Paul KrugmanRezensionen

This is the problem. I did not learn that much from Krugman's book. I personally feel that one of its shortcomings is that Krugman writes for only one audience (I think a great writer could appeal to many audiences). I did learn a few more historical details about past administrations' policies (Nixon's ideas about SS and Medicare). Even though a lot of fiscally conservative folks dislike Krugman, I'd say that his analysis of history is pretty non-partisan.

This is a collection of Paul Krugman's Op-Ed articles he wrote for The New York Times during Bush's first term. Though it is somewhat outdated, it is still interesting to read about predictions of an economic collapse. Perhaps I was too young to understand this market ten years ago, but I never suspected that we would have this real estate bubble and bust. I'd like to recommend this book to one of my ex-boyfriends who thought I was immature to not buy a house and "invest" more in the stock market.

This is the problem. I did not learn that much from Krugman's book. I personally feel that one of its shortcomings is that Krugman writes for only one audience (I think a great writer could appeal to many audiences). I did learn a few more historical details about past administrations' policies (Nixon's ideas about SS and Medicare). Even though a lot of fiscally conservative folks dislike Krugman, I'd say that his analysis of history is pretty non-partisan.

This is a collection of Paul Krugman's Op-Ed articles he wrote for The New York Times during Bush's first term. Though it is somewhat outdated, it is still interesting to read about predictions of an economic collapse. Perhaps I was too young to understand this market ten years ago, but I never suspected that we would have this real estate bubble and bust. I'd like to recommend this book to one of my ex-boyfriends who thought I was immature to not buy a house and "invest" more in the stock market.

I put this book on my 22 books to read in 2022 list, and I ended up very glad for the deadline. I am never in the MOOD to read a nine million page book on economics, but it was a much easier read than I had imagined, and I am very glad to have read it.

Most of these essays were originally published as newspaper columns, which is, as always, a mixed blessing. On the plus side, each essay is concise and self-contained, making it east to digest them chapter by chapter or individual essay at a time. On the negative side, they are each self-contained, and I was sometimes left wanting more context, deeper analysis, or greater connection between essays.

I hope it will be handy to keep this on the shelves as a reference.

Paul Krugman, Premio Nobel de Economía, ha escrito un libro realmente extraordinario en que las causas de la actual crisis económica, los motivos que conducen a que sigamos sufriendo hoy sus consecuencias y la forma de salir de ella, recuperando los puestos de trabajo y los derechos sociales amenazados por los recortes, se explican con una claridad y sencillez que cualquiera puede, y debería, entender.

Another fine book by Paul Krugman. Easy to understand, easy to read, and full of insight. Dated due to subject matter but still relevant.

In this 2012 work economist Paul Krugman makes that case that the policies of austerity so popular right now are wrong headed and counterproductive. While the supply side theorists tried to say that the Keynesian theories of the 1930s were wrong Krugman convincingly makes that case that Keynes was right all along and that his theories were right all along. The high unemployment, loss of good jobs and lack of growth could be quickly fixed according to Krugman. He makes his case well. To0 bad his advice has not been followed.

The book is becomming a little dated, in that it was written before the 2008 election, and his discussion of the policies of some of the candidates in that election are no longer relevant. However, that's a very minor element, since the more relevant discussions involving the New Deal and the Reagan years aren't changing. Krugman, as an economist, does a good job of describing his views, and may reinforce these ideas among liberal and progressive readers, but is unlikely to convert many conservatives. One thing that Krugman discusses is that income inequality is rising in recent years, and while Krugman may have a desire to see that reversed, which will resonate with his liberal readers, finding the limits and way to reverse that trend is more problematic. A public policy that sounds like redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poor will not win the hearts and minds of many conservative readers.

Several times a year, I pick up a book about economics, thinking I should become more informed about our Country's economic policies, the financial decisions being made by our government leaders, whether tax breaks or raising taxes on the rich is a good or bad idea, whether deficit spending is a necessary evil during periods of economic downturns or not, etc. Then, shortly after beginning books such as these, I quickly remember how much I hate books on these subjects. Which explains why I didn't manage to finish Krugman's recent book, "Arguing with Zombies".

I believe his writing is clear and informative, and he uses language which everyone can understand.
And I thought what he wrote in the first half of the book which I managed to finish was very informative.

