您当前的位置: 首页 > 汽车


2019-01-10 12:31:09

保罗·克鲁格曼败北-新知维客专题- ——


作者:弗雷德·道格拉斯(Fred Douglass)August 03, 2010时间:08/03/2010 A marvelous thing happened over on Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times last week. Krugman effectively conceded defeat on a range of economic debates. Who defeated him? People who posted comments on his New York Times blog. Mere commenters. 上周保罗·克鲁格曼(Paul Krugman)在《纽约时报》上的博客发生了一件妙不可言的事情。克鲁格曼实际上承认了自己在一系列经济辩论中落败。谁击败了他?是在他的《纽约时报》博客上发表评论的路人,仅仅是一群看贴回帖的民。For those who do not know, Paul Krugman is one of the few who still claim that Keynesian progressivism is the answer to America's (and Europe's) problems, not their cause. He repeats that claim many times each month. Amid these repeated expressions of his "progressive" faith, he now also repeatedly expresses grim despair because his progressive policy prescriptions are being accepted less and less in the public square, even by the Obama administration. 对于还不认识此君的读者,我在此介绍一下,保罗·克鲁格曼是硕果仅存的仅有的几位依然坚称凯恩斯式的进步主义模式是美国(和欧洲)当前经济问题的解决方法,而非经济危机肇因的学者之一。每个月他都会重申好几次。除了重复宣扬自己的“进步主义”信仰之外,他还反复表达自己深深的绝望,因为他开出的进步主义政策处方正在政治圈内越来越没有市场,甚至连奥巴马政府也开始和他撇清关系。Krugman is an academic. He has never run a company. He has never created a job. The closest contact he evidently ever had to "business" was as an adviser to Enron, where (in his own words) he was paid $50,000 to help build Enron's "image." 克鲁格曼是纯粹的学院派。他从来没有运营过那怕一家企业,他从来没有创造出那怕一个就业岗位。他接近于“做生意”的一次活动显然就是为安然公司当顾问,用他的话来说,他得到了5万美元报酬来帮助建立安然的“企业形象”。This, perhaps, explains the dozen or so points that Krugman makes over and over. Here are a few: Obama's stimulus was too small. Debt is good. Austerity is bad. Deflation is coming. Ken Rogoff, Greg Mankiw, Alberto Alesina (all at Harvard), and other serious economic scientists do not understand economics as well as he does. Those who do not agree with him are "mass delusional." And perhaps Krugman's favorite line: "I was right, of course." 这也许有助于解释克鲁格曼反复宣扬的那差不多一打经济观点。仅仅列举一些:奥巴马的刺激经济力度太小了;举债是美德;节俭是坏习惯;通货紧缩正在进行时;肯·罗格夫,格雷格·曼昆,艾伯特·艾尔西纳(都是哈佛人)和其他严肃的经济学家们都不如他懂经济学;那些不认同他的观点的家伙都有“巨大的错觉”,也许克鲁格曼喜欢的一句话就是:“我是正确的,当然如此。”Befitting his ideology, Krugman has only one policy to propose, regardless of topic: Transfer more resources from the discipline and dynamism of markets to the inefficiency and cronyism of government. 与他的理念相衬,不管是什么主题,克鲁格曼只会提出一条经济政策:把更多的资源从有纪律和活力的市场转移到低效和任人唯亲的政府手中。Government-run health care. Government-controlled banks. Government bailouts. High taxes. High spending. Krugman wants it all, just like in Europe (which, in 2008, he called "the comeback continent"). And Krugman has no problems denying economic science and current events to advocate it. 政府管理健康保险、政府管理银行、政府救、高税收、高支出......克鲁格曼想要的是所有这些东西,就像欧洲(2008年的欧洲,他称为“复苏的大陆”)那样。克鲁格曼先生为了支持自己的理念,还不惜拒绝经济科学和当前的事实With the meltdown in Europe so obviously the consequence of too much Krugmanism and U.S. unemployment near 10% after a trillion dollars in stimulus, Krugman has attracted some criticism. 