for the passge itself, I'm not convinced an account of a television stunt involving a balloon has much expository value. Criticism of Krugman, which in an expanded and cleaned-up version of this article probably deserves its own heading, ought to be thoughtful and substantive or it ought to be turfed. This passage should be. The exchange with Bill O'Reilly is likewise of dubious value. If it's supposed to illustrate Krugman's credentials as a quipster-pundit, then it ought to be moved to the quotations section. If not, as it fails to contribute anything substantive, it ought to be dumped as irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrburke (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 December 2005

I agree. Although Krugman is pretty mainline as an economist, he is highly controversial as a pundit and this section is inadequate. I don't think Kudlow, Cramer, and O'Reilley are necessarily the best examples of his critics. WBcoleman 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The mention of Mad Money theatrics by James Cramer (i.e. bobblehead dismemberment) and O'Reilly show shouting contests are not worthy of inclusion in an academic article as sources of economic criticisms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortimer Duke (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 July 2006

Some of these incidents have received significant media coverage and are worthy of inclusion on that basis. Gamaliel 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Cramer voodooing Krugman as a 'bubble head'" has received significant media coverage? GMAFB. And as such merits attention as worthy criticism. I suppose Leno's regular inclusion of Bush in his Tonight Show monologue merits inclusion in a political discussion of Bush.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortimer Duke (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 July 2006
Then remove that particular portion, but not the entire section.
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Gamaliel 03:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


^ WOW -- is that all it takes? 199.214.26.118 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) yup.
By experimenting, I found out that ALSO you can display:
-only the time+date with 5 tildes: 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
-only the username/IP address with 3 tildes: 199.214.26.118
(but 2 ~~ or 1 ~~ does nothing.)
I guess reading the how-to-edit pages would tell you this ;)

[edit] Liberal tag

I've reverted several edits now by someone using only various IP addresses with no other contributions to the introduction of the Krugman article. Krugman calls himself a "liberal" - here is a link to his latest book:

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393060691/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8944807-6086069?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185974016&sr=8-1

Can we have some sort of consensus as to whether it is OK to refer to him as a "liberal" in the article itself? To me, it just seems factually accurate, neither pejorative nor praise. Apparent public relationship 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Krugman (and Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this? WBcoleman 09:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's be because the pro-Bush commentators you cited are so often factually incorrect (as opposed to the "liberal" columnists that you mentioned)? In any case, the first sentence of the second 'graph of the Krugman article reads:
Krugman is an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies.
So it's not exactly like the article keeps Krugman's politics secret. Same thing for Molly Ivins; her liberalism comes up early in the second 'graph. But if you feel that "liberal" will act as a pejorative word and you feel that you must therefore add it to the first graph of these articles, no one's stopping you from adding it. You may get reverted, of course, especially for those folks who are simply reality-based rather than particularly conservative or liberal.
Atlant 12:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
it is kind odd. Atlant- why do you regard "liberal" as a pejorative but not "conservative"? Krugman's work is full of factual errors, as was confirmed by his boss, Daniel Okrent. what do the amount of errors in someone's work have to do with where someone stands on the ideological spectrum? RonMexico 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Okrent was never Paul Krugman's boss. Further, his parting shot at Krugman was roundly criticized, as it contained no specifics to back up his assertions. If he had a problem with Krugman's use of data, he had had ample opportunity to level his criticism (with specifics and outlining his entire argument) during his 18 months' tenure as the Times' Public Editor. Generally refusing to dignify the cheap personal attacks that Okrent leveled at him, Krugman effectively refuted Okrent's hasty analysis on the substance.[2], [3]
Despite his shoddy scholarship and inappropriate cheap shot, Okrent can always be proud that he invented Rotisserie League Baseball, thus giving hero-worshipping nerds yet another reason to sit on their ever-enlarging posteriors and evade any opportunity to actually get outside and exercise.
I think it's time to add some context to Okrent's shallow and cowardly criticism of Krugman.--RattBoy 00:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't regard "liberal" as pejorative. I'm proud of being a liberal; we're the folks who brought you Social Security, the 40-hour work week, the vote for women and racial minorities, etc. But conservatives seem to think it's some kind of insult, and their heroes (like Coulter and Limbaugh) routinely say the word with a sneer.
Atlant 01:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
if you're proud of it than why do you object to the word "liberal" being used? i don't see any problem with using the words "conservative" and "liberal" in wiki articles. RonMexico 16:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object, but I have pointed out that the article makes his politics clear by the second 'graph. We don't need redundancy. Look, you think it's a good idea, make the change. See if you get reverted.