He's an unapologetic liberal economist, and often takes issue with many of the most conservative economic theories. Because this book is based in large part on his previously written columns from the NY Times, he gets the opportunity to revisit what he wrote, and then look back on the validity of his predictions. He also includes mention of the criticism of his columns when when they were written, and we see how well they turned out as well. Naturally, as the author, his viewpoints come out best.

Of course, there are complicating issues, and conditions frequently change after his columns go to print, but he does a good job of explaining these factors. But because few issues are ever settled in our economy, whether it's tax policy, budget deficits, the health of Social Security and Medicare, Obamacare, Fed policies, etc., his review of these programs and policies provides a wealth of information to read about and to think about.

Arguing with Zombies: Economics, Politics, and the Fight for a Better Future
by Paul Krugman

This isn't what I expected. It's a collection of essays but I hadn't read them so no problem. Some people have a problem with essays but I don't, it's just not what I expected.

It covers economic, social, and political issues that have hindered growth here in America and the author does a good job explaining why. One party, drastically more than the other, has resisted change and has been obsessed with several issues such as not taxing the rich, cutting social security and Medicare, cutting other social systems, increasing military spending and becoming increasingly involved in international covert operations, prison privatization, and more. Trickle down does not work and that's been proven.

That party also, more than the other, has no problem lying to the public about the issues surrounding any of these, especially the cost. Honesty is not their policy. Getting what they want is. We are still in a war from this lying game.

My grandma use to call it ,"Beating a dead horse". I like the author's title better. It still is the same. Republicans are not known for policy making but for policy blocking. They use the same ideas over and over. Talking to them about their policies is like reanimated corpses that shambles about hoping someone will do something for them.

I don't understand why anyone in our government would not want to help our people have adequate healthcare, good schools, freedom to choose their own partner, religion, care for their own body, common sense gun laws, taxes fair across the board, accept migrants in their time of need, feed the hungry, save the planet, love everyone not just white people, and keep prison privatization out of our lives, protect wildlife, and want everyone to vote. I just don't understand!

I always feel the same way after I finish one of his books: "Man, that makes total sense, how could anyone reasonably disagree that inequality is skyrocketing/we need universal health care/China needs to revalue it's currency/the Republican Party is insane/free trade rules?" Even his detractors, like the Wall Street Journal editorial crew, or the legions of bloggers who exist only to find fault with his writing, readily admit that he's been immensely successful as a popularizer of economics and as a partisan for his own views. I like him not only because he shares my views as a liberal of the New Deal/Great Society school of thought, but because he has a way of illustrating complex debates in a way that's not only clear, but that seems to me as the way I would have looked at it all along, if only I could have put it into words, and he gives me a solid framework to say why.

It's very cliche to compliment someone as "objective" because they "criticize both sides" (think of all that fawning praise for South Park back in the day) and take a pox-on-both-your-houses attitude towards big issues. I think that's dumb, not only because it assumes that there are only two sides to a debate, and that it's always somehow possible to take an average of each position and make sense (does it really make much sense to invade half of Iraq, or cut income taxes for people whose last names are A-M?), but because it rewards an unthinking "moderatism", where you don't really have to think about what people are saying, only that you want to somehow triangulate yourself and avoid doing any critical thinking. That's exactly what this book is about - criticizing both right-wing proponents of supply-side and Friedmanist monetary theories as well as left-wing proponents of strategic trade theory in a way that illustrates not only why you can't simply say "let's split the difference between these theories and call it a compromise", but also why it's vital to take the time to think clearly about what people are telling you and whether their numbers add up, and why you can't always trust people on your "side".

Peddling Prosperity is very clearly a book aimed at a popular audience, both because most (but not all) numerical exercises are relegated to the appendix and because it's structured as a narrative, of the near-mortal wounds that Keynesian economics suffered in the 70s after its triumphs in the postwar era, the rise of potential conservative alternatives, and those alternatives' eventual failures and the (seeming) Keynesian resurgence in the early 90s. It was published in 1994, so it's a bit out of date, but it's actually very interesting to see echoes of the then-cutting edge worries about Japan and transpose them 15 years to the present-day, since most of the debates about government activism, the deficit, and international competitiveness haven't aged a day. Press releases and popular discussions of issues certainly haven't gotten any more sophisticated, so it's somehow still a breath of fresh air to read explanations of trade or productivity that are aimed at a wide audience without being dumbed-down to sound bites.

