(Before reading this post, check out this video on YouTube — bits of which were recently played on NPR’s Marketplace program and ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous. This video is popular because it perfectly represents the left’s attitude toward Paul Krugman — our new saviour, apparently.)
I was happy to see Nobel prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman featured on the front page of Newsweek — happy because I thought the article might contain some important facts and analysis for those of us who aren’t ready to accept him as the second coming of Christ.
Unfortunately, the article provides only the bare minimum of reporting required to avoid exemplifying the Krugman-worship it reports about. And sometimes the article doesn’t even provide that. The article appears reluctant to provide any substantive information that might weaken Krugman’s claim to perfection.
For example, consider this excerpt from the Newsweek article:
The Obama White House is careful not to provoke the wrath of Krugman any more than necessary. Treasury officials go out of their way to praise him by name (while also decrying the bank-rescue prescriptions of him and his ilk as “deeply impractical”). But the administration does not seek to cultivate him. Obama aides have invited commentators of all persuasions to the White House for some off-the-record stroking; in February, after Krugman’s fellow Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote a critical column accusing Obama of overreaching, Brooks, a moderate Republican, was cajoled by three different aides and by the president himself, who just happened to drop by. But, says Krugman, “the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I’ve never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong”—when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an “oo,” not an “uh” sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.
It’s possible that Krugman is a little wounded by this high-level disregard, and he said he felt sorry about criticizing officials whom he regards as friends, like White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer. But he didn’t seem all that sorry.
Given Krugman’s claim that the White House “has done very little by way of serious outreach,” and author Evan Thomas’ claim that the White House “does not seek to cultivate him,” isn’t it relevant that Obama offered to meet with Krugman and hear him out — and Krugman declined?
This is reported in Michael Calderone’s blog on Politico, in a report on Obama’s meeting with liberal columnists and pundits on January 14: “Paul Krugman, who Obama’s willing to hear out on economic issues, was invited, but didn’t attend.”
Why didn’t Krugman attend? Why would Newsweek report on the relationship between Obama and Krugman — and point out that Krugman has never met Obama — without mentioning that Krugman turned down an opportunity to meet him and talk with him?
Then, there’s this later in the Newsweek article:
Krugman has a bit of a reputation for settling scores. “He doesn’t suffer fools. He doesn’t like hauteur in any shape or form. He doesn’t like to be f––ked with,” says his friend and colleague Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz. “He’s not a Jim Baker; he’s not that kind of Princeton,” says Wilentz, referring to the ur-establishment operator who was Reagan’s secretary of the Treasury and George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state. But Wilentz went on to say that Krugman is “not a prima donna, he wears his fame lightly,” and that Krugman is not resented among his academic colleagues, who can be a jealous lot. Krugman’s fellow geniuses sometimes tease him or intentionally provoke his wrath. At an economic conference in Tokyo in 1994, Krugman spent so much time berating others that his friends purposely started telling him things that they knew weren’t true, just to see him get riled up. “He fell for it every time,” said a journalist who was there but asked not to be identified so she could speak candidly. “You’d think that eventually, he would say, ‘Oh, come on, you’re just jerking my chain’.” Krugman says he doesn’t recall the incident, but says it’s “possible.”
Why does Krugman have “a reputation for settling scores?” I personally believe (without sufficient evidence, I admit) that Krugman’s “opposition” to Obama — “he has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House” is how the Newsweek article puts it — has more to do with Krugman trying to “settle a score” than it has to do with economics or politics. If Krugman has a “reputation for settling scores,” I think it might be interesting to know the details. But the article provides no evidence to justify its claim that Krugman is vindictive. And the details would make all the difference for those of us who are trying to make the case that Krugman isn’t what his worshippers think he is.
