Paul Krugman's view of social justice

[Peter1469]

How best to provide for the masses. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html?_r=1&)

I think that the good professor takes the wrong conclusion from the data. Plus his scheme isn't affordable anyway, so it is moot.



In 1786, the cloth workers of Leeds, a wool-industry center in northern England, issued a protest against the growing use of “scribbling” machines, which were taking over a task formerly performed by skilled labor. “How are those men, thus thrown out of employ to provide for their families?” asked the petitioners (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/the-introductio.html). “And what are they to put their children apprentice to?”


So what is the answer? If the picture I’ve drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

[jillian]

i never profess to know more about economics than paul krugman.

[Peter1469]

i never profess to know more about economics than paul krugman.

I don't profess to know more about economics that Paul either. But I do call him out on his non-economic partisanship. The NY Times doesn't post my responses to his quackery anymore. He is a neo-Keynesian and arguably that school of economics is discredited. If interest rates rise, all of his advice since 2008 will be seen as wrong.

[jillian]

I don't profess to know more about economics that Paul either. But I do call him out on his non-economic partisanship. The NY Times doesn't post my responses to his quackery anymore. He is a neo-Keynesian and arguably that school of economics is discredited. If interest rates rise, all of his advice since 2008 will be seen as wrong.

i was lucky enough to go to FIT to see him and another economist give a presentation for alumni of my college (among other schools). it was an extraordinary evening. he truly believes that economics and social responsibility go hand in hand. you can disagree with some of what he believes. no doubt. but he substantiates his positions pretty well.

and his brand of economics has proven more beneficial than anything produced by the austrian school of economics.... at least in my view.

[Peter1469]

i was lucky enough to go to FIT to see him and another economist give a presentation for alumni of my college (among other schools). it was an extraordinary evening. he truly believes that economics and social responsibility go hand in hand. you can disagree with some of what he believes. no doubt. but he substantiates his positions pretty well.

and his brand of economics has proven more beneficial than anything produced by the austrian school of economics.... at least in my view.

I don't think that neo-Keynesian economics accurately predicts anything. With that said we have never actually followed what Keynes argued, with the arguable exception of Clinton and his GOP Congress.

[jillian]

I don't think that neo-Keynesian economics accurately predicts anything. With that said we have never actually followed what Keynes argued, with the arguable exception of Clinton and his GOP Congress.

i think the new deal was closest to what krugman believes. and it led to one of our biggest booms and huge middle class growth.

[Chris]

How best to provide for the masses. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html?_r=1&)

I think that the good professor takes the wrong conclusion from the data. Plus his scheme isn't affordable anyway, so it is moot.

Seems he would also favor bringing back manufacture for horse and buggy.

He doesn't seem to appreciate Schumpeter's notion of creative-destruction.

[Chris]

i never profess to know more about economics than paul krugman.

Nice discussion stopper. But you don't have to know more than Krugman, he's a neoKeynesian. If you know that, you know enough said.

[Peter1469]

Seems he would also favor bringing back manufacture for horse and buggy.

He doesn't seem to appreciate Schumpeter's notion of creative-destruction.



You miss his point. He gets creative-destruction. His focus is on how to care for those harmed from it:


From the OP:

So what is the answer? If the picture I’ve drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

[Chris]

i was lucky enough to go to FIT to see him and another economist give a presentation for alumni of my college (among other schools). it was an extraordinary evening. he truly believes that economics and social responsibility go hand in hand. you can disagree with some of what he believes. no doubt. but he substantiates his positions pretty well.

and his brand of economics has proven more beneficial than anything produced by the austrian school of economics.... at least in my view.


his brand of economics has proven more beneficial than anything produced by the austrian school of economics.... at least in my view

And that view is based upon what regarding neoKeynesian economics and what about the Austrian School? Give a few examples.

[Chris]

You miss his point. He gets creative-destruction. His focus is on how to care for those harmed from it:


From the OP:

Harm is done rejecting creative-destruction and trying to resurrect what is no longer to our competitive advantage.

[Chris]

i think the new deal was closest to what krugman believes. and it led to one of our biggest booms and huge middle class growth.

New Deal was somewhat based on Keynes' ideas, Krugman is a neoKeynesian. I'm sure you know the difference.

War boosts an economy, sure, but then what do you do after the war? What did the US do?

[jillian]

You miss his point. He gets creative-destruction. His focus is on how to care for those harmed from it:


From the OP:

he, like most people who view the world as he does, thinks the austrian school is a bunch of nonsense.

he wouldn't give it credence, nor should he.

[Peter1469]

Harm is done rejecting creative-destruction and trying to resurrect what is no longer to our competitive advantage.

That is not what Paul is advocating. He is advocating social safety nets that include health care and a minimum "wage." See the OP.

[Peter1469]

he, like most people who view the world as he does, thinks the austrian school is a bunch of nonsense.

he wouldn't give it credence, nor should he.

Why?