Atlant 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

fair enough. i'm going to leave it, if that other guy wants to change it, so be it. RonMexico 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion that I started. I, for one, regard the words "liberal" and "conservative" as descriptive, not perjorative. I find it odd that conservatives, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, are invariably labelled as such, while liberals are not. I don't want to get involved in a bunch of edit/revert wars, but I think we should be consistant. WBcoleman 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
"Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Krugman (and Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, Frank Rich, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this?" I agree with this. Bcem2 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Because the two groups aren't really analogous. A better example of a liberal version of those guys would be Al Franken. Also, Molly Ivins is, in fact, labeled as a liberal; however, Bill O'Reilly is not labeled as a conservative in the intro (though there's a mention of conservative ties in paragraph two). I just don't think putting liberal in the intro does Krugman justice. He's more nuanced than that. If you wanted to call Jon Stewart liberal, though, I wouldn't object. Andre (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Krugman not a liberal - ok, how bout a raging leftist?Incorrect 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Originally, the word liberal referred to people who believe in liberty. Outside of the U.S. this is still what the word means. Calling an egalitarian economist "liberal" may confuse some non-American readers. Based on the classic definition, Milton Friedman was a liberal, not Krugman. Friedman even takes claim to the liberal label in Capitalism and Freedom. --JHP 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a history major

Actually, though I believe his first interest was history, he did major in economics.

Roy Harmon 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor content edit

It's a good article, concise and well-written.

I deleted the phrase "which has since been refuted" in reference to Krugman's collection of columns, The Great Unravelling, as non-neutral and unverifiable. The book (in keeping with Krugman's economic theory in general) does indeed argue that ballooning deficit spending under the Bush administration is pushing the United States toward fiscal crisis; but the assertion that his thesis has been "refuted" (with no citation to any authority, no less) doesn't make any sense. Three years after the book's publication, still within the Bush administration itself, there is not a consensus among economists about the long-term effects of extreme deficit spending on economic growth. If anything, people in similar positions, like Robert Samuelson, are closer to agreement with his prediction than refutation.

In any event, claiming that Krugman was wrong (or right) at this early date, without attribution, is POV, not verifiable fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindana (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 April 2006

[edit] Krugman is a Hack

Take a look at http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp, Donald Luskin's weblogue - you'll see by actual quotes that Krugman manipulates data, quotes incorrectly, and generally exhibits the most dishonest behavior to try and prove his point. I guess since he gave up on winning the Nobel, he's settled for Nixonian dirty tricks. Note my edit to the controversy section.63.205.151.68 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What a great article by the way. I checked if Wikipedia happened to have something about this guy Paul Krugman, whose column I came across, but whom I had never heard about before... And, well, this taught me everything I needed to know in a clear and concise way. -- Jonik 21:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MIT

If one does a Google search for Krugman, the first result is "Krugman's Official Web Page" which is located at an MIT domain; does Krugman now teach at MIT and no longer at Princeton? 71.76.135.102 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Krugman used to be at MIT, but is now at Princeton. --Kristjan Wager 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lying In Ponds Website as Reference