And then, consider this:
Arriving at the Times just before Bush’s election in 2000, he was soon writing about politics and national security as well as economics, sharply attacking the Bush administration for invading Iraq. Someone at the Times—Krugman won’t say who—told him to tone it down a bit and stick to what he knew. “I made them nervous,” he says. In 2005, Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote, “Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.” Krugman says that Okrent “caved” to the criticism of conservative ideologues who were out to get him. (“I tried to be an honest broker,” says Okrent. “But when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance.”) It’s true that during the Bush era Krugman was the target of cranks and kooks, but it is also true that in areas outside his expertise he sometimes gets his facts wrong (his record has improved lately). Krugman is unrepentant about his Bush bashing. “I was more right in 2001 than anyone in the pundit class,” he says.
Suprise, surprise: Krugman “gets his facts wrong.” But which facts? The Newsweek article leaves out any evidence of factual inaccuracy. After reading the article, I perused his Wikipedia page in hopes of finding documentation of his factual inaccuracies, but there was nothing there. The article also says Krugman’s record “has improved lately.” What does that mean? Was he wrong 50% of the time five years ago, and now he’s only wrong 25% of the time? How did Evan Thomas determine that Krugman’s record “has improved lately?”
And what are the “substantive assaults” to which Krugman left himself open? Okrent seems to be making the argument that Krugman’s arguments didn’t hold up under scrutiny — but the article provides no insight into the real nature of the debate between Krugman and Okrent.
Then, there’s this paragraph from the Newsweek article:
Obama administration officials are dismissive of Krugman’s arguments, although not on the record. One official made the point that pundits can have a 60 percent chance of being right—and just go for it. They have nothing to lose but readers, and Krugman’s many fans have routinely forgiven his wrong calls. The government does not have the luxury of guessing wrong. If Obama miscalculates, he could truly crash the stock market and drive the economy into depression. Krugman’s suggestion that the government could take over the banking system is deeply impractical, Obama aides say. Krugman points to the example of Sweden, which nationalized its banks in the 1990s. But Sweden is tiny. The United States, with 8,000 banks, has a vastly more complex financial system. What’s more, the federal government does not have anywhere near the manpower or resources to take over the banking system.
Krugman swats away these arguments, though he acknowledges he’s not a “detail” man. He believes he is fighting a philosophical battle against the plutocrats and money-changers. Although he thinks Geithner has been captured by Wall Street, he has hope for Summers. “I have a strong suspicion that if Larry was on the outside and I was on the inside, we’d be reversing roles,” he says, but adds, “Well, not entirely. Larry has more faith in markets. I’m more of an interventionist.”
Thomas writes Krugman’s fans have “routinely forgiven his wrong calls.” What wrong calls? And what makes Thomas think Krugman has been “forgiven”? The truth is that most of Krugman’s fans are unaware that Krugman has ever been wrong about anything. It would certainly be a service to the readers of Newsweek if Thomas would explain the “wrong calls” Krugman has made — but Newsweek won’t go that far.
As for Krugman’s “swatting” away of the Obama administration’s arguments about the challenges of nationalizing the banks — is this the same as saying that Krugman fails to address these arguments? The word “swatting” typically refers to the killing of an insect — but Obama’s arguments aren’t insects, and Krugman’s “swatting” is only effective for those of us who have put Krugman in charge of our brains.
And what on earth does it mean that Krugman isn’t a “detail” man? Isn’t this the same as saying Krugman doesn’t really know what he’s talking about? George Bush wasn’t a “detail” man when it came to the reconstruction of Iraq, and the result was catastrophe. Isn’t it reasonable to argue that the details matter when you’re advocating the nationalization of the banks — an effort that seems comparable, at least in some ways, to the reconstruction of Iraq’s economy?
There’s this toward the end of the article:
Last week Krugman and Summers were “playing phone tag.” (“It doesn’t necessarily mean that much,” says Krugman. “We’ve known each other all our adult lives.” Summers initiated the call; Krugman suspects he wanted to talk him through the administration’s plan.) In Friday’s column, Krugman tweaked Summers directly for his faith in markets, though he grudgingly gave the Obamaites credit for calling for extensive regulation of the financial world. Krugman thinks that Obama needs some kind of “wise man” to advise him and mentions Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman who tamed inflation for Reagan and now heads an advisory panel for Obama.
