Readers of Paul Krugman’s New York Times column will be interested to read this New Yorker magazine profile of the economist. Here are the items that jumped out at me:
- Krugman is childless, but he and his wife have two cats.
- Krugman was a passionate supporter of John Edwards in the 2008 Presidential election.
- Shortly after 9/11, Krugman was quick to blame airline-funded airport security operations for the tragedy, saying that the federal government should have been screening passengers because the airlines were too stingy. I.e., he may be considered the founder of the TSA. Krugman did not assign any blame to the FBI, which ignored tips from simulator instructors about young Saudi men wanting to learn how to fly Boeing airliners but not how to land or take off.
- Krugman is a science fiction fan who attends sci-fi conventions occasionally.
- Krugman was rather apolitical, though a huge fan of FDR, until King Bush II ascended to the throne in 2000. Bush’s reign of incompetence enraged Krugman.
- “Krugman and Wells pulled out of the stock market ten years ago and never went back.” If literally true, they sold when the Dow was about 11,000 (higher than now) and put the money into bonds, which have gone up hugely due to plunging interest rates. This makes the married couple two of the shrewdest and most successful personal investors in the U.S.
- … and this is the most inexplicable one… Krugman’s wife teaches yoga in their Princeton house and Krugman does occasionally join the class for old people, but “avoids the classes for somewhat younger and mostly female people” (the writer makes no attempt to explain Krugman’s aversion to being surrounded by young women wearing form-fitting clothing)
The article gives a good summary of Krugman’s main work as an economist. A central idea is that there is a big economic advantage to a city or region in having an already-established industry of some sort. There is no particular reason for carpet mills to be in Dalton, Georgia but once they are there and surrounded by a cluster of skilled workers, it would be difficult for another town to compete. Someone who had taken Physics 101 might rephrase this to say that there is a lot of inertia in an economy that requires skilled workers. If Krugman is right, the U.S. economy is doomed to stagnation and Krugman’s proposals for even more massive government spending won’t help. What does it mean to have 15 million people unemployed, many of them continuously since 2008? It means the U.S. now has a cluster of people whose skills are cashing unemployment checks from the government, living off relatives, and watching TV. These skills are not likely to be valuable to a company setting up a new factory. If you wanted to get in on the expanding renewable energy market, would you rather set up your factory in a town in China where everyone knows how to make windmills, solar cells, and lith-ion batteries or in a town in the U.S. where people need to be reminded what it is like to go to work every day?
Krugman expresses sadness that stimulus spending was not increased by another $1 trillion or more. But consider how the stimulus money was spent: paying salaries and raises for unionized civil servants, such as police officers and teachers (older posting); building and repairing roads and other infrastructure. Our government workers are not especially skilled compare to their counterparts in other countries. It costs us more to build roads, bridges, and buildings than what they spend in China. Would the folks who built the infrastructure for the Beijing 2008 Olympics feel the need to come over to the U.S. and hire Americans with experience resurfacing Interstate highways? Would the people who run schools in Korea want to come over here and somehow hire Americans with experience teaching in U.S. public schools?
Krugman fans: Has Krugman explained exactly how increased government spending will in the long run build up the kinds of clusters of skilled workers that he himself says that a country needs in order to prosper? [Note that I mostly stopped reading Paul Krugman because I couldn’t understand his reasoning (October 2009 posting).]
In the same issue is an article that explains that if Krugman’s writings make you sad, you won’t get any help from psychotherapy or antidepressant medications, both of which have been shown to be ineffective.
Phil writes:
… and this is the most inexplicable one… Krugman’s wife teaches yoga in their Princeton house and Krugman does occasionally join the class for old people, but “avoids the classes for somewhat younger and mostly female people” (the writer makes no attempt to explain Krugman’s aversion to being surrounded by young women wearing form-fitting clothing)
It really might not be the looks of the other students that Krugman avoids, but the content of the class. If you can only hold a standing pose for 30 seconds, you don’t want to take a class for people who can hold it for 2 minutes. Or worse, a class where there are poses you don’t want to attempt at all.
