While on the subject of Paul Krugman, some interesting comments from John C.
Goodman at the Health Policy Blog:

"Since Barack Obama took office almost 10 million people have dropped out of
the labor force. More than half a million dropped out in the last month alone.
Today, a record 90 million people ù almost one third of the entire population
ù are not working and not even looking for a job.

ôHow did that happen?ö Krugman asks. One answer is supplied by University of
Chicago economist Casey Mulligan ù one of the top labor market economists in
the country and a regular contributor to The New York Times economics blog. In
a new book, Mulligan estimates that roughly half of the excess unemployment we
have been experiencing is due to the lure of entitlement benefits ù food
stamps, unemployment compensation, disability benefits, etc. In other words,
we are paying people not to work. In a separate analysis, Mulligan estimates
that much of the remaining unemployment may be due to other Obama
administration policies, especially the Affordable Care Act.

So what does Krugman have to say about MulliganÆs study? Nothing. Nothing? Not
a thing. Not about CaseyÆs study or any other serious study. But he rejects
MulliganÆs conclusion by claiming that the fall in labor force participation

'wasnÆt a mass outbreak of laziness, and right-wing claims that jobless
Americans arenÆt trying hard enough to find work because theyÆre living high
on food stamps and unemployment benefits should be treated with the contempt
they deserve.'

Hmmm. Last time I looked, economics is a science. Statements about the
economic system are either true or not true. Their validity is not affected
one whit by the political views of economists or other people. And facts of
reality do not mysteriously become untrue even if they are treated with
contempt. . . .

Krugman, who hasnÆt done serious research for years, clearly doesnÆt care what
his fellow economists think. He can, without the slightest evidence of
embarrassment, pretend that an entire body of empirical research doesnÆt even
exist. ThatÆs his choice. However, The New York Times bills him as a Nobel
Laureate in economics. So when Hollywood types read Krugman, they think they
are reading economics.

This is bad for the entire profession. Krugman rarely writes a column without
including a venomous attack on those who disagree with him ù questioning their
ethics, their honesty and their motives. But in economics, as in the other
sciences, arguments ad hominem arenÆt legitimate arguments. . . .

As IÆve pointed out more than once, when it comes to health policy Krugman is
almost always wrong. That by itself is not remarkable. Most health policy
wonks are also usually wrong in the way they think about health economics. But
Krugman is the only person I know who canÆt resist insulting an entire
political party or the 40% of the population that calls itself ôconservativeö
or other scholars who disagree with him in the process of being wrong.

Once in a while I refer to him as Paul (if-you-disagree-with me-
ou-must-be-evil) Krugman. But on the whole, we usually pull our punches at
this blog (as do most other bloggers). On balance, Krugman gets off lightly.
He deserves much worse."



http://healthblog.ncpa.org/are-we-being-unfair-to-paul-krugman/


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)