随着欧洲在明显过多的克鲁格曼主义后显现出彻底崩溃的征兆,以及美国的失业率在1万亿美元的经济刺激后依然逼近10%,克鲁格曼招致了一些非议。For example, Robert Barro, the distinguished Harvard economist, noted that Krugman "just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist." The New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent observed that Paul Krugman has "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, after listing the falsities in Krugman's latest piece on climate last week, hazarded that perhaps "Krugman makes himself ridiculous merely to make our job easy." 比方说,罗伯特·巴罗,一位杰出的哈佛经济学家,指出克鲁格曼“只会说任何有利于他的政治观点的东西,他表现得不像是一个经济学家”。《纽约时报》的公评专员丹尼尔·奥克伦特评论说保罗·克鲁格曼有“让人感到困惑的习惯,总是以迎合他的粉丝的方式改变、切割,和有选择的引用数据,从而给别人落下实质性的攻击口实”。《华尔街》的詹姆斯·塔兰托,在列举了克鲁格曼上周的一片关于气候的文章中的错误之后,冒失的说也许“克鲁格曼是为了方便我们的工作而让自己看起来愚蠢无比”。But no matter how low Krugman's fallacious fruit hangs, Krugman has long been comfortable among the acolytes who frequently post on his blog. A representative post is: "Paul, you are a God-send for those of us who appreciate a superior intellect with common sense! Thanks for applying your brilliance." Or this: "Paul, dig deep dude. You are brilliant." It was hardly surprising that last January, Krugman declared, "I love my commenters." 但是不管克鲁格曼犯下的错误有多低级,他的粉丝们在他博客上的评论总是让他感到舒畅无比。一个代表性的评论就是:“保罗,您是上帝派来让我们普通人膜拜的智者!感谢您愿意播撒自己的智慧。”或者像这样:“保罗老兄,说得再尖锐一点。你真是太杰出了。”毫不奇怪,克鲁格曼在去年一月份宣称:“我热爱在我博客上留言的读者。”No longer. 然而好景不长。For just as Krugman was declaring his love for his blog commenters last January, people started posting serious rebuttals of Krugman's standard claims about economics. These commenters were not obviously Republican stooges. They were not obviously members of "the political class." They were not obvious ideologues. 去年一月份,就在克鲁格曼宣布热爱自己的博客访客差不多时候,民们开始认真回帖反驳克鲁格曼在经济学方面的所谓权威观点。很明显这些民不是共和党的走狗,不是“政治阶层”,也不是空想家。Rather, the posters simply knew some economic science and how jobs are created and economies grow, perhaps because they were members of "the productive class." And they came prepared to support their rebuttals of Krugman's ideology and his singular policy prescription by facts and peer-reviewed economic science. 这些回帖的民不过是懂得一些经济学,懂得就业机会如何被创造出来,懂得经济如何增长,也许正因为他们属于“生产阶层”的缘故。他们有备而来,用事实和业内认可的经济学观点反驳克鲁格曼的理念和他卓越的政治处方。For six months, they made Krugman's blog one of the more informative and interesting places to hear economics debated. In part, this was because they gave Krugman a serious run. Their posts were long, near the 5,000-character limit set by the New York Times. They were reasoned. They were knowledgeable. They carried citations to economic science literature that one might expect in a Ph.D. dissertation. 在长达6个月的时间里,他们把克鲁格曼的博客变成了上有趣的信息量丰富的讨论经济学的地方之一,部分是由于他们在认真和克鲁格曼较劲。他们的回帖会很长,接近《纽约时报》的5000字数限制。他们很理智,他们很有见识,他们引述经济学着作的方式就像你在经济学博士论文中看到的那样。