Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Krugman Worries about "Politicized" Textbooks

I always love it when leftists like Krugman claim that something they don't like is being "politicized." In a recent blog post, Krugman complains that conservatives have influence in the writing of textbooks that appear in that state's public schools, which means that a point of view which does not meet Krugman's approval might be taught there. Horrors!

Krugman goes on to describe how there was resistance to Keynesian texts (maybe for good reason) right after World War II, but Paul Samuelson managed to get his stuff by the watchdogs. Unfortunately, that meant a generation of students receiving training in Really Bad Economics, and we never have recovered. The Keynesian Gospel of spending, taxing, and borrowing became the "New Economics" which now is leading us to the "New Bankruptcy." And Krugman is proud of this legacy?

Nonetheless, a text that apparently Krugman would believe does not reflect a "politicized" viewpoint would be a text that claims Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression, and that the nation became prosperous through inflation. No politics there.


ZombieHero said...

No doubt, the only text that would meet the strict standards of Herr Krugman would be his own.

Great blog, Krugman offers so much ammo that your going to have a lot to write about.

Kaetz said...

I find it amusing that you accuse Krugman of lambasting anything he doesn't agree with, which basically what you are doing in this post, bashing Samuelson and Keynesian economics, and your most current one. All you are doing is spouting an ideology no different than he is. In fact, I would say you are much more vehement in your attack, and therefore less credible.

Doug said...

Kaetz's (comment above) ideology; The more vehement your ideology, the less credible it is.

And Kaetz is "vehement" about this.

Max said...

Kaetz, the significant difference between Krugman and Anderson is that Anderson doesn't push for school books to only display one version. He critizes the notion that only one view is correct and that therefore only one should ever be taught. Especially on such shady subjects as economics, politics and social sciences, which unlike physics aren't too exact a science.

Kaetz said...

I'm a PhD Candidate in App. Econ. at Auburn University - Anderson's Alma Mater. I don't really need a tutorial on what Krugman or Anderson stand for - my point was Anderson is walking a thin line of accusing Krugman of something he too is doing in this blog. Promoting one point of view - that is exactly what Anderson does in his post when he blatantly criticizes Keynes and Samuelson - not that I agree with them either. I see the value in Austrian Economics - hard not to when you are at the home of the Mises Institute. To be taken seriously, one should not start a blog that builds it's foundation on Ad Hominem attacks.

Sam Grove said...

Is Anderson pretending to being objective as Krugman assumes himself?

Or does Anderson admit implicit bias?

Krugman, like "progressives" generally, hold their views as reference for judging good and evil.

They are quite insular and anyone who does think good "progressive" thoughts is obviously a bad person in their eyes.

I observe that evil rarely, if ever, admits to being evil. Evil always casts itself as "the good" for "the good" etc. How are we to determine what merits categorization as evil?

If evil always champions "good" intentions, then it would seem that intentions are not adequate for judging what is good or evil.

I therefore suggest that the way to determine evil is in its response to the question: Do the ends justify the means?

William L. Anderson said...

Of course, I am biased! I think Keynesian "economics" is a fraud, a jumble of nonsense based upon "aggregate demand," which is an imaginary concept.

Furthermore, I don't apologize for being biased. Look, Krugman has all of the forums he ever could want to attack other people, and he does it regularly. Here is a guy who cannot even get the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle correct (He wrongly calls it a "hangover theory"), yet he is free to attack Austrians.

So, please get over this notion that I have to be respectful to this guy. If he respected others, perhaps I would be less inclined to have a blog like this. However, since he has chosen to use his perch as a means to make wrong-headed statements about other people, including other economists, I feel no obligation to hold back.

Now, I will say what I think is true; I won't engage in character assassination, but I believe that since he puts his words out there for us to read, they are fair game, just as my blog is fair game.