Translation: Summers called Krugman, and Krugman hasn’t managed to get back to him yet. Krugman’s claim that “it doesn’t necessarily mean that much,” should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who thinks Krugman represents ordinary people in a battle with the powerful elite who run our nation’s economy. People who actually do represent the working class wouldn’t dismiss a call from Lawrence Summers — but Krugman belongs to the same elite that he criticizes, so his dismissiveness is just an indication of how unserious he really is in his efforts to make change.
I completely agree with your interpretation of the NEWSWEEK article; when I read it, it seemed to me to be the worst sort of shallow gossip journalism. Few facts, little substance. Give the impression that Krugman is dishonest or wrong about a whole host of things, and hope the innuendo sticks.
If I understand Thomas correctly the whole crux of his article’s argument is here: “If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he’s wrong, and you sense he’s being a little harsh (especially about Geithner).”
Thomas is a self-described member of the “establishment persuasion”; it’s the persuasion with which he identifies. Krugman disagrees with the official positions people in government take, those Thomas looks to to learn what his beliefs will happen to be on any particular day. Therefore, Thomas feels uneasy–automatically uneasy–not because some of Krugman’s facts or analysis is wrong, but just cause Krugman is saying things that are not approved… by the Party or Big Brother or whoever. So, persuaded by the establishment as he is — though we should use the word “persuaded” loosely — Thomas goes out into the world to find evidence to justify his uneasy feeling, but seems unable to produce any… None.
More importantly, this whole piece of shallow establishment-worshipping lifestyle journalism is predicated on the fact that Krugman is somehow special or unique, when in fact he is more or less in line with the broad critique of a lot of prominent pro-nationalization pro-capitalist economists: Dean Baker, Martin Wolf (of the FT), Jeffery Sachs, Nouriel Roubini, Ha-Joon Chang, Brad DeLong, etc. — not to mention economic pundits on the left (those who call themselves economic anarchists, socialists, etc).
The real issue isn’t that Krugman is making these completely mainstream and widely accepted arguments, but that his unique position at the NYT allows these arguments to have traction in public debate.
I have to say that the apparent nervousness/disease of those of the “establishment persuasion” at NEWSWEEK is not something I’ll be losing any sleep over. The possible failure of the Obama administration to take the best course of action to stop the bleeding of the financial sector of the economy — nationalization of the banks — is something that worries me deeply.
Comment by Lee — April 1, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
P.S.: I love the music video you linked to. It’s hilarious, and fortunately seems self-consciously self-ironizing…
Comment by Lee — April 1, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
You say you “completely agree” with my interpretation of the NEWSWEEK article. But you are obviously being disingenuous.
For example, I wrote “The article appears reluctant to provide any substantive information that might weaken Krugman’s claim to perfection.”
Do you “completely agree” with that sentence? It seems clear that you don’t “completely agree” with my interpretation at all — in fact, you think Thomas was actually eager, because of his “establishment” bias, to find dirt on Krugman. But you write that you “completely agree” with me in an effort to effect some sort of rhetorical judo. Interestingly, it’s exactly that sort of manipulation and dishonesty that makes me dislike Krugman — people of his ilk try to be clever when they should just be honest. But being clever allows you to cover up the weakness of your own arguments.
Furthermore, your assertion that Thomas “goes out into the world to find evidence to justify his uneasy feeling” and “seems unable to produce any,” is a truly delusional reading of the article. If Thomas wanted to write a piece that truly took a swipe at Krugman — instead of a fluff piece casting Krugman as a heroic rebel — he could have reported about why Krugman declined an invitation to meet with Obama, why Krugman is so nonchalant about playing “phone tag” with Larry Summers, why Krugman’s columns are occasionally factually inaccurate, why Daniel Okrent thought Krugman was intellectually sloppy, what Krugman’s “wrong calls” were, how Krugman answers the Obama administration’s arguments about the impracticality of bank nationalization, etc.