I propose to remove this sentence from the article: "A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [3] cited political partisanship data compiled by blogger Ken Waight [4], which shows that since the year 2000 Krugman has been arguably the most partisan newspaper columnist in America and almost certainly the columnist most uniformly supportive of the Democratic Party." I would rephrase a subsequent sentence to identify the Economist article on another point. I think there is a double sleight of hand in this sentence. First it launders the info from the blogger's website through the Economist in a sneaky way. I do not know if this qualifies as meeting Wikipedia guideline of using reliable sources. Secondly it goes out on its own to express that PK is the most partisan and the most uniformly supportive of the Democratic Party. If you go look at the website, it says that PK is the third-most partisan "Democratic" columnist, and there are fully five other columnists with more frequent positive Democrat references in the current data table there.

It struck me as funny when I read the article text because I never much considered Krugman as supporting Democrats so much as hammering President Bush's policies and by extension I suppose Republican policies. DanielM 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose your removal of the sentence (you did more than propose to remove it...you went ahead and did it). It "laundered" nothing, it stated a fact: Economist mag cited Waight's data. Waight's data is very thoroughly documented and reliable; just because he's a blogger doesn't mean what he does is wrong. I would consider Waight far more reliable than an unsigned column from the Economist, frankly. Waight writes himself in the linked post that Krugman was the most partisan Democratic columnist since he started compiling data, which is exactly what the previous statement stated. In a two-party system, opposition to the Republicans unbalanced by opposition to Democrats IS support of the Democrats; this is exactly Waight's point and he argues persuasively for it in his methodology.
For those reasons I believe your change should be reverted -- but I won't do it myself. --Jjb 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I waited more than a full day for comments before I made the change. I couldn't reasonably be expected to wait for your or anyone else's personal approval or disapproval five days down the road. In my opinion the previous didn't state a fact at all, although it sort of looked like it did. The text conflated three things: what the Economist said, what the Lying in Ponds website said, and the editor's interpretation of what the Lying in Ponds data "showed." The opinion that constitutes the reference said he was the most partisan "Democratic-leaning" pundit however the editor's interpretation was "arguably the most partisan columnist in America." IMO something was lost in translation there. I'm not against bloggers, but the Wikipedia guideline says "...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise..." Okay, so does Waight meet the exception? No, according to his website he's a research meteorologist, so analysis of pundit partisanship is out of his field of expertise. Your last statement that opposition to Republicans equates to support for Democrats in a two party system... well this sounds a bit like "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" to me. I disagree with it. I think there are assumptions in this line of argument and that there may be logical problems with it, additionally there are independents in the US government: Sen. Jeffords is one, and I think there may be more in the House. But all this aside, I took care to leave the Lying in Ponds reference in there, with text that is more straightforward and more defensible and more current. DanielM 23:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Analyzing pundit partisanship isn't rocket science; I agree that it's not Waight's professional field, but people are not typically one-dimensional. (Krugman, as we all know, is an economist specializing in international trade; he has no professional expertise in American politics.) Waight has built a publicly available and verifiable database, and he doesn't make extreme claims; he simply points out that the data shows Krugman is extremely pro-Democrat. (If Waight wanted to get his work published, I have little doubt he could get into a lower-tier journal such as Econ Journal Watch.)
The Waight/Economist criticism of Krugman comes not because of his "high profile" or that he "skewers" Republican policies. It's not too hard to read between the lines of the trying-very-hard-to-be-polite Economist piece: what it's saying is not that Krugman is bad for being a famous Democrat, but that he's cashing in on his academic credentials to do it, twisting science to promote his political agenda -- and for such a serious criticism to get into the Economist, it isn't like this is one or two people saying it.
The watering-down of this criticism sure fits the pattern of this entry, though. What used to be an accurate criticism from reputable, impartial sources now is being characterized as Republican whining. Now it fits right in with the "criticisms" of Krugman by hack TV presenters like James Cramer and Bill O'Reilly, which seem pretty obviously to have been added by Krugman fans in order to suggest that his critics are beneath serious consideration. --Jjb 05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing that Waight doesn't meet the Wikipedia guideline for a reliable source. I still disagree with you that criticizing one party is the same thing as supporting the other. In the case of Daniel Okrent I agreed with you that his criticism was watered down, so I took out the watering down part. I hope this doesn't antagonize the editor who put it in, because I understand the problems with Okrent's criticism, namely