Re: In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets

[Bill Lear <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday, October 31, 2003 at 10:33:27 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes:
>Krugman is very good at what he does. He's a sharp polemicist, writes
>very clearly about economics, and annoys the hell out of the right.

All true, for which he should be (and is, by me at least) applauded.

>No, he's not a radical, or a Marxist, or social democrat even. But he
>doesn't pretend otherwise. He's kind of like Anthony Lewis, only he
>writes better. I don't see why he provokes this kind of hostility on
>the left. Why's he worth the effort? Is it envy?

Yeah, that's it: I envy Paul Krugman.  The fact that "he doesn't
pretend otherwise" applies equally well to George Bush --- so what?
The criticism is levied against Krugman's short-sightedness, his
unwillingness to see what is rotten, except when the proper political
gloss is dropped.

>Given the state of politics today, prominent & talented liberals
>should be pretty low on our list of enemies.

Who says Krugman is an "enemy"?  Criticizing him for falling far short
of telling the whole truth is not labeling him an enemy.  As for
Cockburn's views on him, I don't see him labeling Krugman anything
like an "enemy", he's just taking him down a peg, as is proper.  Prior
to Bush, Krugman was more or less a thoughtless cheerleader for free
markets, damn the consequences, which he never seemed to bother with
in the first place.  Now, suddenly, politics seems to matter to him,
whereas before markets were marvels that spun themselves out of thin
air.

Here's what I wrote about him in 1996, quoting Krugman:

     Los  Angeles "is a patchwork of areas of very distinct character,
     ranging  from  Koreatown to Hollywood, Watts to Beverly Hills....
     What  is  so striking about this differentiation is that it is so
     independent  of  physical  geography:  there are no rivers to set
     boundaries,   no   big   downtown   to   define   a  gradient  of
     accessibility.....  The strong organization of space within metro
     Los Angeles is clearly something that has emerged, not because of
     any  inherent  qualities  of  different sites, but rather through
     self-reinforcing  processes: Koreans move to Koreatown to be with
     Koreans,  beautiful people move to Beverly Hills to be with other
     beautiful people."

     ---Paul  Krugman, _The Self-Organizing Economy_, Blackwell, 1996,
     p. 4.

     Hmm...  a  long  history  of racist laws, rules, and behavior has
     nothing  to  do with this?? Just how is the absence of "physical"
     impediments  evidence  of "self-organizing" behavior? What is the
     use  of  focusing  on these impediments while ignoring human-made
     ones?  Do  poor  Blacks in Watts move there to be with other poor
     Blacks?  Has Krugman never heard of the practice of blockbusting?
     What  if  we were to write this of South Africa... "Capetown is a
     patchwork,  beautiful  whites  living  together in self-organized
     bliss,  and blacks living together, somewhere, ..., else"? Why is
     there  is  no  entry  for "racism" in the index? Why does Krugman
     display    such    confidence   while   uttering   such   foolish
     pronouncements?

I suppose this was prompted by envy as well.


Bill