Thomas describes himself as an establishment guy — and then describes Krugman as anti-establishment — in order to promote the idea that only the independent-minded Krugman has the pure intellectual integrity to criticize the system that has possibly corrupted Thomas and everyone else.
Thomas writes, “By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring. But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking.”
I really don’t think Evan Thomas is looking to criticize Krugman for being anti-establishment — in fact, Thomas is creating a narrative that turns Krugman into a heroic anti-establishment figure.
Meanwhile, could you please explain how the video is “self-consciously self-ironizing.” Because it seems to me that the singer in that video wants Krugman to be Secretary of the Treasury instead of Timothy Geithner. Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand the video? What does the phrase “self-consciously self-ironizing” mean? And why did you find the video “hilarious”?
Comment by Ian — April 2, 2009 @ 12:24 am
To be clear about what I thought I was agreeing with you about, and what I still agree with you about:
The NEWSWEEK article is a bad article. It doesn’t provide substantial evidence to support its claims, either pro- or anti-Krugman… and is more concerned with uninteresting nonsense like how Krugman feels that his name was mis-pronounced.
I guess I — honestly — didn’t realize that you meant that Thomas’s failure to adhere to minimal journalistic standards is equivalent to tacit or overt support of Paul Krugman. I guess I didn’t realize it because I don’t see how this article can be read as an effort to deify Paul Krugman as a super-awesome rebel guy.
My interpretation of the article was exactly what I said it was in my comment, that Thomas is a 100% self-identified establishment guy, someone who likes preserving the status quo except in cases of ice-cracking disaster. The proper response to Thomas’ view should be: we should preserve the status quo when it works and acheives our preferred ends, eliminate it when it doesn’t.
I interpret the article’s failure as a failure of journalistic standards. If there’s a bias, it’s toward grasping for something to use against Krugman, because Thomas is a status-quo fan.
You accuse me of “manipulation and dishonesty,” on the theory that “being clever allows you to cover up the weakness of your own arguments.” Let’s be clear here: if what you’re really saying is that Thomas is a Krugman apologist, and that the secret agenda of this article was to make Krugman look good — to make him seem as if he were “the second coming of Christ” — by not asking any hard questions of him, then what is weak here is the premise of this post.
You apparently want NEWSWEEK to write a hit piece against Krugman because of your personal disdain for him. When NEWSWEEK doesn’t do that, you complain. When I read your post, it seems that I projected my interpretation of the article onto yours. My complaint was that the article was a badly done lifestyle-type puff piece.
Rereading your post, it seems to me that when you identify yoruself as someone not ready to accept Paul Krugman as the “second coming of Christ” — and that your hope for this article was that it would give you ammunition to confirm your hunch — you say more about your approach to Krugman than you do about Krugman.
Let me put it this way: Is the most important question about Paul Krugman
(A) whether he returned Lawrence Summers’ call or
(B) whether his advocacy for nationalization — shared by Baker, Chang, DeLong, Wolf, Roubini, Sachs, etc., ad infinitum — is correct and if correct is being seriously considered by the U.S. government?
That’s what struck me as funny/ironic about the Krugman video: I mean, who gives a [expletive deleted] about Paul Krugman? This video is like the ridiculous/ironic inversion of the insipid will.i.am video supporting Obama. It’s funny because economists are by reputation a dull number-crunching lot; one doesn’t expect to hear a pop song about an economist.
To be clear: if we’re having an argument here, it’s not an argument between someone who thinks Paul Krugman is the “second coming of Christ” and someone not willing to accept that sacred truth.