that it came first without examples and in an unorthodox and unbecoming way for an ombudsman, further that when he did provide examples he revealed that they were in large part provided to him by Krugman's online critics who were filling his mailbox (I think Luskin was one), finally that the criticisms were effectively rebutted to the point where Okrent acknowledged he didn't understand one of the concepts involved. However Okrent had the stature of the NYT ombudsman so IMO we should go ahead and report his parting shot as he, well, shot it. The bobblehead text was sort of silly and not serious criticism, so I clipped it. Bill O'Reilly is an extremely prominent media person and his Krugman exchange is funny, so I think it should stay. I think I agree with you that the first sentence of criticism section could be changed, maybe you or another editor will suggest a better intro statement. DanielM 11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
While I wouldn't say your edit "antagonized" me, I emphatically don't agree with your removal of the text which gives context to Okrent's criticism. Sure, Okrent was Public Editor, but as you imply, his criticism was unprofessional and without foundation. My edit did not mention it, but Okrent followed up his "parting shot" column with a stream of invective—it's clear that he had an axe to grind. In the whole exchange, Krugman behaved professionaly; Okrent, not so much. I don't care if Okrent was the Pope; it would be POV for Wikipedia to validate his unprofessional attacks on Krugman by giving him the last word.
I do agree with you about the O'Reilly exchange. It would be a shame if such dialog, which provides an insight into Krugman's combative wit as well as a snapshot of the kind of criticism that he regularly receives, were cut from the article.--RattBoy 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I was WP:BOLD and deleted a blog link before realizing it had been a source of contention. Looking at the rest of the artilce, I have to take serious exception to the repeated use of blogs as sources of criticism. Wikipedia should not provide an echo chamber for what happens in the blogosphere. Policy is clear on this. Blogs are almost never acceptable sources. If there is reliable criticism, i.e. The Economist, by all means make reference to it. Otherwise it has to go. End of story. Given what appears to be general consensus on this in the discussion above, I'm a little surprised that action hasn't been taken on this. --Beaker342 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The character and merit of the blog in question differentiate it from random verbiage any political yahoo might put up. The Lying in Ponds information used to be portrayed here in this article as much more authoritative than now. We've properly identified it "Blogger Ken Wraight says..." and Wikipedia readers can evaluate it from there. We're not using it as an authoritative source for a fact statement. Also, blogs are becoming more, not less, acceptable as sources. Recently Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo blog scooped all the major newspapers on the politically-driven Federal prosecutor firings story. So I don't think we need to purge blog quotes and citations from Wikipedia. We should exercise caution, surely, and have done so here. DanielM 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not all blogs are created equal. However, your sympathy for blogs is not reflected in Wikipedia policy. Consult WP:BLP, which reads, "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." If I read the debate above correctly, the Economist used data from the blog, but we need to be citing the Economist, not the blog, because the Economist is accountable for what it publishes. The blog is not. The ban on using blog sources is even more stringent for BLP, as is the case here. --Beaker342 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's talking about using blogs as sources for fact statements, isn't it? It's not saying "thou shalt never utter the words of a blog." We're not saying "Paul Krugman is the #4 most partisan columnist" and then linking the blog as a reference. We're saying "here is this blog using its own methodology and here is what they claim." The reliability or unreliability of the blog is right there for readers to decide on their own. If rapper Kanye West says "Bush doesn't care about black people" we're not going to assert as a statement of fact that Bush doesn't like black people and then link Kanye West as a source. But surely we can say that Kanye West made that statement. We're not enjoined from from referring to that because Kanye is not a well-known professional researcher writing within his field of expertise. DanielM 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't cite it if the only place West said it was in his blog. There are of course countless reliable sources we could use to cite that incident. As for your other point, I don't see how your interpretation squares with the text of WP:RS and WP:BLP. I'll cite BLP: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources." Since blogs are by definition unreliable, they cannot be the basis of criticism.--Beaker342 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we will reach agreement. Not to agree with Lying in Ponds methodology or anything else about it, but the guy there has done some impressive work. It's not right to just forbid anything said by a blog. Reliability is not the means by which something is said, but rather the person or organization saying it, and the content of what is said. What if Walter Kronkite or Marie Curie or Herodotus communicated by blogs? We'd be out of luck! I will not revert if you delete it again, but I hope to hear from some third person. DanielM 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC) PS: Thanks for deleting that Shrillblog irrelevance, something totally different.