And so their rebuttals were often decisive. 而且他们的反驳常常是带有决断性的。For example, when Krugman a month ago drew one of his famous "trend lines" based on a single point, a blogger named rjh immediately responded, "These trend lines you are drawing all over the place. Pardon my French, they are complete garbage." And nearly half of Krugman's commenters joined to point out that Krugman was arguing junk. Krugman was forced to make two defensive replies; both were immediately refuted. 举个例子,克鲁格曼在一个月前以单一的基点画了一张他着名的“趋势线”,一个名叫“rjh”的民立即做出了回应,“你画的这些乱七八糟的趋势线。原谅我的粗俗,它们完全是垃圾。”而且有半数的评论一起指出克鲁格曼做的是无谓的论证。克鲁格曼被迫做出了两个防卫性的回复,结果都被立即驳倒。Responding to Krugman's praise for the high taxes in Europe and his repeated denial that tax cuts might stimulate an economy enough to make up for revenues lost, a European posting under his initials jg pointed out that the low Reagan-Clinton tax rates made "being an entrepreneur interesting again. All those internet startups like eBay, Amazon or Netscape would probably never have been created if it weren't possible for the inventors to get rich." This anti-progressive notion that the "evil rich" might actually create growth if they were not taxed -- on his "personal" blog, no less -- must have made Paul spit up his morning coffee. 克鲁格曼歌颂欧洲的高税收,一直拒绝承认减税也会刺激经济的复苏,从而能够弥补财政收入的降低。对此,一位首字母叫“jg”的欧洲民回帖指出,里根—克林顿政府时期的低税收政策“让创业再次成为一件有趣的事情,互联上所有的这些新兴企业,像易趣、亚马逊和景,如果不是因为投资者们有发财的可能,很可能根本就不会出现。”这种反进步主义的论调认为如果“罪恶的富人”不被征税的话,他们或许也会推动经济的增长。这段发表在他的“个人博客”上的文章,肯定让保罗看了后,把他早晨刚喝下去的咖啡也气得吐了出来。But things got worse for the professor. Matching Krugman's repeated claim that the "stimulus" was too small, Sean produced peer-reviewed economic science from Alesina, who examined 92 attempts at stimulus since 1970 in OECD countries and found that tax cuts, but not spending, stimulated. Krugman stammered a reply, but the damage was done; his acolytes had learned that economic science existed that contradicted Krugman's claim (central to Obama's "stimulus" legislation) that government's spending your money helps an economy. 对这位教授来说,糟糕的还在后头。克鲁格曼反复重申“刺激”经济的力度太小了。对此,一个叫肖恩的民引用了艾尔西纳的被同行认可的经济学研究。艾尔西纳考察了经合组织里的国家自1970年以来的刺激经济行动,发现是减税而非政府消费在刺激经济。克鲁格曼勉强做了一个回复,但是损失已经造成,他的粉丝知道了居然还有违背克鲁格曼断言的经济科学存在。克鲁格曼可是一直在声称政府用你们的钱消费有利于经济复苏(也是奥巴马“刺激经济法案”的核心)。Matching Krugman's claim that government can "create wealth by printing money," several posters cited the latest economic science showing that the "multipliers" that Keynesians use are wrong. They further noted that Krugman had used these wrong multipliers seventeen months ago to predict incorrectly that Obama's stimulus package would keep unemployment below 9%. 克鲁格曼还声称政府能够“通过印钱来创造财富”。对此,一些回帖引用了的经济学研究证明凯恩斯主义者使用的“乘数”压根就是错的。他们还进一步提到了克鲁格曼在17个月之前用了错误的乘数,错误的预测了奥巴马的一揽子刺激经济方案会把失业率控制在9%以下。