More

Paul Krugman Profile In The New Yorker Links To Loudon Wainwright III Singing 'The Krugman Blues' (VIDEO)

First Posted: 04/24/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:35 PM ET

Malaysia Krugman

Larissa McFarquhar's lengthy profile of Paul Krugman in the New Yorker ("The Deflationist") chronicles how the prominent economist/columnist went from being a writer mainly concerned with the "smart and stupid" to one concerned with matters of "left and right."

It's the story of a conversion -- not from one political point of view to another, but rather how he came to participate in the mean-minded field at all.

(Also, scroll down to see the NewYorker.com video of folk singer Loudon Wainwright III crooning "The Krugman Blues". Sample line: "Sometimes when he's on the TV, in the background you can spot his school logo. Paul teaches at Princeton U, so Krugman ought to know.")

McFarquhar notes:

When Krugman first began writing articles for popular publications, in the mid-nineties, Bill Clinton was in office, and Krugman thought of the left and the right as more or less equal in power. Thus, there was no pressing need for him to take sides--he would shoot down idiocy wherever it presented itself, which was, in his opinion, all over the place. He thought of himself as a liberal, but he was a liberal economist, which wasn't quite the same thing as a regular liberal.

And as a liberal economist, he was tired of the typical political battles ("Supply-siders never tire of proclaiming that taxes are the root of all evil, but reasonable people do get tired of explaining, over and over again, that they aren't"), and the state of play hadn't yet reached the point where his faith was badly shaken ("Occasionally, he received letters from people claiming that corporations were cooking the books, but he thought this sounded so implausible that he dismissed them").

Ultimately, and not particularly surprisingly, it was the election of George W. Bush that galvanized Krugman to enter into ideological combat. But McFarquhar does a fine job of pointing out that Krugman never really gave up preferring to fight the battle of "smart versus stupid." He's been a vigorous critic of the Obama administration's policies and politics ever since the early 2008 primary season. However, she also notes that the process of shifting from a Bush critic to an Obama critic hasn't always been as fun:

But most people didn't see Obama the way Krugman did; they thought he was the savior of the left, and the passions of the campaign were such that when Krugman wrote columns deriding Obama he was lacerated--scathing comments on the progressive blogs, more hate mail, and not the fun kind. "I won't try for fake evenhandedness here," Krugman wrote. "The Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." "OK, you did it," one commenter wrote in response. "You lost me. I've defended you on local blogs but you've sunk into low territory." "You're devolving into a caricature with your gross misrepresentations and strident, ignorant defense of the Clinton campaign," another wrote. "Paul, you're killing a little bit of your readers' souls," a third wrote, "or at least those of us who used to love your column." "The primary was terrible, it was awful," Krugman says.


"Paul was getting attacked by people we thought of as on our side," Wells says. "I thought to myself, Well, I knew things were going to change, but this is quick and hard enough to give you whiplash. One of our friends said, 'You'd better be careful, because Obama supporters might put rattlesnakes in your mailbox.' People said, 'Oh, Paul's son works in Hillary's campaign.' " (Krugman has no children.) "People were so upset and angry after Bush, they had taken leave of their senses. They wanted to give themselves over, and they resented people like Paul who said, 'No, don't give yourselves over, think about what's going on.' They wanted to feel that they were being redeemed, and this is what Obama was offering, but he doesn't have the right or the ability to redeem people; that's not appropriate."

In short, standing in angry opposition to the Bush administration had its fun kicks, but watching the Obama administration flail has given him... well, the blues. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Loudon Wainwright III:

RELATED/RECOMMENDED:
The Deflationist [The New Yorker]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST MEDIA

Larissa McFarquhar's lengthy profile of Paul Krugman in the New Yorker ("The Deflationist") chronicles how the prominent economist/columnist went from being a writer mainly concerned with the "smart a...
Larissa McFarquhar's lengthy profile of Paul Krugman in the New Yorker ("The Deflationist") chronicles how the prominent economist/columnist went from being a writer mainly concerned with the "smart a...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 165
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
08:09 PM on 03/06/2010
Krugman presents the Keynesian view. This is the only view most people have been exposed to, therefore it is generally accepted as fact and is not subject to debate. But it is only a theory, and there are other, legitimate theories. You just don't read them in the NY Times.

Which leaves us with a limited debate and its subsequent set of false choices. Once again, I'm reminded of the wisdom of Mr. Chomsky: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

And Loudon is the man. That is some fine guitar playing.
05:29 PM on 02/24/2010
Wainwright is very entertaining but not Krugman.......I'll buy a CD of Wainwright and save my
eyes and not read of any of Krugman's gloom and doom.........we didn't get anywhere in
this country by complaining and deciding that we are doom to fail.........we moved ahead and
figured a way out through brains and determination.......
07:44 PM on 02/23/2010
Krugman is a disingenuous Obama hack.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickJ08
09:27 PM on 02/24/2010
Trolls should learn to read.
01:12 AM on 02/25/2010
Krugman is a cheerleader for President Barack Obama......period
04:07 PM on 02/23/2010
Krugman is yet another clown who has spent his whole life within the secular, isolated world of academia. That a guy who has never been part of a business or applying the very economics he espouses doesn't qualify as an 'expert' on anything. Of course, when one has no track record of accomplishment in the REAL world, you are thus eligible for a Nobel Prize!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Kreskytim
I was born by the river in a little tent...
07:02 PM on 02/23/2010
Thank you Sarah Palin.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Evan Handler
01:57 PM on 02/23/2010
I can't say I care too much about P. Krugman one way or the other, but LOUDON WAINWRIGHT III IS THE MAN! A much under-known and under-appreciated songwriter.