Virtually every section, if you read closely, follows an A-B-C sort of script: someone is claiming A must be true, but here is data B, which actually implies C, so therefore they're wrong. This pattern shows up very frequently in his writing, and this book is no exception. Harsh, but always rigorous discussion of the history and reasoning behind various alternatives to Keynesian economics over the years are backed up by charts, graphs, and most importantly, the models behind these ideas. Part of the reason why stupid notions like endless tax cuts for rich people persist in the world, aside from the obvious self-interested aspect of wealthy donors and lobbyists, is because those notions are sold within a seemingly-plausible framework with a strong narrative: by cutting taxes for rich people, they will be able to create more jobs for people and more prosperity than if that wealth is given to other people; the more taxes you cut, the more jobs you create, and conversely, the more taxes you raise on these wealth-creators, the more jobs you destroy. By walking the reader through these implicit models, showing you the data, and giving you the reasons why they're wrong, Krugman both avoids simply throwing out ad-hominems (though there are some barbs in here) and gives you a way to think about future claims. One of the reasons why he has earned such a reputation as a strong liberal is due to his staunch opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003; reading the math behind why the Reagan tax cuts failed (and, closer to home, why the recent late-2010 extension of the Bush cuts will fail utterly to bring prosperity), you become... not particularly optimistic, let's say, about people's ability to learn from their mistakes.

The subtitle coins an excellent phrase which I am surprised has not gained wider currency: the Age of Diminished Expectations. While this book was written before the Clinton-era boom had really taken off, I remember growing up in the 90s and thinking of it as a time of seemingly permanent growth. Looking from today at the numbers, though - the steady decrease in productivity growth, the increasing inequality, the growing strength of the truly awful movement conservative wing of the Republican Party - I'm amazed at how satisfied people are with such mediocre growth when compared to the global trente glorieuses after the war. It would be easy to despair at the gradual lowering of the bar, but even during his discussion of massive failures, like the monetarist experiments in Thatcher-era Britain, the emphasis is on the math and logic behind why those policies failed, which prevents the book from sounding too depressing even if the conclusions behind it are plenty depressing.

The ending section about the rise of the strategic traders in the Clinton administration is a model of analytical clarity - the presentation of subtle economic logic about how the budget of a national economy is not like that of a company's balance sheet and all the mischief that that fallacy immediately brings to mind Obama making exactly these mistakes with his Council on Competitiveness, chaired by the CEO of a company that has outsourced thousands of jobs and shuffled around billions in taxable income. So even though the endless recurrence of terrible economic ideas will not end anytime soon, the book offers invaluable perspective on their sources and how to evaluate them. The focus is always on the data, and while Krugman may not always be right (his dismissal of critics of Japan's trade surplus in the 90s sits oddly with his criticism of China's seemingly very similar trade surplus in the 00s, even given the vastly different economic circumstances), he gives you all the tools and ammunition you need to form a coherent counter-argument.

It's impossible to read these twenty-year-old essays and not feel like many of them haven't aged a day. Whether you agree with them or not, or whether you even like the infamously acerbic Krugman or not, to a remarkable extent the logic behind the majority of these columns still feels fresh and relevant. I'm a big fan of his for a few reasons: I learned a lot of macro from his writings in grad school, I enjoy his lucid writing style, and I share his social-democratic political leanings with an appreciation for free trade and strong markets. All of these elements are here (though he's still in his "criticize both sides equally" phase; the first few essays have a slight hippie-punching feel to them before he gets around to deflating conservative myths), and out of his pre-George W. Bush books this might be the strongest of the lot due to its wide range of subjects and compact ability to educate and entertain.

Krugman's mission in this assortment of Slate columns is popularization, taking on a Carl Sagan-ish role of accessibly discussing contemporary economic issues. And, much like Sagan, in addition to simply explaining what simple concepts are he also wants his readers to respect the idea of rigor, and to have an appreciation of how difficult it is to make true intellectual progress when it comes to seemingly-simple economic questions. Complicated subjects like inequality ("An Unequal Exchange"), inflation (like "A Good Word For Inflation"), technological progress ("Technology's Wonders"), unemployment ("What Is Wrong With Japan"), and commodity speculation ("How Copper Came a Cropper") have clearly presented numbers and reasoning, with an eye towards teaching the reader how to know when someone is grounding their analysis in facts or opinion. He's of course unsparing in his criticism of people who he thinks are fools or liars, but even if you don't like Krugman because of his tone, facts don't lie; it really is truly remarkable that a guy like Newt Gingrich is even stupider today than he was back in 1995.