And so Krugman's blog presented the most unforgivable conclusion: Krugman had actually been wrong. As he had been when he advocated low interest rates and the creation of a housing price inflation in 2001, one of the causes of current economic difficulties. 于是在克鲁格曼的博客上产生了不可原谅的结论:克鲁格曼实际上一直都是错的,就像时光倒退回2001年,他提倡低利率和制造房价泡沫时就是错的一样。他当时鼓吹的通货膨胀是当前经济灾难的罪魁祸首之一。Things then got still worse. When Krugman repeated his claim that Bush's tax cuts had "caused" the deficit and damaged the economy, commenters first taught Krugman how to count. They then cited two papers by the Romers showing that tax cuts help economies. Christina Romer is, of course, the chief economic advisor to President Obama. 但是事情还没到此结束。当克鲁格曼反复重申布什的减税政策“导致”财政赤字,损害了经济时,是民们率先教会了克鲁格曼该如何数数。他们引用了罗默的两篇文章,表明减税有利于经济。当然,克里斯蒂娜·罗默是奥巴马总统的首席经济顾问。When Krugman repeated one of his "debt is good" posts, posters linked to the economic science from Reinhardt and Rogoff showing that high debt is inimical to economic recovery. 当克鲁格曼重复发了一篇他的“举债是美德”博文时,回帖的民用链接把人们引向了莱因哈特和罗格夫,揭示了巨额债务对经济复苏有害。Occasionally, Krugman attempted a reply. For example, he dissembled that Reinhardt and Rogoff had "highlighted" a single postwar American experience, which he dismissed as "spurious." The commenters did not let him get away with it. Within 24 hours, Sean had pointed out that Reinhardt and Rogoff had found similar effects of debt in six countries on three continents over four decades, including Canada, Japan, Greece, and Belgium. Krugman then struggled to find something "spurious" about each of these. Sean's rebuttal showed that Krugman was refusing to meet any burden of proof. Still worse, Samuel showed that Krugman's reasoning, if applied generally, would forever insulate Krugman's ideology from any refutation of any kind. 克鲁格曼偶尔会做出回应。比如说,他以莱因哈特和罗格夫单单“突出”战后美国经验这一个案例为掩饰,而这个案例正是他否定的,按他的话就是“捏造”。民们当然不会放过他。不到一天的时间,肖恩就指出莱因哈特和罗格夫在3个大洲的6个国家的超过40年历史中都发现了类似的债务效应,包括了加拿大、日本、希腊,还有比利时。于是克鲁格曼挣扎着想要在这每一个案例中找到“捏造”的地方。肖恩的驳斥表明克鲁格曼一直在拒绝面对任何举证。更糟糕的,塞缪尔揭示,克鲁格曼的推理如果被推而广之,会让克鲁格曼的理念永远颠扑不灭。...Which is perhaps what Paul Krugman wants, but it is not economic science. ......也许这就是克鲁格曼想要的,但却不是经济科学。Krugman's blog commenters were especially relentless in pointing out his inconsistencies. In one post, Krugman admitted that "politicians will always find ways to shield the powerful." Posters piled on, pointing out that Krugman's universal policy prescription gave politicians more power under the assumption that they would defend "the proletariat." Krugman replied that he was "sure that there's a large literature" on government cronyism and corruption. Secure in his big-government ideology, he admitted that he had never read that literature. But like the ideologue that he is, Krugman then expressed his faith (the only word appropriate) that "bureaucracy will do a heckuva job" if it is not "downgraded and devalued." Bloggers responded by citing the latest economic science showing the impossibility of Krugman's "utopian dictatorship-by-bureaucracy." 