Paul Krugman does not matter as a person. It’s Krugman’s ideas that matter, not the style of his presentation — shrill, dull, thrilling, or sad. Krugman is either right or he’s wrong. Or partly right or wrong. If he’s right, we should listen to him; if he’s wrong, not.
My view is that Krugman is probably right about bank nationalization, and that there is a very small political window within which to make such nationalization happen. But if Krugman disappeared from the earth tomorrow — or if perhaps his heavenly father recalls him to heaven — it’s not like there’d be no prominent advocates of that view. There’d be Martin Wolf, to pick someone almost at random, whose book How Globalization Works received an admiring blurb from Lawrence Summers. Maybe I’ll write a posting called “The path to salvation lies in Martin Wolf…”
If we can agree on anything, it’s that Thomas provides no basis for anyone to determine whether Krugman’s ideas — which are hardly unique to him — are right.
Comment by Lee — April 2, 2009 @ 2:04 am
I was perfectly clear in my post about what I think: The Newsweek article seemed reluctant to report anything that might undermine the idea that Krugman is an anti-establishment hero capable of saving us all from our own establishmentness.
You write, “I interpret the article’s failure as a failure of journalistic standards. If there’s a bias, it’s toward grasping for something to use against Krugman, because Thomas is a status-quo fan.”
Thomas wasn’t grasping for something to use against Krugman. As I clearly demonstrated above, Thomas had plenty of opportunities to report on Krugman’s failings, and he kept passing up those opportunities.
I don’t think you know what the phrase “journalistic standards” means in this context. Thomas wrote an article examining Paul Krugman as a political figure. What did you want? More charts and graphs?
I would be thrilled if Newsweek ran an article examining the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s ideas without referencing him personally. But Newsweek decided instead to write a short biography of the man and put his face on the cover as though he is a movie star. You write “Paul Krugman does not matter as a person.” But you can’t be serious — he obviously does matter, or else Newsweek wouldn’t be running a fluff piece on him. If Krugman disappeared tomorrow, it would be significant because people like Paul Krugman.
Comment by Ian — April 2, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Do you think Thomas wrote his article the way he did because (i) he is a bad journalist, who can’t be bothered to do his homework, or (ii) because he wants to support Krugman and so systematically and consciously avoided asking anything or printing anything that might paint Krugman in a bad light?
Your post did not give any evidence that would help someone reading the article distinguish between those two interpretations.
In fact, when I read the article I saw Thomas as attempting to paint Krugman as an egotistical narcissist who may unfortunately be right in this one case. Examples of Krugman’s petty self-aggrandizement as Thomas renders it: Krugman doesn’t like it when people in government mispronounce his name; he is separating himself from the establishment simply because he gets off being on the “outside”; yet at the same time, he is “a little wounded by… high-level disregard”; he likes to “settle scores”; he has a track record of getting his facts wrong… etc. Moreover there is almost no mention about what Krugman got right: his early identification of the deceitfulness of Bush’s economic tactics/agenda; his correct identification of the conspiracy to fix prices in the California energy market; his identification of the housing bubble long before anyone wanted to admit that it was a problem…
Given this litany of — as you correctly point out — largely unsubstantiated slurs against Krugman, and little substantial discussion of what he got right, I can’t imagine that Thomas has (ii) a secret Krugman-promoting agenda. I therefore would argue that Thomas is (i) doing bad journalism.
Can you point to anything in the article that is evidence not of bad journalism — a general failure to ask follow-up questions — but Krugman-worship/crypto-support in particular? If you can, I would completely agree with the statement that NEWSWEEK shouldn’t be secretly/deceitfully trying to prop up particular personalities on the left (or the right or the center). As far as I can tell, this is not what Thomas was doing.
Comment by Lee — April 2, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
I think I may be one of those Krugman worshipers as I’ve read every single column he’s written since October 2002.
Off the top of my head, he was wrong about the effectiveness of the Iraq Troop Surge. Around Iraq, he typically over-estimated how bad things would become. I’ll see if I can find it but, at one point I think he speculated that Iraq could lead to a Regional, or larger scale, war.
