The conscience of Paul Krugman

I know this blog can have a slightly libertarian slant and thought I would discuss some non-libertarian authors that I read and listen to, to try to balance the opinion of those 3 people who read my blog.

I have read and watched Paul Krugman for a long time. The following are two videos I have found on google videos given by Paul Krugman. For those of you who don't know, he recently won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for his work on trade patterns. Other famous people you may have heard of who won the prize: John Nash (the movie A Beautiful Mind was about him), and Milton Friedman (a very famous free market capitalist).

Adblock

Recently I ran across the following as well:



In the last week I finished his book "The conscience of a liberal" which is the same title as his New York Times blog. (I am adding his blog to my 'People trying to help' list on my blog with this posting, I think his blog is well worth the read even if you do not completely agree with him, he is entertaining and very smart.) I will try to talk in generalizations about my thoughts on his work and writings and as the opportunities come up in the future I will post specific thoughts on specific aspects of work and specific posts.

I have a very conflicted relationship with the writings of Paul. I think partially because his work is largely slanted heavily to the left. (I mean look at the title of his book.) However I am getting ahead of myself. His book largely traces the history of the modern Republican party from an economic standpoint, the opposition to the new deal, opposed to social security, the acceptance of social programs, and the current neo-conservatives. This is a history which is well stated in many books and publications. Throughout the book Krugman attacks the right viciously. Mostly the biased language he uses is the most unhelpful. For instance when talking about Social Security he says, 'The left supports the program while the right undermines the program.' For someone who is suppose to write in common language for the average American about politics and economics this statement is decidedly one-sided and unhelpful. The 'undermine' word implies not just against which is the actual intent (and truth) at the time he was talking about. He also casually dismisses valid libertarian thought about various aspects of the social order in that time. Essentially it is obvious that Paul Krugman is way to the left on the political spectrum and despises the Republicans.

I agree with almost all of his points about the history of the modern Republican movement and I have most of the same opinions, however his attacking is unhelpful. He should be trying to provide an unbiased opinion and critique of the current system. There are plenty of people who will tell you their thoughts on the other side (I am one of them, but I don't have a Nobel Prize...). Why should a proficient economist waste time with such things? Now in the book he devotes a lot of time to health care and why it is terrible that America does not have a national health care system. He calls for a New 'New Deal' where health care is the major component. This is most of the reason for the back story about the Republican party. There is significant disagreement over the implementation of health care policy but I do not feel after reading a lot on the subject that the right is as naive or stupid as Krugman would like to believe. They just have different views (both sides have entrenched corporations writing their bills about this). The goal is to find the best policy not to attack the other side, in this respect Krugman fails. In regards to health care policy it is important to also see the failings of the Democratic party and to understand why both sides act the way they do. I think this is sorely missed by the book.

However Krugman does point out rightly in a lot of cases the stupidity of actions by the Republicans (supporting racism for one). As I said before I feel that he should leave the general politics to other people and write about the stupidity in economics, there is no lack of them on either side (though if you only read Krugman you would assume the Democrats were almost angelic).

In the end while I completely disagree with his stances so far to the left I feel (unlike a lot of both Democratic and Republican writings) that his writing is at least intelligent and fun. While I would expect more from a Nobel Prize winner and I honestly would expect less from your average columnist so I feel he is someone that should have everyone's ear at least part of the time.

As an aside: Google Blogger thinks Democractic should be capitalized but not Republican. Seems shady to me.