克鲁格曼博客上的评论者们尤其热衷于指出他观点的前后矛盾。在一篇博文里,克鲁格曼承认“政客们总会找到庇护权贵的方法。”民们于是轮番上阵,纷纷指出克鲁格曼先假设了政客们会保护“无产阶级”,可开出的大一统的政策处方却给了政客们更多的权势。克鲁格曼回应说他“确信有大量的着作”证明政府的任人唯亲和腐败。克鲁格曼妥妥的待在他的大政府理念里,承认他从来没有读过那方面的着作。不过正如他的理念,克鲁格曼接着表达了他的信仰(描述老克理念的适当的词语)说“官僚体系可以把事情办得很好”,如果它们本身没有“堕落和自贬身价”。民们于是引用了的经济学研究,揭示了克鲁格曼“乌托邦式的官僚主义专制体系”的不可能性。Paul Krugman has spent his career as a pundit advocating that government bureaucrats and political process replace markets. He knows that there is a large literature that says that this is a bad idea. That literature is transparently relevant to Krugman's only policy proposal. And yet Krugman has not read it...and admits that he has not read it, without embarrassment. 保罗·克鲁格曼作为一个砖家,其毕生都在支持用行政官僚和政治手段来取代市场的理念。他知道有大量着作说这是一个坏主意,而那些着作很明显又是和他仅有的一个政策建议相关的,然而克鲁格曼却不曾读过他们......而且非但承认了,居然还不觉得羞愧。By July, Krugman had lost his "Battle of the Blog." On July 23, Latrina commented, "Who is this Sean from Florida? He takes everything that [the] Professor [says] and shreds it, piece by piece. He shouldn't be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology." 进入七月,克鲁格曼已经在他的 “博客战役”里败北。7月23号,民莱翠娜留言说:“这个从佛罗里达来的肖恩究竟是谁?他把教授说过的每句话话都拆开来一条条分析。不应该让他继续在这个博客上发表评论,因为他看上去赢了所有的辩论。我们进步主义者需要牢牢团结在一起,包装润色我们的观点,而不是让某个外人闯进来戳穿我们理念的谬误。”Krugman had also had enough. On July 23, Krugman showed that he was clearly no longer "in love" with his commenters. Now he called them "ranters" and "trolls." On July 28, Krugman changed his comment moderation policy. Claiming that "ranters ... say the same thing every time," Krugman announced that he was going to throw away posts longer than "three inches." His thinking must have been thus: Three inches are sufficient to write "Krugman is brilliant," but not sufficient to present a documented and persuasive rebuttal to whichever of Krugman's standard arguments he was peddling that day. 克鲁格曼也受够了。7月23号,克鲁格曼表示自己不再与自己博客评论者处于热恋关系了。如今他称这些民为“愤青”和“脑残”。7月28号,克鲁格曼一改他对评论的温和政策,声称“愤青......每次都重复同样的言论”,克鲁格曼宣布他要删除任何超过“3英寸”长的回帖。他的思维一定是这样的:3英寸的长度足够写下“克鲁格曼君英明无比”,却不够长度对克鲁格曼宣传的权威观点进行有论有据的反驳。Within 24 hours, those outside the Times had taken notice. Stephen Spruiell at the NRO noted the absurdity of Krugman's complaint that bloggers might use the same responses to rebut Krugman's repeated statements of the same ideology. Wrote Spruiell: 一天不到,《纽约时报》以外的人士就注意到了这件事情。“国家评论”(NRO)的斯蒂芬·斯普鲁伊尔l指出了克鲁格曼抱怨的愚蠢,因为民们在用同样的回复来反驳克鲁格曼基于同样理念的重复说法。斯普鲁伊尔写道:This [is] from the guy who has spent the entire summer rewriting the same blog post", Spruiell went on to point out that "Krugman's sycophants ... also say the same thing every time." "Krugman's policy seems geared to limit comments to "Yay Dr. K!" "Way to go!" "Keynes was right!" etc. “这番话出自一个把整个夏季都用来重复发表同样博文的家伙之口。” 斯普鲁伊尔继续指出,“克鲁格曼的崇拜者们......也是每次都发表同样的言论。”“克鲁格曼的政策似乎有把评论限制在‘耶,克博士!’,‘继续前进!’,‘凯恩斯始终正确!’等等的意思。”