|
|
 Originally Posted by JKDS
It seems like a terrible response to me. He criticizings Krugman for (rightfully?) attacking a minimum wage study, but doesnt provide any evidence from other studies.
She makes some bare asssertions herself, then quits. Ok, but Krugman's point is that you dont have actual evidence beyond the theoretical; and she didnt prove otherwise.
It's more nuanced than that. Lots of economists are upset with Krugman because he regularly discards economic theory in support of a political agenda. His position on the minimum wage is that because the evidence is inconclusive, raising minimum wage is therefore *cough* good *cough*. As the author points out, the correct position for Krugman would be to say that the data is inconclusive, the theory is sound, and thus his economic opinion is to stick to the theory. But instead, Krugman is a political pundit first and ends up misleading so many laypeople into thinking economists' understanding of minimum wage is different than it is. He ignores the power of the theory. The theory isn't weak whatsoever and there is no theoretical basis for how it could be wrong. It's basic supply and demand and marginalism.
He's the most famous living economist, so he should be extra diligent to keep things on the up and up. He is an incredibly smart person and that intelligence is a big part of why he's so good at keeping his disingenuity subtle.
TLDR: Krugman was very subtly playing "not-economics" in his statement. She pointed it out.
|
Reply With Quote