This week Krugman says we ought to acknowledge that there are losers in international trade, and that we should introduce government subsidies, rather than trade restrictions, to help them. He says right-wing ideologues have failed to make note of these losers, even though he himself failed to mention them in his own scholarly work on trade.
But we spend much of the episode defending the unpopular view that globalization is overwhelmingly and indisputably a good thing.
We managed to dig out some economics from yet another standard Krugman attack on the Republican Party. This time it's his skepticism about the existence of very much income mobility in America. We'll say this: if government programs had the record of success in this area that the (hampered) market economy has, Krugman would never let us hear the end of it.
Krugman discusses how economists should respond to the growth in sympathy for protectionism. Along the way, his Keynesian assumptions lead him to oddball conclusions. Bob and Tom also spend some time explaining the classical case for free trade and discussing whether that case has been vitiated in light of modern conditions.
Krugman says both Trump and Romney get the economics of trade wrong, but as usual, it's Krugman who makes his share of mistakes. With Bob on a lecture tour of Europe, Tom is joined this week by David Howden, chairman of the department of business and economics at St. Louis University's Madrid campus.
Bob and Tom use Krugman's column as a springboard from which to try to come to grips with the Trump phenomenon. Krugman does get a bit of it right this week, as it turns out, but whom are you going to look to on this, Krugman or Bob and Tom?
Paul Krugman criticized Bernie Sanders again last week, arguing that the numbers in his economic proposal don't work. In particular, he went after economist Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts, arguing that his projected growth figures are far too high to be plausible. Friedman and others fired back, arguing that they were using Krugman's own models to reach their conclusions! Bob and Tom discuss and enjoy this exchange, and then give the Austrian view of the whole thing.
We couldn't pass up this column, called "On Economic Stupidity." If you want to rein in the Fed or not run deficits during a recession, you're just stupid. Here's our reply.
Krugman accuses Establishment man John Kasich -- of all people -- of supporting hard money. Then he tells us that balancing budgets hurts depressed economies. A tone-deaf understanding of American politics, plus old-fashioned Keynesianism -- that's Krugman, and that's what we discuss today.
Krugman evaluates the claims of market monetarists, who blame the Fed for the crisis because its policy was allegedly too timid. Krugman doesn't agree (and on that he's correct!), and he also finds it weird that "free-market" economists would say the Fed "caused" the crisis by not intervening. Isn't not intervening what free-market economists are supposed to favor?
You'll never guess how Krugman apportions blame for the polluted water fiasco in Flint, Michigan. Wait, you probably will. Bob and Tom exonerate libertarianism in this episode!
This week's column is classic Krugman. No matter what happens, he can claim to have predicted it. Or when a country obviously follows his advice, he finds some loophole on which he can blame the ensuing disaster. In this column Krugman discusses the recent plunge in Chinese stock markets, and what if anything it portends for the rest of the world. Finally, a column about economics, at least!
Krugman reassures progressives that Barack Obama really has had some accomplishments. Think of how radically different America would be under Mitt Romney! Top marginal tax rates might differ by a few percentage points, and Obamacare might have been slightly modified! Oy vey.
Krugman says the GOP presidential candidates have all embraced the radical, anti-government views of George W. Bush. First, we were speechless. Then, we recorded an episode of Contra Krugman. Lew Rockwell joined us this week.
This one is a doozy. Krugman called for low interest rates in 2001 precisely to stimulate housing, even calling for a housing bubble (this was "a joke," he later claimed). Now he says the artificial stimulus to housing had to do with crooked Wall Street shenanigans, and had nothing to do with the Fed or government policy at all.
We ain't having it.
The Paris agreement on climate may have saved civilization, says Paul Krugman. The usual fact-free analysis then follows. But as you know, Paul Krugman is the bologna, and Contra Krugman is the slicer.
Krugman says the economy isn't really so bad! And the good parts are due -- of course! -- to what little Keynesian policy the stupid American rubes have permitted. You think he's going to get away with that, with Contra Krugman around?
Krugman correctly identifies one of the reasons housing is so expensive in New York. What else could the explanation be if not the salutary influence of Contra Krugman?
This week Obamacare got some terrible news: rising premiums, lackluster enrollment (which is why the pool is sicker than anticipated), and major losses being suffered by insurance companies participating in the Obamacare exchanges. These are problems, Krugman magnanimously concedes, but not a big deal. Oh, yeah? Wait until you hear this episode!
On the one hand, Krugman says we really don't know why mortality rates for middle-aged white men have been on the rise. On the other, it's probably because of his political opponents.
We have a much more plausible explanation for this rise, and it isn't because conservatives have been warning about bad economic times. Listen in!
This week, Paul Krugman claimed that the economy does better under Democrats, and that the wild growth promises of "free market" Republicans never materialize. Without being water carriers for either party, we set Krugman straight -- after all, that's what we're here for!
Says Krugman this week: poor Mitt Romney. Now he wants to take credit for paving the way for Obamacare, but the rubes in the GOP will rip his head off. But Mitt is right, says Krugman, and in any event the Affordable Care Act has been a great success! None of the terrible things opponents predicted would happen have come to pass.
Is Denmark a good model for the United States? Krugman thinks so, and claims the large welfare state there, combined with that country's prosperity, disproves free-market claims about the impoverishing effects of heavy government spending and intervention. To make his case, Krugman has to contradict his own textbook from six years ago. It isn't pretty, folks.
Paul Krugman says Paul Ryan is an empty suit whose budget plans are ridiculous. No arguments there, as we'll show. But the problem with Ryan isn't that he's an Ayn Randian, as Krugman absurdly suggests, or that his proposals are too draconian. As usual when Krugman gets one right, he gets it right for the wrong reason. Ryan's proposals are much too timid, they take domestic "savings" and pour them into military boondoggles, and don't do a thing about entitlements.