No, but he’s an economist nonetheless.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by ‘economist’.
Giles, you must remember that strawmen invalidate arguments. Now disabuse yourself of the one you created, please.
I saw a great lecture by Bill Nye a couple months ago about climate change. It was very interesting and persuasive. He insisted that instead of ‘cutting back’ to solve the climate change, we need to redouble our efforts on production. It was a lecture at my University, and he was urging everyone to ‘change the world’ and discover the next big research advancement which would revolutionize technology.
I got the distinct feeling that he was not so much a believer that humans were the main cause of climate change. I think his approach is an amazingly intelligent one though. Instead of disputing their conspiracy theories, let them believe them, but change their ultimate aim. I think he made a pretty damn good impact, saying that a packed hall of probably close to 4000 college students gave him a standing ovation.
I think if we can all take a peice away from what he was trying to do, we might be able to turn this whole green thing around.
Hey Giles, I was teasing you with the avatar, but it did take me 10 minutes to make, so if you aren’t going to wear it, I might.
Except Krugman unlike them is not merely in error. He knows the correct economic theory regarding trade yet goes on to openly support protectionist measures. And I would say some of them are not in certain capacities acting as economists, e.g. Friedman with his dogmatic stance on money even after seeing his “empirically” based theory collapse. To the extent that any modern economist accepts nonsense contrary to praxeological theorems, i.e. those which even neoclassical theory is built on even if by way of different justifications, they are no longer acting as an economist. Krugman is simply so terrible I don’t think he even deserves the name at all. He certainly should not be advocating this theory in his capacity as an economist. As a partisan hack it is fine though. He cannot even get the ABCT right…
If you don’t understand the concept of “Seen and Unseen” by Bastiat and elaborated in “The Lesson” by Hazlitt… I’m hard pressed to consider you an economist. The more the said person fcks it up, the greater the struggle to justify their use of the title.
"From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
Keynes = monemental screw up. “Animal spirits” isn’t worthy. Witch doctor is a better description of him. He is not an economist.