I’ve met him personally – he was very nice to me. He was less nice to other, like minded, people in the audience (sighs of exasperation, snarky comments, etc.)
As a random throw-out, I don’t believe that Krugman has actually suggested that full industry-wide nationalization take place. Rather, he favors nationalization of those large financial institutions at risk of failure. So does Alan Blinder and Joseph Stiglitz:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html
I know that Krugman is probably not a very friendly guy but, his columns about the economy are generally very good and, for me, help contextualize much.
I have to admit that I did not read the Newsweek article, although I’ve read this entire thread, and, Ian, if you’re looking for “substantive information that might weaken Krugman’s claim to perfection” then all you need to do is read his past articles to find out where he was right and where he was wrong.
As for me, I plan to continue reading his columns, along with others’ critiques, and his responses. I don’t plan on reading Newsweek anytime soon as I always feel a serious case of the dummers coming on afterwards.
Comment by aaron — April 9, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
The effectiveness of the surge is much contested. Many of the factors that led to the dampening of violence, as writers like George Packer have mentioned, were not actually related to the surge: moves toward different counterterrorism/anti-insurgency tactics, the Anbar Awakening, etc. etc. Still, I agree Aaron: Krugman is one man with a loud megaphone. He should be judged on the basis of the persuasiveness of his arguments and his record of correctness, with the proviso that past performance is not necessary an indication future success…
Comment by Lee — April 9, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
As long as we’re discussing examples of wrongness by Paul Krugman — there’s a massive example that should undermine not only Krugman’s credibility but the credibility of a whole group of economists.
That’s Krugman’s insistence, after Henry Paulson came out with his initial bank bailout plan, that instead of buying up the bank’s toxic assets, the government should inject capital directly into the banks by buying equity. Almost immediately after Congress passed Paulson’s plan, Paulson decided to abandon his original plan and follow Krugman’s advice instead. The results were apparently terrible.
Now, Krugman’s fans will deny that the federal govt decided to follow Krugman’s advice. It’s indisputable that the government decided to implement the basic concept Krugman outlined in his columns — to give banks direct capital injections in return for equity stakes in these banks. But Krugman’s fans will say that Paulson’s Krugmanesque plan didn’t work because the federal government didn’t impose all the conditions Krugman would have wanted.
In other words, Krugman’s supporters will argue that Krugman’s plan would have worked if Paulson had followed it closely enough — so it isn’t Krugman’s fault that his plan to inject equity failed.
This explanation may work for Krugman’s followers — who will seize on any rationale for continuing to believe that Krugman is the all-knowing genius when it comes to this stuff. But for people like me, it seems like the federal government did what Krugman proposed and it didn’t work. Krugman fans will say the equity injections didn’t work because instead of using the added capital to issue credit, the banks used this money to buy other banks and pay themselves bonuses and pay dividends to their shareholders.
In other words, Krugman fans will say that the banks — which, according to Krugman, are basically insolvent – didn’t use the federal govt’s new capital to improve their solvency so they could continue to function, but instead wasted that money on nonsense.
But I would challenge anyone who thinks this to show me evidence — evidence that doesn’t come from the same economists who are desperate to explain why their plan apparently failed so miserably.
I believe the banks used the federal govt’s equity to improve their balance sheets, but they were still reluctant to start lending aggressively because the toxis assets were still on their books. That’s why Tim Geithner is reverting back to a plan that involves getting these assets out of the banks altogether.
Let’s assume I’m right. Let’s assume that Paulson did basically what Krugman told him to do, and the Paulson/Krugman plan failed because it was a BAD IDEA. Doesn’t that reflect extremely poorly on Krugman? People who continue to take Krugman’s word for it wiithout taking a serious look at this issue are letting Krugman run their brains, and it’s no different from letting Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you.
Comment by Ian — April 11, 2009 @ 2:12 pm