Skip to main content

Are Greece and Paul Krugman decadent?

Amidst all the Jubilee hullabaloo in the UK, the second- and ultimately more significant- story remains the ongoing crisis in the Eurozone and the continued instability in the markets. The signs of a slowdown in the Chinese and the American real economies have put further pressure on the Eurozone economies that are still struggling to return to growth. 


The ongoing restructuring of the Spanish banking system has alerted the markets to the fact that their remains a significant capital requirement, even after the forced mergers of the Cajas. However, despite the more hysterical of the comments from UK commentators and politicians, the fact is that the Spanish economy does not have the same long term government problems as Greece does. The deficit issues are a function of the the banking system breakdown, not the series of policy mistakes that hampers Athens even beyond the banking crisis. As a result, although serious, there is far greater trust offered to Madrid- and that solidarity from Berlin offers far greater security for future recovery to Spain than to Greece.


Yet in the Baltic, there is growing frustration that the Mediterranean economies as a whole are not prepared to accept the restructuring that has already taken place in Estonia and Latvia, and over a longer period, in Germany too. Articles such as "Is Greece too Western to pull off a Baltic Rebound?" carry with them the clear implication that "Western"="Decadent".


If Greece will not act to save itself, then why should the poorer Baltic Countries act to save them from themselves?


Which brings us to the latest twitter-sphere spat against Paul Krugman. 


Krugman and his -shall we selective- use of charts to criticize the austerity policies of Estonia raised a fury in Tallinn, which was well expressed by President Ilves . So, a serving head of state took the unusual step of publicly rebuking the economist.


In fact such a dishonest approach to data presentation by Krugman is also decadent.


It underlines why Nassim Taleb regards academic economists as little better than witch doctors. Following Krugman's sloppy thinking would certainly undermine the moral hazard that should underpin any capitalist society.


The fact is that in economic policy, the soft options are just as ineffective in the long term as they are in most other spheres of life. That is what Krugman and the Left does not understand.     

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...