Jump to content

Talk:Paul Krugman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clubintheclub (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 16 January 2014 (→Enron). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The word stagflation misused

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)[reply]

Sweatshops are preferable to unemployment

I did check the archives and found some posts indirectly about sweatshops. Link. That's why I would like to have this section focusing on this statement: PK argued that sweatshops are preferable to unemployment. Link Please share your opinion. Thanks. New worl (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which section do you refer to? Would you care to give a bit more background? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this talk will focus on PK's view on Sweatshops. New worl (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this have any relevance for the article then? This isn't a general forum for discussions about Krugman, Sweatshops etc, solely a talk page for improving the Krugman article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant. How can editors improve the article without discussing about PK or about his opinion? In fact, asking and sharing is the starting point for a better article. Best, New worl (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PK writes a lot. We shouldn't use primary sources to put stuff in the article.See WP:BLPPRIMARY Usually, we only include his opinion about something if secondary sources write about it. FurrySings (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FurrySings, could you please provide the link and/or exact text that you want to convey for WP:BLPPRIMARY? Thanks, New worl (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krugman's Internet prediction

I added a quote from Krugman in which he made a prediction the Internet would not have a significant long term impact on the economy. It was reverted as "cherry-picking". I don't feel like quoting a prediction about one of the most significant economic changes in decades is cherry picking, which doesn't seem like a clear policy or guideline position to take. Perhaps there is a better place in the article to place that information, but it seems notable and worth including. I'd like to get additional input on it. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 12:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support adding source. since he is known as an economist, and the source is reliable, and it is a quote about the economy, cherry picking doesn't apply. i ran into the same roadblocks when i tried to add Latvia to the article [1] "latvia-is-the-new-argentina", meaning the country was going to suffer economic ruin. Latvia now leads the 27 member EU in growth. see austerity, i managed to add the source there and someone later added Paul's defense of his prediction, 5 years later only a partial bounceback; unemployment is down but still very high...It's not what you'd call a triumphant success story. perhaps cherry-picking has already happened in the true since, meaning only the "cherries" or good bits are allowed, which is wp:peacock. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable secondary source which discusses this prediction? We generally do not use primary sources in such a manner. We rely on secondary sources to highlight significant aspects of primary sources, we don't pick out what we personally prefer from those primary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, you bring up a good point, more than half of the sources here are Krugman's own articles, would you be willing to help remove those until a secondary source can be produced? in the meantime, more from the article, (1998) the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now ,some other notable omissions thru the years, gold was the reason Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany. and (2002) Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that primary sources should be removed from the article is a misreading of what I wrote. Obviously primary sources are acceptable. My point was that which primary sources we use and which topics we cover should be guided by secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. First of all, it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and second of all, the entire point of adding it to the article (devoid of any context or relevancy whatsoever) seems to be to disparage the subject (by finding random examples where they were wrong in the past in order to cast doubt on their current predictions). The same is true for trying to add "counterpoints" to every opinion the subject has made. This is a biography, not a political debate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a direct quote is not wp;synth and OR is incorrect, the source was cite, perhaps you did not see the actual edit and/or need to review the policies you cited. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Looneymonkey. Furthermore economists are not psychics who pretend to see into the future. They make projections using the best information available. Obviously unforeseen events may change the course of history, at which point economists revise their projections. If a doctor may tell a patient he expects him to live to the age of 90, and the patient is hit by a bus when he leaves the surgery, does that impeach the doctor's medical expertise? TFD (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nate Silver demonstrated that pundits are wrong about 50% of the time. This would have to be a particularly memorable gaffe to be documented in an encyclopedia article. Despite the effort of what seems like an army of angry internet commenters, I don't see any evidence that this has risen to that level yet. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krugman's economics professor, not relevant?

I added a a highly relevant, scholarly source, who refutes a claim made in the article. it was reverted as not relevant. [2]. i ask the reverting editor to clarify what policy he based this revert and why he would think an economist own economy professor in college, mentioning his former student by name, directing contradicting the former students claim, not relevant? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is POV. He was Krugman's economic professor therefore he knows more than Krugman. TFD (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40th most influential what?

i suggest we remove [3] as a source. being the 40th most anything is not really encyclopedic, ex: Bush was the 40th most popular president, Miley Cyrus was the 40th top grossing artist of September 2013. not only is this stat trivial, but it has also been misused by editors who extract information from a single month then add that months ranking to the article. today the same link to the SAME SOURCE had Paul at TWO separate rankings [4], neither of which are currently accurate in October 2013 even if we were to use the MONTHLY calculation, which would need to be updated constantly. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is becoming tedious. every month the article will need to be edited to correct Krugmans monthly ranking. i changed this to the 10 year average from the same source and was reverted. this source is problematic, peacock, and trivia, falderal begone. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

failed verification tag removed without discussion

[5] is linking to the october results, not the september rankings which are better. i request the editor either provide a source for the September rank, or link to the 10 year average which doesnt change each month. many of the top economist James Heckman, Daron Acemoğlu, Peter C. B. Phillips dont even mention rank, or if they do it reads, "one of the top 10" and provides a generic link to same source. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Krugman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review; comments to follow in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to be a "drive-by" by an editor who hasn't yet worked on the article, so I'll keep my comments below brief for now. While there's a lot of good information here, and the article appears of reasonable quality overall, it needs further work before being ready for GA. For that reason, I'm not listing the article at this time.

The biggest issue is that the article has an outstanding cleanup tag from December 2009, so doesn't meet the GA criteria at this time. A few other things that should be cleaned up before this one is renominated for GA:

  • Statistics like "He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times, Fortune and Slate." need citation
  • "His popular commentary has attracted considerable comment, both positive and negative" -- this is a generic and unhelpful summary--what are the things he's praised or attacked for?
  • The "In Popular Culture" section is contains some off-topic trivia, a problem for GA criterion 3b.
  • Why are "commentary" and "political views" separate sections? Seems like these overlap rather heavily; I'm not sure it's useful to divide them.
  • Copyediting appears to be needed; in the very first paragraph, for example, there's "prize Committee" -- "Prize Committee" or "prize committee" might be correct, but surely not "prize Committee".

Thanks to everybody already working on this one. I enjoy Krugman's columns, and I hope this does get to GA at some point! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception to Paul Krugman's writing

I think this article sorely needs a section, or *some* content about other people/economists review of Krugman's major articles, predictions, and theories. I think this would put a lot of needed context around krugman's career. Thoughts? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are more articles than I can count giving critical receptions to his ideas and continuing writings:
Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a lot in the article about people's reaction to his popular commentary and column writing. Let's not forget that he is an economist, first and foremost, so let's not go overboard in emphasizing his popular writings. Interesting though, that considering the many people who write about Krugman's popular writings, all the links you list are only to Krugman's detractors. LK (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enron

I was looking for information about Krugman's relationship or work for Enron but it wasn't int he article. Did he work for Enron (and fail to disclose this when he was pumping the company in the Times) and if so, why isn't it mentioned? Clubintheclub (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Krugman&oldid=590982154"