As I am the editor who first included the Waight data, I don't know if I count as a third person. However, it seems notable to me that DanielM was originally opposed to the inclusion of the reference and has changed his mind to support it. DanielM's arguments against the Wikipedia policy against blog sourcing are, in my view, extremely strong. Waight is actually a founding member of the Media Bloggers Association (he is listed in their sidebar), an organization dedicated to advancing the view that bloggers (and not just corporations) deserve the press protections enshrined in the 1st Amendment. I can't imagine that Wikipedia stands against the MBA on this question.

I would like to reiterate my earlier characterization of the "Criticism" section of this entry: the inclusion of strong, substantive criticisms from reputable critics continues to be opposed vehemently, while weak, ill-conceived attacks from blowhards like Bill O'Reilly are included. This dynamic is, in my view, generating an article that on balance espouses a robustly pro-Krugman POV. A good way to start countering this would be to reintroduce the Waight criticism in a prominent position near the top of the Criticism section. However, I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor and I do realize that, technically, the letter of WP can be construed to rule out the Waight analysis; DanielM, perhaps you feel will empowered by my comments to revert again, and/or maybe you or someone else can take up the broader issue with the WPmakers. Jjb 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that I objected to a sentence and some phrasing and I pointed out Wikipedia cautionary policy about blogs as sources but I was not opposed to the inclusion of the reference. We discussed things in different ways as the text evolved but I believe you are mistaken that I changed my mind. I am not and have never have been in favor of categorically banning blogs as references. Neither do I think they should categorically be regarded as reliable. About six paragraphs up, I talked about how I thought it could be used. DanielM 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Krugman as "shrill", and the "shrill" meme in the blogosphere.

