Whatever you think of his politics, there’s no debating that Krugman is one of the most intelligent economic analysts writing today. The Washington Monthly labeled him as the most important political columnist in America, while The Economist claims he’s the most celebrated economist of his generation. His credentials provide excellent evidence to these prestigious claims. He received the John Bates Clark Medal from the American Economic Association, an award given every two years to the top economist under the age of forty. In 1982 and 1983, Krugman worked as a staff person under President Reagan on the Council of Economic Advisors. Thereafter Krugman taught at a number of top ranking universities including Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, Stanford University, and Princeton University, where he currently teaches. In 2008, he accepted the world’s highest honor in his academic field- the Nobel Prize for Economics.
 |
| Economist Paul Krugman |
Economist Edgar Fielder once quipped, “Ask five economists and you’ll get five different answers; six if one went to Harvard.” Krugman holds degrees from two Ivy League schools not named Harvard- a bachelors degree from Yale and PhD from MIT- and many people believe he’s that one economist that has it right. This trust in Krugman’s policy has been evident from his monstrous following in the social media. Krugman’s most famous contributions to the public discourse are his op-ed columns in The New York Times. Not only are his opinions heard by means of the third biggest newspaper company in the world; his blog also draws lots of attention. The Conscience of a Liberal is updated multiple times a day, sometimes racking up triple digit comments. Everyone from the far left to far right throws his /her two cents in. And unlike most social media, the comment sections were dominated with extremely educated and sophisticated viewpoints.
As if his blog title doesn’t give away his beliefs already, Krugman summarized his views nicely stating, “I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it.” He passionately pursues leading America to abide by these societal views. It’s these views that cover his blog and op-ed section of the New York Times, providing new light on worldly situations to everyone.
Krugman’s solutions become pretty complicated, as expected, to solve such a complicated recession. And most, but not all, of these solutions align with liberal beliefs. In fact, he’s expressed his disinterest in our nation’s president who has often been accused of being socialist, however, to Krugman he isn’t far enough left. Krugman has boldly attacked Obama’s policies, accused him of making the economy worse, and pointed out numerous of his mistakes.
Krugman argues for more extreme expansionary fiscal policies than Obama. He believes this will help the western nations to get out of their liquidity trap (Note: A liquidity trap, as described in Keynesian economics, is a situation where injections of cash into the banking system by the central bank fail to lower interest rates leading in turn to stimulated economic growth. The situation is caused when people hold onto cash because they expect an event such as deflation, insufficient demand or war). He recommends inflation targeting as a possible solution. In simpler terms, more spending will help the economy and unemployment by getting more money circulating than being hoarded. It’s evolved from Keynesian economics that emphasizes taxing, spending, and borrowing.
Professor Krugman’s most famous book, The Conscience of a Liberal (also the same name as his blog), rallies for economic equality and the liberal politics that support it. He writes negatively about the George Bush administration for implementing tax policies that widened the economic equality gap between the rich and poor. After all the criticisms, the book began to get brighter. By chapter ten, he seemed extremely optimistic that demographic trends – race and culture- are creating a political environment favoring the left and moving away from the conservative movement. His main proposals in the following chapters include a focus on social and medical programs- especially universal health care- and less on national defense. If you happen to fall left of center, this book is the perfect read for you.
Krugman makes a statement against the rich and big corporations. “Maybe the most striking observation is that even among highly educated Americans, most haven’t seen large income gains. The big winners, instead have been members of a very narrow elite: the top 1 percent or less of the population…an erosion of the social norms and institutions that used to promote equality (contribute to the income gap).” Putting the blame of income inequality on the change in social norms is a hefty accusation. Dr. Krugman has been an outspoken critic against the rich and big corporations. He once even stated, “For most Americans, economic growth is a spectator sport.” It’s these “most Americans” Krugman goes to great lengths support. He wants the system to swing in their favor over the corporations and wealthy. When Mitt Romney pronounced his famous campaign line, “corporations are people,” Krugman expressed his displeasure on what these low corporation taxes would do for the middle class. “He wants to reduce middle-class Americans to serfs, forced to accept whatever pay corporations choose to give them.” He called Romney’s statement, “A Big Lie.” It’s this boldness that liberals love, but that puts him on center stage to get lashed at by conservatives.