One of the main takeaways from this this essay collection, above and beyond whether you agree with any specific column or not, is that it really helps to have a consistent framework for thinking about economic issues. Is globalization good or bad? Should the US reduce the trade deficit? What are the effects of inflation on interest rates? Can we reduce unemployment to zero and have fast growth like we did in the 60s? One well-thought-out theory can be worth dozens of unsorted facts. Not every essay is as strong as it could be, but even a blunt and infuriating essay like "In Praise of Cheap Labor" is more sophisticated than its critics admit, and looks stronger every day that formerly closed countries like China develop and transform their sweatshops into boring Western 9-to-5s. He hasn't ever written a big profession-shaking epic like his hero Keynes, and at this phase in his career he probably won't ever get around to it, but his guiding ethos of progress through and with - not instead of - capitalism remains a worthy philosophy to subscribe to.

That the developed world has been caught in a perfectly foreseeable, avoidable, solvable slump for four years now is so stupid it would be funny if it weren't so sad. Millions of man-years have been thrown away as the result of economic policies that shouldn't have passed the laugh test in an age where anyone can pick up a book on the Great Depression and read about what went wrong. Yet here we are, trillions of dollars poorer than we should be, standing by as elected leaders make decisions on faulty, imagined, or no evidence at all. Krugman is a lot more calm when he discusses these things and those people than I would be, and even though his perfectly reasonable prescriptions for economic recovery have an uphill climb to the lofty heights of discourse where real decisions get made, the fact that they are so straightforward and sensible gives me some hope for the future. This book is largely a synthesis of material from the past few years on his blog cleaned up, re-ordered, and organized, which would be somewhat disappointing if the material were not so strong. It reminds me of his earlier The Return of Depression Economics in its subject-hopping structure, but with a somewhat stronger central narrative in the vein of The Conscience of a Liberal. The book tackles many subjects familiar to frequent blog readers: the roots of the crisis; failures of monetary policy; the inadequacy of the stimulus; the roots and remedies for the Euromess; lessons of the Great Depression; and the illogic of conservative doctrines like "expansionary austerity", the "confidence fairy", and "immaculate inflation". Its prescriptions are those that have been tested by history: more direct public infrastructure spending, aid to states (or countries in the case of Europe), accommodative monetary policy including a temporarily higher inflation target, and better trade and environmental policy. As he discusses and refutes objections to his analyses, the Republican Party is a frequent object of criticism, as are clueless European leaders, the finance-industrial complex, economists who have been either misinformed or unhelpful, and fatuous pundits. Krugman has been criticized for his dismissive tone towards people he disagrees with, and while he doesn't ever call someone an idiot outright here, he certainly doesn't spare feelings. Since I happen to agree with his analysis I don't mind when he calls someone out, but I would hope that readers of other political persuasions could concentrate rebuttals on disagreements over any of the facts he talks about and not get hung up over a dismissive tone or academic nerd burns. One of the things that should be obvious to everyone is that no one is helped by this recession-verging-on-depression, and we should all be looking for ways to solve this crisis without regard to the affiliation of who's proposed the solutions. Everyone has a stake in future prosperity, because a rising tide might lift all boats, but an ebbing tide will surely sink many. Krugman doesn't have quite the soaring rhetoric of his hero Keynes, but in clarity and rigor he should certainly be considered on the same plane. Here's hoping that important people check this book out, and that they will have the "Rooseveltian resolve" to take the courageous steps we need to get people back to work.

I've been a regular reader of his always-interesting New York Times columns for years, but ever since I studied his work on trade and urban geography in grad school (coincidentally, the work that would gain him the 2008 Economics Nobel Prize), I've been a huge admirer of his serious economics work as well. The Conscience of a Liberal is a response of sorts to Barry Goldwaters's highly influential 1960 book The Conscience of a Conservative, making the case that if the United States is to remain a country where everyone can pursue their own happiness in maximum liberty and peace, the Reagan-era policies that benefit the rich few at the expense of the poor many must be reversed, and a new New Deal - chiefly the establishment of universal health care - is the best way to encourage opportunity and ensure that everyone can fully participate in the ever-changing American economy. It's also an enlightening history of the modern liberal and conservative movements that does a great job of showing the direct lineage from historical states' rights segregationists to modern health care reform opponents, and how calm debate and careful thinking can and should win out over narrow self-interest and greed. A good way to tell a good book is by how much it gives you to think about after you've finished, and The Conscience of a Liberal had me thinking about it for months afterwards.