The Shrillblog is not an irrelevance, it's the primary manifestation of the use of "shrill" by figures on the left as a badge of honor, describing what they see a willingness to speak facts that are being suppressed as "impolite" or "overly partisan" (another manifestation of this idea is Stephen Colbert's coinage "reality has a liberal bias"), because they embarrass people on one side of the aisle, rather than conveniently suiting the "reality must be somewhere between the two points of view" mode of many media outlets. Criticism of Krugman on his "shrill" and "partisan" style was widespread for several years -- you practically couldn't hear his name without "shrill" being associated with it. There's a Russell Baker NY Review of Books piece that discusses this, but unfortunately it's archived behind a pay-wall. Auros 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, excuse me for writing that off as irrelevant out of hand. It still seems rather tangential but I will scan around to see the level of association with PK. DanielM 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
"krugman shrill" gets 83k hits on Google. And try asking anyone who hangs out in the left blogosphere what name the associate with "shrill", or see if they get the reference behind the word "krugmanomicon", or "shrill, unholy madness" (which, by itself, gets 805 hits right now). I created a Shrillblog entry at one point, but it was deleted while I was away on vacation by some people who took it to be a vanity entry by the author of the blog. I haven't gotten around to getting the deletion reversed. Auros 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Very good, and thank you for cleaning up the section, but all this begs the question of why what happens in the blogosphere is relevant for our purposes, especially given the strict restrictions Wikipedia places on blogs as sources of criticism, doubly so for WP:BLP. --Beaker342 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:BLP, adding emphasis: "blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject". Many sources of the "shrill" criticism are non-bloggy, and the source of the discussion of the conversion is the people involved in that (link to DeLong's self-report, along with his links to Cowen and Northrup). (I actually think this is actually a poor policy, in any case; the blogs of working journalists and academics are, IMHO, only marginally less reliable than news websites.) As for why we should be concerned with the blogosphere itself, it is a significant driver of modern political coverage and punditry. Try searching "libby blog coverage" on Google News; many newspapers, in their post-Scooter-Libby-trial wrap-ups, admitted that much of the best coverage came from livebloggers, and newspapers were in many cases just validating and then duplicating such coverage. Senator James Webb was originally recruited by a blog campaign. Conservative blogs are also quite influential; Tom Daschle was taken down, in part, through the nexus of a conservative blogger starting stories (some with basis in fact, others not) and then having the local papers report on the blogger (breathless "are these allegations true?!" stories). Auros 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it sounds like your dispute is with WP:RS and WP:BLP. We are all well aware that blogs can be influential. No one is denying that. The dispute is whether or not blogs are valid sources of criticism. Policy says they are not, and does not differentiate between "good" blogs (ones authored by generally reliable persons, famous blogs like powerline or dailykos) and "bad" blogs (a blog some dude just started five minutes ago). --Beaker342 02:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you're absolutely right, I disagree with the policy -- I think there does need to be a system by which we distinguish "serious" blogs (from Tapped, to The Corner, to The Moderate Voice; I think "famous" doesn't necessarily mean reliable -- e.g. Matt Drudge is certainly famous, but extremely unreliable). In any case, on this particular topic, I don't think the sourcing violates the policy. Auros 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: One can always justify using blogs that make reliable reports of facts, or that, like The Big Picture, provide useful visualizations of publicly-available data, under WP:IAR and WP:UCS... Auros 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krugman as a political appointee?

I'm removing the line about being a possible appointee, because I know I've heard him in interviews specifically say he's not interested, and I cannot find any references to any candidate (Dean or anyone else) suggesting that they'd try to persuade him otherwise. If you can find actual support for this idea, other than right-wingers suggesting it in order to paint Dean as being ultra-liberal, by association with people's perceptions of Krugman, please link. Auros 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Krugman

It makes no sense to put the fact that he is a distant relative of Martin Krugman in the first paragraph. If anything, it belongs in a "trivia" section, but there is none now, so I am inclined to remove it. Cj67 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Auros 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eeyore?

I've added this to the criticism section:

Describing Krugman's "jeremiads" and calling him "our own academic Eeyore," Paul Greenberg says that "nothing seems to depress this expert like good news. Here the stock market is at an all-time high, the unemployment rate keeps dropping below low, but our expert keeps warning that The End Is Near … this is a guy who lives for a repeat of 1929." (The sound of one man weeping by Paul Greenberg, April 30, 2007)

More from Just One Minute. Asteriks 07:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to try to quote everything that everyone has said about Krugman. Why should this particular criticism be included? Paul Greenberg isn't a sufficiently prominent spokesperson to have an article about him, and the criticism doesn't seem particularly substantive. JamesMLane t c 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For similar reasons, I deleted the line about his status in Bernard Goldberg's book. This is little more than a shill for his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.207.97.7 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under criticism, why no mention of Krugman shilling for Enron?

