Talk:Paul Krugman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineePaul Krugman was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 28, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 13, 2008.


The word stagflation misused[edit]

Under the "Macroeconomics and fiscal policy" part of the article the word stagflation is used to describe the situation if deflation and slow economic growth in Japan during the 1990's, this is a misuse of the word. Stagflation is normally used for a situation of high inflation and slow (or negative) economic gowth, such as the situation in the UK and US in the late 1970's.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.118.32 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2010‎ (UTC)[]

I don't see stagflation in the article, though I do see stagnation. Possibly somebody edited / cleaned up the issue. I believe this segment of Talk can be removed / resolved. Rmharman (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[]


Section on trade[edit]

As of mid-2019, the lengthy section on trade fails both WP:NPOV and WP:Here. It misrepresents differing responses to differing situations, within the context of generally consistent views, as self-contradiction. It uses excessively long quotations that do not add value to the article. It includes large amounts of material that would better appear in discussions of specific economic topics, where it would be one notable economist's opinion to compare to others. (For instance: free trade, the China/US bilateral relationship, currency manipulation.) It uses suggestive words such as "admit" to suggest a concession, when it's describing statements that fit comfortably within the overall structure of New Trade Theory, in violation of WP:SYNTH. It mischaracterizes and oversimplifies the work for which the Nobel committee awarded Krugman their prize.

The point of a WP:BLP is not to engage in "gotcha" games using selectively edited statements. If Wiki editors are interested in assembling a section on this topic that honestly presents variations in how the founder of New Trade Theory reacts to different trade scenarios, or points out areas where different positions truly are difficult to reconcile, that would be great -- though arguably it would be better in the article about NTT. The current content reads as sophistry, aimed at shoring up one political position over another, rather than elucidating a theory in a way that would help a reader understand either the body of Krugman's work, or whether it accurately represents how trade works in the real world. --Rmharman (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[]

Evidently a brand new account that's never edited anything else is reverting changes, using embedded tags in the edit summaries, which strongly suggests the editor is not actually new. Their comments also suggest that my version is "only arguments in favor of trade". In fact, the cut-down version retained some citations to Krugman's comments on Chinese currency manipulation, and on the relative unimportance of recent trade deals (particularly the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on which he was ambivalent). The edit summaries also lean on the idea that the excessive quotation material is cited. It is, but that's irrelevant. Material is selectively quoted to create the illusion of contradiction, and the surrounding verbiage plainly shows an intent to catch Krugman in some kind of self-contradiction or hypocrisy, rather than to provide a biography. Rmharman (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[]

Also of note, the likely sock-puppet account is making one-character edits after their reversions, to make reversions of their changes more annoying. Rmharman (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[]

Should there be a part of the article discussing his science fiction writing? Because some of his published works are explicitly science fiction.[edit]

Most recently, [Billionaires Shouldn’t Live Forever]

It explicitly states that:

"This is part of a series, “Op-Eds From the Future,” in which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers and scientists write Op-Eds that they imagine we might read 10, 20 or even 100 years from now. The challenges they predict are imaginary — for now — but their arguments illuminate the urgent questions of today and prepare us for tomorrow. The opinion piece below is a work of fiction."

I like this idea. Could reference some of his writings about how he came to economics having been inspired by psychohistory, the discipline of modeling the future described in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. He's also written about his admiration for various other SF authors (I know he's specifically mentioned Iain M Banks' Culture series). And he has a very funny paper about how temporal effects would affect interstellar trade, interest rates, and capital flows. --Rmharman (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[]

Section Free-trade[edit]

I'm not adding my point of view; I'm just quoting Krugman's different positions on free trade. I'm not violating wikipedia's neutrality at all because I'm showing all of krugman's points of view on the bre exchange . Moreover, the quotations are not out of context, they correspond precisely to the situation Dolytoit (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[]

Most famous blunder[edit]

In 1998 Paul Krugman famously predicted: “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” That should definitely be in here, I think. Cancun (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[]

What secondary sources do you propose to use for content about this? SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[]

September 27, 2019 tweet[edit]

I think it’s inevitable that an encyclopedia intended to be neutral primarily draws close followers but also committed critics, and there’s no objective line between what’s notable and what isn’t. I would submit, though, that Mr. Krugman’s tweet suggesting that Trump’s behavior towards journalists would culminate in him arresting countless journalists doesn’t meet that threshold. If a tweet of his were to be included at all, it would probably be the one a year later, in which he denied the occurrence of a mass outbreak of anti-Muslim violence. (EDIT: It looks like a mention of it at the time was removed, ostensibly for the direct link to Twitter.) — Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]