I thought this was generally a good post, but I suggest linking to some serious research rather than a Krugman blog. In his article he links to a survey article, and there are many other good ones. These contain the same information, but lack the unnecessary partisan attacks—“Republican leaders clearly feel disdain for low-wage workers.”
Eh—Krugman is nice and concise, and popularizers like him are where I actually get my impressions of the empirical evidence of minimum wage laws. Also as far as I can tell he’s right about Republican leaders.
I think Krugman is sufficiently mind-killed on politics that it would be a mistake to get your impression of the literature from him, unless you also read the work of semi-professional Krugman watchers. In the latter case I withdraw the objection, but at that point it’d probably be easier to read the literature yourself.
And completely mind-killed about politics. (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt there.)
Also, notice his post crisis behavior. First he makes concrete predictions about what will happen with and without stimulus (things will be somewhat bad with stimulus and even worse without stimulus) meanwhile his opponents predict the stimulus will make things worse. Then the stimulus happens and things are even worse then his without stimulus prediction, his conclusion: “we didn’t stimulate enough”.
That is not at all relevant to Eugine’s point, which is a conjunction between predictions ahead of time and beliefs after the fact. If he holds now that the stimulus worked, he must hold that has previous predictions were badly wrong. Does he admit that? Moreover, he must reduce his belief in the efficacy of stimulus, even if his assessment of the state of the economy shifts more. Is he explicit that he has stronger beliefs about the efficacy of stimulus than about the future of the economy? And these economists that today have strong agreement, what did they predict ahead of time?
(I’m assuming that Eugine is correctly describing Krugman. But you didn’t object to that.)
It’s absolutely relevant. By Eugine’s account, Krugman’s opponents were predicting the stimulus would make things worse. Most economists now agree that Krugman’s opponents were wrong and the stimulus helped.
Beyond that, I’m a little unclear on what Eugine is saying: “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus” is ambiguous between “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than with stimulus” and “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than they were at the time he was speaking.” Link to what Krugman statement exactly Eugine has in mind would be helpful. In any case, this is at least semi-relevant.
No, Eugine is perfectly clear. The only way to interpret his “things are even worse then his without stimulus prediction” is that Krugman made absolute predictions.
The simplest hypothesis is that economists are impervious to evidence and are just backdating their predictions. Yes, inference can be complicated by mechanisms; that link is relevant, quite unlike your previous link.
I thought this was generally a good post, but I suggest linking to some serious research rather than a Krugman blog. In his article he links to a survey article, and there are many other good ones. These contain the same information, but lack the unnecessary partisan attacks—“Republican leaders clearly feel disdain for low-wage workers.”
Eh—Krugman is nice and concise, and popularizers like him are where I actually get my impressions of the empirical evidence of minimum wage laws. Also as far as I can tell he’s right about Republican leaders.
I think Krugman is sufficiently mind-killed on politics that it would be a mistake to get your impression of the literature from him, unless you also read the work of semi-professional Krugman watchers. In the latter case I withdraw the objection, but at that point it’d probably be easier to read the literature yourself.
I’ve yet to see the evidence that Krugman is heavily mind-killed on politics.
And completely mind-killed about politics. (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt there.)
Also, notice his post crisis behavior. First he makes concrete predictions about what will happen with and without stimulus (things will be somewhat bad with stimulus and even worse without stimulus) meanwhile his opponents predict the stimulus will make things worse. Then the stimulus happens and things are even worse then his without stimulus prediction, his conclusion: “we didn’t stimulate enough”.
There is strong agreement among economists that the stumulus worked.
That is not at all relevant to Eugine’s point, which is a conjunction between predictions ahead of time and beliefs after the fact. If he holds now that the stimulus worked, he must hold that has previous predictions were badly wrong. Does he admit that? Moreover, he must reduce his belief in the efficacy of stimulus, even if his assessment of the state of the economy shifts more. Is he explicit that he has stronger beliefs about the efficacy of stimulus than about the future of the economy? And these economists that today have strong agreement, what did they predict ahead of time?
(I’m assuming that Eugine is correctly describing Krugman. But you didn’t object to that.)
It’s absolutely relevant. By Eugine’s account, Krugman’s opponents were predicting the stimulus would make things worse. Most economists now agree that Krugman’s opponents were wrong and the stimulus helped.
Beyond that, I’m a little unclear on what Eugine is saying: “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus” is ambiguous between “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than with stimulus” and “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than they were at the time he was speaking.” Link to what Krugman statement exactly Eugine has in mind would be helpful. In any case, this is at least semi-relevant.
No, Eugine is perfectly clear. The only way to interpret his “things are even worse then his without stimulus prediction” is that Krugman made absolute predictions.
The simplest hypothesis is that economists are impervious to evidence and are just backdating their predictions. Yes, inference can be complicated by mechanisms; that link is relevant, quite unlike your previous link.