Paul Krugman wrote an article PRAISING Enron (while on its advisory board) as the "future of corporations". It's on his archives "pkarchives", though few remember it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.208.34 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 June 2007

Indeed. There IS a brief mention, but it's horribly misleading. Krugman has spent his entire career bashing free markets (why he objects to being called a socialist is beyond me), but the ONE time he found something positive to say about a major corporation, it just happened to be one paying him tens of thousands of dollars? Give me a break. He wrote glowing praise of Enron a year or two before its fall. The section on Enron needs lots of beefing up, and I plan on doing it. An article on Krugman that doesn't elucidate his Enron connection would be comparable to an article on Nixon with 3 sentences on Watergate. It's a joke.Pinkvolkswagen 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is documented evidence in reliable (read nonbloggy) sources of a controversy, it's not a controversy. --Beaker342 02:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are by definition not reliable? This is insipid. Among the people who have BLOGS in which they've exposed Krugman as essentially a charlatan are Donald Luskin (frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and National Review Online) and Andrew Sullivan (widely read author). The Enron episode was more than just a controversy, it was a definitive exposure of Krugman as a fraud, and no amount of caterwauling by leftist apologists can make it otherwise.Pinkvolkswagen 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Beaker342. You should also note that there's an entire paragraph about Enron in the "Biography" section. JamesMLane t c 04:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Some blogs are better than others. It depends on the case. It seems your problem is more with the placement of the discussion than in the content, as there is already a mention of Enron in the article. Regarding "leftist apologists", please take a few looks at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, especially in regards to giving critics undue weight. I take it to mean that the Enron episode need not take up any more of the article than the few sentences it already does. --Beaker342 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The very title of this section indicates that particular anon editor's anti-Krugman bias. In fact:
1. Krugman is not opposed to free markets. In fact, the problem with Enron is that the company engaged in a long-term campaign to subvert free markets by engaging in monopolistic practices and manipulation designed to artificially create shortages, and by publishing fraudulent annual reports.
2. When writing about Enron, Krugman disclosed his role as a part-time advisor to Enron, as is already noted in the article.
Editors with a vendetta against Krugman should post their rants on the Luskin and Sullivan blogs. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for poorly-sourced, fact-challenged hit pieces.--HughGRex 10:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling Obama Supporters Cult Like

Manticore55 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)This is not just one blog, but dozens. The man is clearly and blatantly "shilling" for Hillary Clinton and it should be mentioned.

Fine, provide sources that many significant commentators object to Krugman's views on Obama and I withdraw my objections. The section must also be presented in an NPOV manner, which I don't feel your paragraph does. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Provided. Also, my paragraph simply states what the critics state.

I might tweak the language a little bit later, but it works for me. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What's up with this - the second link is just a copy of his article (as far as I can tell), and the third link seems to be pro-krugman. So why are they included in "criticism" of his article?76.161.209.27 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economist's creed

“If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations “I believe in the Principle of Comparative Advantage” and “I believe in Free Trade”.” Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at MIT, Cambridge The concept of comparative advantage

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-macro-trade-comparative-advantage.html

This quote is too amazing not to be included. Larklight (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krugman and the Democratic nomination campaign

An anonymous editor added a sentence with an interpolated comment in the article, and left a related message on my talk page. I'm copying both below so that everyone can participate in the discussion. JamesMLane t c 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Added by the anon to the article: Krugman also known as Hillary Clinton's supporter at New York Times, and as a harsh critic of Barack Obama and his campaign staff. Interpolated comment: *** Anybody who disagrees with the sentence above should look at his column and blog at NYTimes first! If it's true that he's ardent critic of the George W., then the above is also true. And I also think that Krugman should not edit this page:) ***