Help the economy and go buy one of his records today!
photo
Steve Young
Interested Party
02:31 PM on 02/23/2010
I first saw him in London in the mid-80s at a small and cozy bbc studio. He was great. I agree with Evan - go buy his stuff.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:01 PM on 02/23/2010
And you spelled his name right, too!
12:26 AM on 02/23/2010
I guess I will have to read the entire article in the New Yorker because this piece by Linkins makes no sense. I cannot understand the point he is attempting to get across to the reader.

Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times is a must read because he clearly articulates the faults and inconsistencies of ecomonic policies being advanced by the government, regardless of who is in charge. Furthermore, he explains current economic events with historical examples of similar situations in order to explain the rationale for his particular viewpoint.

No one presently writing about the state of our economy or the economies of other industrialized countries, such as the EU participants, seems to have a better grasp of the problems we face and the most effective programs that should be implemented to solve them.

Whether the party in power is Democrat or Republican does not seem to be relevant since both have failed to enact legislation that protects the consumer, the middle class and the country as a whole from the predatory practices and ingrained greed of Wall Street and the giant multinationals that control the economy and affect the lives of millions.
03:09 AM on 02/23/2010
Sorry, but Krugman increasingly has become the mad "scientist who falls in love with his own hypothesis" and thus skews the research to reflect what he wants it to reflect. His proposals have been meaningless as they could never be enacted and were so high risk that had he the power to enact said proposals and they failed, there would have been no alternatives. His gloom and doom predictions to date have proved to be flawed and inaccurate. His crystal ball has failed him time and again mainly because he became totally absorbed with his own ego.
04:16 AM on 02/23/2010
What proposals did he advocate that were risky to the extent that an alternative course would not have been available?

His gloomy prophecies concerned the high rate of unemployment that would persist and that seems to be accurate.
05:10 AM on 02/23/2010
Your analysis pretty much describes the current state of affairs in the GOP and with the speakers at CPAC, doesn't it?
12:20 AM on 02/23/2010
Once you become a "pundit" you lose credibility and relevence. About a month ago I made the same observation; that Krugman needed to stick with economics and stop weighing in on other stuff. It's always better to be a deep, true expert on an ever narrowing subject than to be a smart guy with an opinion about everything.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:34 PM on 02/23/2010
We skate on thinner ice when we become amateur pundits, too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Dustee
R-U Caught Up in all of those Republican LIES?
12:04 AM on 02/23/2010
He's still sour that Obama didn't choose him.
03:12 AM on 02/23/2010
Since he oppose Obama throughout the campaign, what exactly would his expectation have been. Moreover, Krugman would never have been confirmed. Both the left and the right are leery regarding Krubman.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mech126
I believe government works, if you let it.....
11:57 PM on 02/22/2010
Ya, know I like Krugman, But I think he has gone of the deep end of late, and that bothers me and i don't read any more of his columns i look at some from time to time, but in large I don't see him as a authority anymore.
03:13 AM on 02/23/2010
He has pretty well proved over the past year that he isn't an authority and that he cannot see beyond his own narrow perspective.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HST
Conservatism = selfishness
10:02 PM on 02/22/2010
I like Krugman. He has a lot of education in economics and won the nobel prize for economics, but the best reason to like him is that he isn't afraid to step on toes from both sides of the political spectrum and makes people from both sides mad. In my book you are doing something right when everyone's PO'd at you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NABNYC
09:40 PM on 02/22/2010
I'm a big fan of Paul Krugman. The funny thing is that I've got lots of company. It's the modern oddity of an economist/professor/Nobel prize-winner rock star. Who would think? My favorite Paul Krugman fan story is a post I saw on-line by some woman who insists Paul Krugman is better looking than George Clooney. Then she put up a photo of each of them right next to each other. And you know what ....
09:26 PM on 02/22/2010
Loudon's still got it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:15 PM on 02/22/2010
PK is generally an arrogant strut-about, who has no room for opinions other than his own. He pontificates in his 3000 dollar suits, puffs up when he is invited to the W.H. and, altogether has become a boring disappointment. I liked his writings quite well, in his earlier phase-----now, he is simply a washed-up also ran-------too bad------
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nebris
Auteur and Guru
10:56 PM on 02/22/2010
neener neener?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chef151
09:06 AM on 02/23/2010
those damned uppity economists, with their nice suits and their nobel prizes*shakes fist*
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paxhope
09:14 PM on 02/22/2010
History will record that PK was secretly advising the White House all along and they were secretly taking his advice... no? oh well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ron Shook
08:30 PM on 02/22/2010
I have loved Krugman's columns ever since I began reading them regularly 3 or 4 years ago. That included reading three of his popular books from the last decade. They were revelatory in many ways, particularly since I have lived the last few decades relatively oblivious to the concerns he talks about.

I read Krugman's last book (The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008) about the economic crises and I realized that his own privaleged position and academic myopia has rendered him pretty much irrelevant except as a garden variety progressive. He wrote about the Great Recession and laid it ALL at the feet of greedy politicians and corporate/financial jerks. They certainly made it Great, but the Recession itself is as much or more the result of a changing energy paradym, and the tremendous oil shock of 2008. There is not a single word about oil or energy in the book. Every recession since WWII has been preceded or inhanced by an oil shock and Krugman is oblivious to this.

I've been hoping for some time that Professor Krugman would take a sabbatical from column writing, round up some grad students, and use all those big brains to examine the economics of peak energy and scarcity as it relates to GDP, and develop new economic models to guide us. The most significant change in civilization ever seen in real world economics seems to be entirely off his radar.