Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: Not Everything Is Political (Facts are facts whether you like them or not)
Clive Crook demands that I engage respectfully with reasonable people on the other side, but somehow fails to offer even one example of such a person. Not long ago Crook was offering Paul Ryan as an exemplar of serious, honest conservatism, while I was shrilly declaring Ryan a con man. But I suspect that even Crook now admits, at least to himself, that Ryan is indeed a con man.If you read my original post, and Noah Smiths KrugTron the Invincible post that inspired it, youll see that its all about macroeconomics about questions like whether budget deficits in a depressed economy drive up interest rates and crowd out private investment, about whether printing money in a depressed economy is inflationary, about whether rising government debt has severe negative impacts on growth.
What do these questions have in common? Theyre factual questions, with factual answers and they have absolutely no necessary relationship to the proper scale and scope of government. You could, in principle, believe that we need a drastically downsized government, and at the same time believe that cutting government spending right now will increase unemployment. You could believe that discretionary policy of any kind is a mistake, and at the same time admit that the expansion of the Feds balance sheet isnt at all inflationary under current circumstances.
So wheres this stuff about the scale of government coming from? Well, in practice it turns out that many conservatives are unwilling to concede that Keynesian macro has any validity to it, or that you can sometimes run the printing presses without unleashing runaway inflation, because they fear that any such admission would open the doors to much wider government intervention. But thats exactly my point! Theyre letting their views about how the world works be dictated by their vision of the kind of society they want; theyre politicizing their economic analysis. And thats why they keep getting everything wrong.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/not-everything-is-political/
Of course, the conservative economists' aversion to the use of unpoliticized "economic analysis" is not surprising to Krugman. I think he would agree that 'facts have a liberal bias' which is why conservative economists give them a wide berth.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1293 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (27)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman: Not Everything Is Political (Facts are facts whether you like them or not) (Original Post)
pampango
May 2013
OP
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)1. K&R
&U&G&M&A&N
n2doc
(47,953 posts)2. In other words, facts in Economics have a liberal bias
Just like facts in other fields.
Or perhaps it is just that the deluded and liars have a conservative bias. But you never hear that spoken.