From User talk:JamesMLane: Hi Paul(?), I think it's obvious that recently Krugman's criticism of Obama and support of Hillary has grown to the level of his criticism of George W. Bush (the evidence is overwhelming, check his column/blog, both the volume and content of his recent posts speak for themselves) Thus I think that it became a part of his legacy (I'm sure that he does it consciously) and should be in the first section of the article, as a "warning sign";) Though he may still be a liberal (also I could argue against it - on the same basis - whether liberalism stops at supporting gun-loving, wanna-obliterate-Iran, somewhat (implicitly)racist candidates, but I can live with it) I'm new to Wikipedia and don't really master the English language so your editing is always welcomed, I just wanted to share my opinion before you "undo" my recent contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.247.120 (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, but if you want to edit here, you should conform to the standards that the community has developed. One of these is assume good faith. I'm not Paul Krugman, and if you have no evidence that I am, you shouldn't make such insinuations. As for the specific edit, Krugman's criticism of Bush long predates and far outweighs his criticim of Obama. Because he has also criticized Clinton, we would not characterize him as a Clinton supporter, or a "harsh" critic of Obama, without a citation. It's not enough for you to say that anyone who disagrees should go research the point. There's disagreement, so it's up to you to find support before adding the assertion to the article. Furthermore, "support" doesn't mean digging up some Krugman statements that you consider harsh. That would violate our rule against original research. If some prominent spokesperson expresses an opinion, then we can consider it for inclusion. Even then, however, we don't adopt such an opinion (no matter how strong you or anyone else thinks the evidence is), because our core policy is the neutral point of view (NPOV). We would instead report the fact about who holds the opinion. Notice that that's how it done in the paragraph in the article that discusses Krugman's criticisms of Obama. That paragraph would be the appropriate place for any further information that you think the article needs. JamesMLane t c 13:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
George Stephanopoulos had this to say on Sunday in an interview with Clinton: "Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing."[1] Is he sufficiently prominent? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I have to admit that my massage contains regrettable immature elements, many of which you've pointed out:) Nevertheless I disagree with many of your statements and please get off your high horse. I follow Krugman's activities VERY closely. But let's talk about indisputable facts.

You and the article stated - without actually presenting any evidence - that "Krugman's criticism of Bush long predates and far outweighs his criticim of Obama" and (Krugman) "is an ardent critic of the George W. Bush administration and its foreign and domestic policy".
Well, I disagree with that. It obviously predates, but we are in a new era where Obama is the "new Bush" (to Krugman), and we have to actualize the content. (actually Krugman's criticism of - for instance - Greespan long predates and outweights his criticism of W. Bush, why not include that too? Honestly, which is more important?)
Proof? Paul Krugman blogs since 2005, please google for the following two terms: "Obama site:krugman.blogs.nytimes.com" and "W Bush site:krugman.blogs.nytimes.com". The numbers speak for themselves: something like 348 vs. 505 for Obama (slightly vary depending on the used datacenters). Even simply "Bush -Reagan site:krugman.blogs.nytimes.com" occurs only 471 times on his blog (which may still include Bush senior, Krugman usually compares/analyzes previous administrations in his posts). So he is slightly obsessed with one of the democratic nominees, at least to the level of his Bush-criticism, at a very important and delicate time for those.
Almost on every single occasion when he "criticizes" Hillary Clinton, by saying something like her plan is "pointless", for instance, he feels the need to add that even if it's true, the subject is almost insignificant compared to others.
So I don't know what kind of evidence do you need, but if you don't consider "characterized Obama supporters as 'cult-like', complained that the media had not given Obama sufficient scrutiny" as an active act of support/criticism, then I'm sorry, but we disagree (support and criticism, and their mesurements, are very subjective, especially at the campaigning time. On the same basis anyone can dispute almost EVERY WORD (epithet) of the article. I can't see too many citations!)
I'll try to find quotes from "prominent spokesperson's the way JCDenton2052 did, but my point is, still, that on some level we have to include Krugman's criticism of Obama, if the article contains that "Krugman is an ardent critic of the George W. Bush..". At least the google-numbers proove that.
My final compromised proposition is that we include, on the same place, what Krugman wrote in his column with references. Both where he went wild on Obama and the likely reason too, his admiration of Hillary's health care plan and criticism of Obama's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.247.120 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at Krugman's columns for 2008.[4] I counted 18 critical of George W. Bush, 2 (mildly) critical of Hillary Clinton, 9 critical of John McCain, and 18 critical of Barack Obama. In the articles themselves, he was much more critical of Obama than any of the others. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)