Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
"Yes, but when he says 'Sweden works, Cuba doesn't, therefore free market economies are better' his logic is hard to follow. "

But he does not say that. You are projecting your own prejudice into his quote. Therefore, and the words that follow, are yours.
I agree that Cuba is also restricted and that it plays an important part, so that it's not a clean experiment. I would argue, though, that the burden of the proof is on he who makes the claim that full equality is indeed the system maximising the condition of the worst-off in the long run.
All Krugman is saying is that there are limits to redistribution -in fact, let me quote the very previous sentence: "And before the trolls jump in to say aha, Krugman concedes the truth of supply-side economics, that's not an argument against progressive taxation and the welfare state; it's just an argument that says that there are limits."

Krugman's mention of Cuba and Sweden merely indicates that there is no obvious logical argument to reject even full equality, merely empirical ones. And he very clearly did not pick a particularly neo-liberal country as the working one.

I was going to have one chapter in this series about our embracing evidence-based thought rather than slogans and demands of ideological purity. Are you telling me that this is not a shared trait here and that you reject it? If not, what do you fault him for?

"Is it hard to imagine that there might be people in Cuba who are better off than people in the US? "
Is it hard to notice that this is a shockingly unfair point? Comparing one's maximum to the other's minimum?

"The subtext is an obvious and rather naive or unquestioning acceptance of free market exceptionalism compared to the alternatives"
Really? From someone who keeps singing the praise of social democracy and who picked Sweden as the example of a country that works, Sweden that, as you yourself said, cannot be called a free market economy?

"Free market economies can only work if they're based on an imperial model which steals resources from other countries."
This may be true, but is rather too flippant a statement to be accepted without a convincing demonstration. Otherwise it's just a slogan.

"That's a strange definition of 'work' - unless you start from the assumption that they're the best of all possible arrangements by definition, and work back from that."
Again, Krugman has written hundreds of pages slamming the direction USA were taking. Why do you project the neo-liberal agenda onto him? I can think of no reason other than the idea that anyone who does not concede the whole Marxist doctrine is an opponent to be fought.
Surely that is not your reason -but then I am missing it entirely.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sat Oct 2nd, 2010 at 05:35:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where am I projecting? Krugman could have used any number of other examples - but he chose Cuba to make a point that 'there are limits'?

Is it hard to notice that this is a shockingly unfair point? Comparing one's maximum to the other's minimum?

This isn't the issue. The issue is that Cuba is in no way a conventional economy. Never mind that it's nominally socialist - it's been aggressively ostracised by its nearest and largest physical trading partner. So saying that Cuba somehow proves the limits of redistribution is a non-point.

But it's a revealing non-point. The fact that Krugman can write this, and - presumably - actually believe it, says a lot about his assumptions and the shallowness of his political insight.

This may be true, but is rather too flippant a statement to be accepted without a convincing demonstration. Otherwise it's just a slogan.

You mean apart from the British Empire, the age of colonialism in the rest of Europe, the East India Company, the oil and resource wars of the 20th century, and the US-sponsored coups throughout Asia and South America in the late 20th century?

Do I need to explain how all of these were contrived, or at least packaged as, the inevitable rational actions of nominally free markets?

You seem entirely too awed by Krugman to accept that in his environment anything to the left of a centrist solution like Sweden's is considered suicidally self-destructive by definition.

It's good that he's not a psycho-Randian like most of the Chicago altar boys, but that doesn't mean he's pushing the Overton window as hard as it needs to be pushed in the US.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Oct 2nd, 2010 at 07:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the preceeding paragraph Krugman says:

The market economy is a system for organizing activity -- a pretty good system most of the time, though not always -- with no special moral significance. The rich don't necessarily deserve their wealth, and the poor certainly don't deserve their poverty; nonetheless, we accept a system with considerable inequality because systems without any inequality don't work.

Then Krugman says:

Sweden works, Cuba doesn't.

This pretty clearly implies tht the amount of equality in Cuba is too great for the economy to work. And Krugman ignores the massive punitive behavior of Cuba's former trading partner to the north. Krugman also ignores that our economic system deliberately excludes moral considerations while having insisted on remaking the society to serve the needs of the economy. That the way in which this has been done is necessary is an underlying assumption, not a demonstrated fact. Refusing to grant the assumptions of Classical and Neo-Classical Economics has come to constitute an act of opting out of the discussion, in a Rawlsian consensus approach. That is the problem, especially when it has repeatedly been shown that the Classical and Neo-Classical approaches have major problems and little predictive power. The Rawlsian consensus has come to exclude all who do not drink the Cool Aid.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Oct 2nd, 2010 at 01:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For years I have tried to read between the lines in Krugman's writings- tried to parse out what he says that is needful to say in order for him not to lose that powerful platform over there in New York, a loss that a stronger statement might bring about, and what might be such bull as his Cuba statement.
I honestly think he sees the market model as a basically good one, and is, in the end, a tweaker.
It's just that his tweaks are bigger.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Oct 3rd, 2010 at 06:58:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's nothing wrong with markets: it's rentier profits that are the problem.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Oct 3rd, 2010 at 12:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series