Paul_Krugman

Political views
Krugman is a self-described [|liberal]. His choice of the book title "The Conscience of a Liberal" is a play on [|Barry Goldwater]'s "Conscience of a Conservative". Krugman has explained that he views the term "liberal" in the American context to mean "more or less what [|social democratic] means in Europe".[|[48]] He was an ardent critic of the [|George W. Bush administration] and its foreign and domestic policy. Krugman has sometimes advocated free markets in contexts where the American [|left] condemns them, by writing against [|rent control],[|[49]] and that "[|sweatshops]" are an inevitable reality.[|[18]] He has likened the opposition against free trade to the opposition against evolution via [|natural selection].[|[50]] Unlike many economic [|pundits], he is regarded as an important scholarly contributor by his peers.[|[25]][|[28]] He has written over 200 scholarly papers and 20 books—both academic and non-academic.[|[51]] Krugman has written in opposition to increasing farm subsidies,[|[52]] ethanol mandates and subsidies/tax breaks,[|[53]] manned [|NASA] space flights,[|[54]] and has written against some aspects of European labor market regulation.[|[55]][|[56]] He has, however, declared himself an ardent supporter of the [|welfare state]. His appointment in the [|Reagan Administration], he has reiterated in an autobiographical essay, was not expected or fitting. "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised." [|[57]] Krugman has been a prominent critic of the [|Obama] administration's economic policies, in particular its efforts to prop up the US financial system, which he considers unsustainable in its present form.[|[58]] Krugman has criticized the Obama stimulus plan as inadequate and the banking rescue plan as misdirected; Krugman wrote in the New York Times: "an overwhelming majority [of the American public] believes that the government is spending too much to help large financial institutions. This suggests that the administration’s money-for-nothing financial policy will eventually deplete its political capital."[|[59]] Krugman has praised [|Gordon Brown], the [|British] [|Prime Minister], asserting that he "saved the world financial system" and has since urged British voters not to support the opposition [|Conservative Party], arguing their Party Leader [|David Cameron] "has had little to offer other than to raise the red flag of fiscal panic".[|[60]][|[61]] 

Criticisms
[|Daniel Okrent], a former //New York Times// [|ombudsman], criticized Paul Krugman for "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Okrent has also said that "when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance."[|[62]] Throughout his career as a columnist, Krugman has been highly critical of what he regards as dubious economic ideas, such as: strategic trade and its main exponents, [|Robert Reich], whom he called "offensive" and [|Lester Thurow] whom he called "silly"; protectionism, with attacks on [|Pat Buchanan] on the Right and [|Ralph Nader] on the Left; a return to the gold standard as promoted by editorial writers in [|the Wall Street Journal]; and especially [|supply-side economics], which he described as economic "snake oil" in //Peddling Prosperity//. He has frequently been criticized in turn by exponents of these ideas; the journalist [|James Fallows] spoke of his "gratuitous spleen," and Clinton Administration Undersecretary of Commerce [|Jeffrey Garten] complained that "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder."[|[63]] Krugman's critics[//[|who?]//] have also accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style.[|[34]][|[64]][|[65]] A November 13, 2003 article in //[|The Economist]// reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to [|George Bush]…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."[|[66]] [|Robert Barro] has criticized Krugman's work frequently and Krugman has referred to him as "boneheaded".[|[67]][|[68]] A blog article by Krugman noting that the argument for short-run [|protectionism] (during conditions of a liquidity trap and without a coordinated global policy response) "needs to be taken seriously"[|[69]] due to the [|2008-2009 world economic recession], even if protectionism would be "second-best", drew strong criticism from Barro, who accused Krugman of hypocrisy.[|[67]] Economist [|Daniel B. Klein] published during 2008 a paper in //[|Econ Journal Watch]// (of which he is the chief editor) that reviews and criticizes Krugman's columns for the //New York Times//. Klein contends that Krugman's "social-democratic impetus sometimes trumps people's interests, notably poor people's interests... Krugman has almost never come out against extant government interventions, even ones that expert economists seem to agree are bad, and especially so for the poor." Examples cited by Klein of policies on which, he says, economists are agreed, but which Krugman has failed to support include [|school vouchers], abolition of the [|Food and Drug Administration] and abolition of [|occupational licensing]. On the other hand, Klein lists these examples of government interventions that Krugman's columns have opposed: "rent control; US agricultural subsidies; international trade; [...] ethanol mandates and subsidies/tax breaks; NASA manned-space flight; European labor-market restrictions; and the Terry Schiavo case."[|[70]] Economist [|William L. Anderson] has argued that Krugman's economic views are politically partisan and consistently promote a [|socialist] agenda.[|[71]] [|Donald Luskin] of the [|National Review] is another [|frequent critic of Krugman]. He has argued that that "Krugman’s liberal agenda always takes precedence over economic principle."[|[72]]