'..As an eminent economist said to me last week, people are afraid of Krugman..'<blockquote>'Well, I am here to tell him that “civilised discussion” matters. It matters because vitriolic language of the sort he uses is a key part of what is wrong with America today. As an eminent economist said to me last week, people are afraid of Krugman. More “decorous” but perhaps equally intelligent academics simply elect not to enter a public sphere that he and his parasitical online pals are intent on poisoning. I agree with Raghuram Rajan, one of the few economists who authentically anticipated the financial crisis: Krugman’s is
“the paranoid style in economics”:
<blockquote>
“All too often, the path to easy influence is to impugn the other side’s motives and methods … Instead of fostering public dialogue and educating the public, the public is often left in the dark. And it discourages younger, less credentialed economists from entering the public discourse.”</blockquote>
Where I come from, however, we do not fear bullies. We despise them. And we do so because we understand that what motivates their bullying is a deep sense of insecurity. Unfortunately for Krugtron the Invincible, his ultimate nightmare has just become a reality. By applying the methods of the historian – by quoting and contextualising his own published words – I believe I have now made him what he richly deserves to be: a figure of fun, whose predictions (and proscriptions) no one should ever again take seriously.'
- Niall Ferguson,
Why Paul Krugman should never be taken seriously again, October 13, 2013</blockquote>
'..The lesson of economic history is very clear. Economic growth does not come from state-led infrastructure investment. It comes from technological innovation, and gains in productivity, and these things come from the private sector, not from the state.'<blockquote>Niall Ferguson: Well, I tell you what, I feel depressed after what I’ve heard tonight. We are now contemplating a massive expansion of the state to substitute for the private sector because that’s the only thing Paul thinks will deliver growth. We’re going to reregulate the markets, we’re going to go back to those good old days. Where were you in the 1970s when all these wonderful regulations were in place? I don’t remember that going too smoothly. But what else are we going to do? We’re going to print money. Almost limitlessly we’ll print money. That’s going to be fine, too. And when we’re done with that, we’re going to raise taxes. What a fabulous package we have in store for us. You know, back in late 2007, I was asked what my big concern was, and I said, “My concern is that we’re going to get the 1970s for fear of the 1930s.” It’s very easy to forget, in your iron indignation at the failure of the market, where the true mainsprings of economic growth lie. The lesson of economic history is very clear. Economic growth does not come from state-led infrastructure investment. It comes from technological innovation, and gains in productivity, and these things come from the private sector, not from the state.
-
The Crisis and How to Deal with It, June 11, 2009</blockquote>
Context<blockquote><a href="[
live.huffingtonpost.com] Ferguson Takes On Paul Krugman A.K.A. 'Krugtron The Invincible' LIVE</a>, 2013
Krugtron the Invincible, Part 1, October 8, 2013
Krugtron the Invincible, Part 2, October 9, 2013
Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3, October 10, 2013
The Wizard Exposed, 2013
Krugman’s Adventures in Fairyland, 2013
'..Like monetarists, Keynes held no capital theory .. the role time plays..' - Jesús Huerta de Soto</blockquote>