Some of the country’s most watched economists have confronted Krugman’s bold views. The two battles that stand out in my mind include his heated sit-downs with Bill O’Reilly and David Brooks. Krugman’s calm personality shows during debates, and it seems to help him control and dominate these arguments. This is especially evident when Fox News analyst Bill O’Reilly and Krugman sat down on Tim Russert a few years back. O’Reilly seemed to come into the show looking for a fight. They mainly accused each other of using propaganda, in which O’Reilly got extremely defensive about and started name-calling. Krugman kept his posture composed and even conservatives must agree that Krugman- agree with his opinions or not- had obliterated Bill in the argument.
When Krugman met David Brooks, a more sophisticated and professional argument took place. Their debate over the debt ceiling in July turned out more equally. Brooks argued the debt needed to be stabilized. By the end of the debate, Krugman had brought up the new opinion that the default issue is entirely created by the republican issue to take hostages over the economy. It was well argued and a new perspective arose on the debt debacle.
New perspectives and the ability to turn economics into something everyday people can understand are the two biggest attributes that characterize Krugman as a public intellectual. As a public intellectual that seeks change in politics and the economy, the ability to tone down complicated topics in economics is vital to his success. We must remember that Krugman is not just educating people, but persuading them to take on his viewpoints. If he succeeds in doing so, he has gained potential voters to back the candidate that aligns with his views. Krugman is almost forced to also take on the persona of a political intellectual since economics and politics is so closely related. As an economist, Krugman has earned the respect of his peers as one of the greatest economists in the world. As a public intellectual, Krugman brings the knowledge that has taken him years to acquire to ordinary American citizens. This bridge is so crucial to the values behind an American democracy in which all citizens should contribute to political madness. By watering down economic theory and relating it to specific politicians, it has given Americans a view based from the knowledge of Krugman. It’s a bridge that’s crucial to the idea of a government by the people. However, similar to O’Reilly and Brooks, I question whether the information he’s giving to the public is truly the right one.
 |
| George Bush Meets With 2008 Nobel Award Winners Paul Krugman Stands To The Far Left |
Paul Krugman's solutions are what seem to be part of the problem and actions that are responsible for prolonging of the financial crisis in the first place. The real solution will lay in free-market principles rather than a centralized government and central bank intervention in the economy. When debt is the driving factor behind market insecurity, it’s hard to take Krugman’s recommendations seriously. To raise the money to spend, he proposes tax increases. But increased taxes really only have negative effects in the short run. Krugman also points out that cutting government spending in order to avoid deficit will reduce consumer demand, leading to increases in unemployment and a potential recession. But common sense would lead one to the conclusion that higher taxes is what causes American’s to limit excess spending. Dr. Krugman is extremely successful as a public intellectual, and although we disagree, a clash of opinion is what helps fuel deep public debate on economic policy.
As a public intellectual and expert in his field, a trust exists that Krugman’s thought process is backed by solid evidence and economic data. Although I do not believe the historic evidence backs Krugman, the way he goes about spreading his knowledge is perfect. His character is uncorrupted and unlike many who have taken center stage. He will not twist words and he will not lie. I respect him for not stretching the truth. When the truth is stretched, it bothers him. In his blog post he attacks Romney for stretching the truth, “So here’s my forecast for next year: If Mr. Romney is in fact the Republican presidential nominee, he will make wildly false claims about Mr. Obama and, occasionally, get some flack for doing so.” Furthermore, Krugman has always known his expertise and doesn’t stray outside his boundaries. It would be so easy to comment on irrelevant news when you’re on the center stage, but Krugman keeps it to politics and economics. Anything else isn’t his specialty and simply doesn’t coincide with his mission. Although I don’t wish to see his forecasts be put in motion, his following will always be strong. He has set a bar of character and reasoning for all public intellectuals to model after. It’s his character and boldness to pave new roads with his unique reasoning process that I concur with the articles that praise Krugman’s stature in the public intellectual realm.