Political affiliation aside, this book makes some horrible arguments.

Mr. Krugman takes a very confusing subject, and breaks it down into simple pieces, then explains it in simple terms that are easy to understand. I didn't always agree with his opinions, but he lays out a great argument for his point of view

Economics written in a manner that a moderately educated person can understand. The book is a collection of op-eds that Krugman has written over the last twenty years. Krugman dissects the fallacies of the conservative take on macroeconomics and shows the strengths of what he calls social democracy and why it benefits regular people in the United States and the world at large. He guts the Euro and the right's constant attempts to privatize everything - the truth is that the government is is more efficient and less costly. A great book.

Interesting but biased. Learned a few things I didn't know.

A very thoughtful book that links 'economic' concepts and principles to today's social issues. Not an easy book for the layman; but a rewarding one. I learned a lot.

Good ideas. Explains the dismal science as it applies to the world's collective economic problems--solutions while sound on paper will never be implemented.

The dismal science. It has lots of different ways of explaining how the economic and therefore real world works, but most of them are very wrong a lot of the time.

However Krugman has a way of putting across his points in a reasonable clear and concise way. And most of what he says in this book makes sense.

The fact that with low inflation and austerity measures in place, the only thing that an economy can do is contract further. That a government spending $1 will generate $1.50 of economic benefit, that light touch regulation will only be ridden rough shod over by the global elite.

Lots of sense written in here, cannot see any politician reading it though.

Nadie como Paul Krugman para acercarnos a los principales conceptos económicos y las ideas que mueven gran parte de nuestras políticas públicas y para explicar con lucidez problemas económicos a menudo confusos.

En Contra los zombis, Krugman reúne más de noventa artículos —muchos publicados en The New York Times— en dieciocho secciones organizadas temáticamente y enmarcadas en el contexto de un debate más amplio. En ellas aborda temas como la seguridad social, la atención médica, la crisis financiera de 2008 y sus secuelas, los mitos de la austeridad, la economía europea, los recortes de impuestos, las guerras comerciales, la desigualdad, el cambio climático y, sobre todo, el daño infligido por Donald Trump. Muchas de las piezas son argumentos contundentes contra la economía zombi, «una idea que debería haber sido eliminada por la evidencia, pero que se niega a morir».

Contra los zombis es Krugman en estado puro y una guía indispensable para el discurso político y económico de dos décadas en los Estados Unidos y en todo el mundo. Con pinceladas rápidas y vívidas, Krugman aporta a sus lectores las claves necesarias para desbloquear los conceptos ocultos tras los principales problemas de política económica de nuestro tiempo.

Princeton Univ Professor and NY Times columnist goes on the attack to expose the incompetence and wickness of the Bush Administration as being responsible for the 2008 economic meltdown. Must have for the economics library.

This book is brilliantly accessible. He first chastises economists for not expaining things clearly. Then, he uses the simple example of a babysitting coop to explain the business cycle. Without using the term Demurage, he cites the Keynesian and Gesellian idea of forced spending into the economy which increases circulation and ends the deflation cycle. But he expains it without using any of these terms. Brilliant. Too bad phd students are not allowed to do this in a thesis (Yes I saw one such thesis, but I think it was sociology, not economics, nor economic social policy, which was my area.)

I recall reading this in 2006 for my thesis, and wondering how my office-mate, an economics phd student, could know almost nothing about the history of economics. Now I know, sadly, that most economists seem to ignore history. Or brush it aside. Other authors mention a roughly 19 year boom-bust world economic cycle, but the cycle is there, and is not stable.

Yet the warnings of Keynes and even Greenspan were ignored. The Asian crises had all the hallmarks of the Great Depression, and international reaction follows, it seems, the errors of the Depression. He warns

"As in the Victorian era, capitalism is secure not only
because of its successes-which, as we will see in a moment, have
been very real-but because nobody has a plausible alternative.
This situation will not last forever. Surely there will be other
ideologies, other dreams; and they will emerge sooner rather than
later if the current economic crisis persists and deepens."

Some of those dreams will be utopian, and viable if we will it, but other ideologies may not be so utopian. Let's not "learn all the wrong lessons" again.
Shira of The MEOW CC Blog,
MEOW Date: 9 September, 12014 H.E. (Holocene/Human Era)