This would be especially true if you were a non-paying member of the class who didn’t want to distract the teacher from teaching the students who were there for the more advanced instruction.
Your mention of the anti-psychiatry/psychology article in the past paragraph is kind of misleading. The author himself states:
‘The authors of the meta-analysis also assert that “for patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial”—which suggests that antidepressants do affect mood through brain chemistry. The mystery remains unsolved.’
and also
‘Kirsch has an answer: C.B.T. He says it really works.’
The author of the article also wants to maintain a highly anti-drug anti-therapy stance, but that’s in contradiction to not only the above quotes but also tons of other studies which he doesn’t cite and instead glibly glosses over. It’s a pretty terrible article.
“Would the people who run schools in Korea want to come over here and somehow hire Americans with experience teaching in U.S. public schools?”
S. Korea has the highest salaries for primary school teachers in the world, and Koreans value education perhaps more than any other group, to the point where you can easily find Koreans with multiple advanced degrees.
The reality is not so simple. There’s a truism in Korea that teachers expect preferential treatment. There is a system of gifts to teachers which amounts to bribery. There’s a huge amount of nepotism and incompetence among teachers. Critical thinking is nowhere near the top of the list, at least in primary education. On the other hand everyone learns basic math pretty well. In theory everyone learns basic English, which is very odd considering that it’s impossible to go a day in Seoul without encountering English signs which are not grammatical or gibberish.
Solomon: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/fig01-16.htm indicates that South Korean teachers are highly paid relative to other Koreans. However, when you consider the pension overhang and other benefits for U.S. teachers, many of whom have a total compensation package worth over $200,000 per year (precise value would depend on your actuarial beliefs about life expectancy and investment returns over the next 100 years), it is very tough to believe that there is any country that spends more than the U.S. Also keep in mind that Korean schools are in session for many more hours per year, so the teachers are working longer hours.
I don’t think it will be easy for any country to unseat the U.S. as the public education spending champion.
There are more non-teachers than teachers in the education system in the US.
Only country with this ratio.
This particular statistics come from Scott Oki.
So is there anything wrong with being childless in your mind?
Nahin: Anything wrong with being childless? No, but it is unusual for a person of Krugman’s age and station in life. Keep in mind that Krugman has been a consistent advocate for increased government spending and larger deficits. For the average American, “deficit” = “money that must eventually be repaid by today’s young people.” For a childless older person, “deficit” = “money that can be spent to benefit his friends and that will eventually be repaid by other peoples’ children.”
[I am not suggesting that Krugman is motivated by concern for his own age cohort or by indifference to the next couple of generations, but being childless may potentially influence one’s political decisions. Most obviously, at Cambridge parties when someone would express fear of global warming, my childless 35-year-old friend Jin would say “What’s the problem? The Earth only has to last 50 more years.”]
If he doesn’t care about the deficit because he’s childless, how is it that he cares about what the optimal climate policy should be?
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/toyclimate.pdf
Sorry, philg, your comments are a nonsequitur.
RB: As noted in the previous comment, I did not suggest anything about Krugman’s motivations, only provided the information that he is childless. When Nahin asked if I’d provided it because I thought being childless was “wrong”, I clarified why it might be of interest. Because I am not God, I cannot look into Krugman’s heart.
As for climate, a childless person who owned beachfront property might well be concerned about global warming and a rise in sea levels. In fact, the New Yorker article mentions that Krugman owns beachfront property in the U.S. Virgin Islands and spends a good part of the year down there. A U.N. panel reported that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035 (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece ). Anyone expecting to live just 25 more years and anywhere near the beach might be quite alarmed after reading that report.
Finally, it might be the case that Krugman has a passionate interest in climate stability but is not concerned about Americans working to repay debt. Nobody can say for sure except for the man himself… which is why I linked to the original article and summarized some highlights and/or unusual points.