[jillian]

Why?

it's inconsistent with krugman's worldview because it's socially irresponsible.

and austerity has never been shown to be a successful means of building an economy.

[jillian]

@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) I'd kind of like to get back to your o/p

from your link:



So what is the answer? If the picture I’ve drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

I can already hear conservatives shouting about the evils of “redistribution.” But what, exactly, would they propose instead?



what *would* you propose instead? and why do you think we can't afford it. presumably all of those middle class people pay money into the economy in the form of taxes and consumerism.

and how do you assure a strong middle class absent protections?

finally, why can't we do what countries like germany do? are we not as capable?

[Chris]

he, like most people who view the world as he does, thinks the austrian school is a bunch of nonsense.

he wouldn't give it credence, nor should he.

And why is the Austrian School nonsense, jillian. You make bold claims. Can you back them up?

[Chris]

That is not what Paul is advocating. He is advocating social safety nets that include health care and a minimum "wage." See the OP.

Saw that too, peter. But he wants to do that to support a past economy.

[Chris]

it's inconsistent with krugman's worldview because it's socially irresponsible.

and austerity has never been shown to be a successful means of building an economy.


it's inconsistent with krugman's worldview

It is.


it's socially irresponsible

But how is that, jillian. Another bold claim with no substance.


and austerity has never been shown to be a successful means of building an economy

Yes, it has.

[Chris]

From op-ed:


I can already hear conservatives shouting about the evils of “redistribution.” But what, exactly, would they propose instead?

From jillian:


what *would* you propose instead?

Even to centrally plan redistribution of wealth you need first to generate wealth.

Thus we have a major distinction between the neo-Keynesians and the Austrians.

[TheInternet]

New Deal was somewhat based on Keynes' ideas, Krugman is a neoKeynesian. I'm sure you know the difference.

War boosts an economy, sure, but then what do you do after the war? What did the US do?

I don't know the difference, what is it?

I don't believe war is helpful to an economy.

[Peter1469]

@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) I'd kind of like to get back to your o/p

from your link:






what *would* you propose instead? and why do you think we can't afford it. presumably all of those middle class people pay money into the economy in the form of taxes and consumerism.

and how do you assure a strong middle class absent protections?

finally, why can't we do what countries like germany do? are we not as capable?

I would end corporatism and allow the economy to grow. But that is easier said than done. What does Germany do to provide a guaranteed minimum income for all?

[Chris]

I don't know the difference, what is it?

I don't believe war is helpful to an economy.

Keynes argued for single small stimulus to try and restart an economy. NeoKeynesians argue to multiple huge stimuli.

Keyes also argued for using spending cuts to try and restart an economy. NeoKeynesians reject spending cuts altogether.


War does boost an economy in that it boosts production but all the production goes mostly to war machinery that is expended in fighting. When the war ends you find the boost really generated no wealth.

[TheInternet]

Keynes argued for single small stimulus to try and restart an economy. NeoKeynesians argue to multiple huge stimuli.

Keyes also argued for using spending cuts to try and restart an economy. NeoKeynesians reject spending cuts altogether.


War does boost an economy in that it boosts production but all the production goes mostly to war machinery that is expended in fighting. When the war ends you find the boost really generated no wealth.

Thanks for the explanation.

If war really boosted an economy, we'd send out troops to the middle of no where to "fight war" constantly, then the economy would never be bad. I read a good article talking about this, and the author equated the war boosts economy myth with "paying workers to build thousands of refrigerators, then dumping them in the Atlantic". Not only does war fail to generate wealth, it destroys it.

[Peter1469]

Right. If we tore down NYC and rebuild it, would it really help the economy?

[zelmo1234]

i was lucky enough to go to FIT to see him and another economist give a presentation for alumni of my college (among other schools). it was an extraordinary evening. he truly believes that economics and social responsibility go hand in hand. you can disagree with some of what he believes. no doubt. but he substantiates his positions pretty well.

and his brand of economics has proven more beneficial than anything produced by the austrian school of economics.... at least in my view.

Can you point to a country where it is actually working and improving the lives of the citizens?

[zelmo1234]

i think the new deal was closest to what krugman believes. and it led to one of our biggest booms and huge middle class growth.

Would you mind showing where the NEW DEAL lead to the economic boom. While those on the left try and Credit FDR and the New Deal, it has been proven that the economic boom came from WWII the loss of thoudands of workers in the war, and the rebuilding that followed

It is also now pretty common knowledge that the New Deal actually prolonged the depression!

[Chris]

Thanks for the explanation.

If war really boosted an economy, we'd send out troops to the middle of no where to "fight war" constantly, then the economy would never be bad. I read a good article talking about this, and the author equated the war boosts economy myth with "paying workers to build thousands of refrigerators, then dumping them in the Atlantic". Not only does war fail to generate wealth, it destroys it.

Yep, agree. But then so does social and corporate welfare, redistribution.

War may have at one time been profitable to obtain the resources of others and direct them toward use beneficial to your state. But wars aren't fought that way anymore.