As indeed it has. Krugman's blog the day after the policy change had just six comments the last time I looked. "Hurray," said one. "Awesome!!" said another. 确实如此。在政策改变后的天,我一次上去看的时候,克鲁格曼的博客里只有6条新评论。“加油,”这是一条评论;“棒极了!!”这是另一条评论。In his appearance on Sunday on "This Week," Krugman repeated his attack on Rogoff. He repeated his claim that he, a deflationista, "was right." Regulars could go to Krugman's blog and download the economic science that showed that Krugman was blowing smoke on "This Week," a gig that may pay Krugman more than even Enron. 在星期天做客着名电视节目“本周”的时候,克鲁格曼重复了他对罗格夫的攻击。他重复了自己的观点,说作为一个货币贬值论者,“是正确的。”访客们大可以直接上克鲁格曼的博客,去下载证明克鲁格曼在电视上瞎吹的经济学资料。这个节目付给克鲁格曼的报酬也许比安然付的还要多。And so after his ride back to Princeton, Krugman pulled the plug. He twice scolded "whiners," claiming that this blog under the New York Times masthead was "a personal not-for-pay venture." He claimed that he was burdened by needing to see if posts contained "obscenities" (none had, other than the "French" cited above). And he declared that he has "no obligation to provide" space for "ranters" and "whiners" who might rebut the ideology that he routinely markets. 在驱车回到普林斯顿后,克鲁格曼采取了实际行动,不再让民自由发表评论。他两次斥责这些“愤世嫉俗的家伙”,宣称他在《纽约时报》刊头的博客是一个“不图回报的个人项目”。他声明要检查回帖是不是含有“污秽的言语”给他带来了很大压力(事实上没有一句脏话,出了前面引用的“原谅我的粗俗”)。他还宣称自己没有“义务提供”场所给“愤青”和“脑残”,也就是那些也许会驳斥他惯常推销的那些理念的民。Of course not. It is his blog. But it is newsworthy that after years of allowing 5,000-character responses consistent with Times policy, Krugman pulled the plug just as he was so obviously losing the debate. The academic world and the business world share something: They both view this as an admission of defeat. 他当然没有这个义务,这是他的博客。但是,在持续数年允许民在时报的5000字限制范围内回帖后,克鲁格曼在很明显就要输掉辩论的时候不再允许民自由评论,这可是一个值得报道的事件。学术界和商界还是有共识的:他们都把这个举动看作是认输。Krugman is also "losing the audience." Eighteen months ago, Krugman's progressive ideology that was the consensus of the president, the House, the Senate, and not a few Republicans. Now, the Obama administration is evidently worried that it bought economic snake oil from Keynesians like Krugman. Even Ezra Klein is beginning to question the Keynesian economic models of Blinder and Zandi that "got it so wrong." 克鲁格曼也在“失去听众”。18个月之前,克鲁格曼的进步主义理念在总统、众议院、参议院,还有大群共和党人中间赢得了共识。而如今,奥巴马政府显然是在担心自己是不是从克鲁格曼这样的凯恩斯主义者那里买到了毫无作用的推销品。甚至连以斯拉·克莱因也开始质问布林德和赞迪的凯恩斯主义经济模式“错得离谱”。And so a six-month episode of enlightening economic debate has come to a close. Will Krugman respond to posts on other blogs? We do not know, but routinely in the past, he simply refuses to do so. He is clearly unable to do so, and, surrounded now sycophants and acolytes who tell him how brilliant he is, why should he even bother to try? 长达6个月有启迪意义的经济学辩论就这样告一段落。克鲁格曼会在其他博客上回应吗?我们不得而知,不过按过去老一套的习惯,他会拒绝这样做。他也明显没有反驳别人的能力,再加上,如今在那群赞美哥是何等英明神武的崇拜者和粉丝的前后簇拥下,他为什么还要花心思努力反驳别人呢?标题:Paul Krugman Gives Up 来源: 原文作者: Fred Douglass