[Chris]

Right. If we tore down NYC and rebuild it, would it really help the economy?

Probably. ;-)

[Peter1469]

Probably. ;-)


Probably not, if you took the economic waste into consideration. It is the broken window fallacy.

[TheInternet]

Yep, agree. But then so does social and corporate welfare, redistribution.

War may have at one time been profitable to obtain the resources of others and direct them toward use beneficial to your state. But wars aren't fought that way anymore.

Sure they are. Why do you think we are constantly at war in the middle east?

[Chris]

Sure they are. Why do you think we are constantly at war in the middle east?

Not for oil, or we'd have taken it. Not even the neocons sought that, just wanted oil flowing freely in the International market.

War, as Smedley Butler said, is a racket. What you might call conservative welfare, keeping the status quo or wealth flowing to the rich corporations of Eisenhower's military industrial complex, Lockheed, Boeing, Grumman, Halliburton, on and on.

[TheInternet]

Not for oil, or we'd have taken it. Not even the neocons sought that, just wanted oil flowing freely in the International market.

War, as Smedley Butler said, is a racket. What you might call conservative welfare, keeping the status quo or wealth flowing to the rich corporations of Eisenhower's military industrial complex, Lockheed, Boeing, Grumman, Halliburton, on and on.

Just bc we are not taking that specific oil doesn't mean we are not benefiting from the oil flowing from the region. It increases worldwide supply, thus lowering our cost.

Agree on the MIC.

[Chris]

Just bc we are not taking that specific oil doesn't mean we are not benefiting from the oil flowing from the region. It increases worldwide supply, thus lowering our cost.

Agree on the MIC.

Agree, we benefit from the flow of oil, of any trade globally.

It doesn't really lower cost, as the amount of oil is peaking, and you have oil cartels controlling price. So prices globally have been virtually flat since about the 60s. But because of inflation here, prices have soared since then, I remember filling up my Corvair for around 25 cents a gallon! Inflation, another form of taxation.

[Chris]

Probably not, if you took the economic waste into consideration. It is the broken window fallacy.

Yea but you have to balance that with it and other cities being centers for liberalism. ;-)

Yes, realistically it would be the same as fighting a war, the broken glass fallacy.

[Ransom]

Not for oil, or we'd have taken it. Not even the neocons sought that, just wanted oil flowing freely in the International market.

War, as Smedley Butler said, is a racket. What you might call conservative welfare, keeping the status quo or wealth flowing to the rich corporations of Eisenhower's military industrial complex, Lockheed, Boeing, Grumman, Halliburton, on and on.

Why are we stopping at Eisenhower? Who was profiting when there was an American rebel army to defeat? When British soldiers lived in your home while renting your daughter? Why not speak to the profits made during ww2, ww1, War of 1812, French and Indian, Civil, Revolutionary, Spanish American, Mexican, or 'lil Jemmys' wars?

[Chris]

Why are we stopping at Eisenhower? Who was profiting when there was an American rebel army to defeat? When British soldiers lived in your home while renting your daughter? Why not speak to the profits made during ww2, ww1, War of 1812, French and Indian, Civil, Revolutionary, Spanish American, Mexican, or 'lil Jemmys' wars?

I was just alluding to Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex". I agree with your point.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

[Mister D]

neocon wars are ideologically motivated at least in part.

[Chris]

Yes, they justify aggression in terms of liberation. A very liberal view of saving the oppressed from an oppressor. Bush spoke of spreading democracy, so does Obama, but for more humanitarian purposes. Sme thing, big brother saving the oppressed from an oppressor.

[Taxcutter]

Does "social justice" always entail moochers getting access to the Treasury?

[Chris]

Does "social justice" always entail moochers getting access to the Treasury?

Rent seeking is a moral hazard of government, especially any resembling democracy.

[Taxcutter]

Socrates was right.

[Chris]

Socrates was right.

For his criticism of democracy (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551948/Socrates/233642/Socrates-criticism-of-democracy):


Socrates’ analysis of the hatred he has incurred is one part of a larger theme that he dwells on throughout his speech. Athens is a democracy, a city in which the many are the dominant power in politics, and it can therefore be expected to have all the vices of the many. Because most people hate to be tested in argument, they will always take action of some sort against those who provoke them with questions. But that is not the only accusation Socrates brings forward against his city and its politics. He tells his democratic audience that he was right to have withdrawn from political life, because a good person who fights for justice in a democracy will be killed. In his cross-examination of Meletus, he insists that only a few people can acquire the knowledge necessary for improving the young of any species, and that the many will inevitably do a poor job. He criticizes the Assembly for its illegal actions and the Athenian courts for the ease with which matters of justice are distorted by emotional pleading. Socrates implies that the very nature of democracy makes it a corrupt political system. Bitter experience has taught him that most people rest content with a superficial understanding of the most urgent human questions. When they are given great power, their shallowness inevitably leads to injustice.

Agree.