Oh My, Paul Krugman

flattr this!

Q: What do John May­nard Keynes and Steve Keen have in common?

A: They’ve both been mis­read by Paul Krug­man.

In just a cou­ple of days I’ve gone from the priv­i­lege of being acknowl­edged by Krug­man to being mis­read by him, in a way that would have any stu­dent failed in a mul­ti­ple choice exam. In a pas­sage where I specif­i­cally referred to DSGE models–which includes both “New Clas­si­cals” and “New Key­ne­sians” he inter­preted me as refer­ring to New Key­ne­sian mod­els only.

And I said “under­ly­ing prin­ci­ples to the DSGE mod­els”, which should have been enough of a clue that I was refer­ring specif­i­cally to New Clas­si­cal mod­els, not New Key­ne­sian ones.

The dis­parag­ing ref­er­ences to New Key­ne­sian mod­els came later, when I described them as being like Ptole­maic astronomers adding epicy­cles to an under­ly­ing model that couldn’t explain the ret­ro­grade motion of the planets.


Then hav­ing mis­read me, he con­cludes with “Nick uses a four-letter word to describe this; I can’t, because this is the Times”

Since I don’t work for The Times, I can and will use a four let­ter word to describe your poor com­pre­hen­sion here Paul:


About Steve Keen

I am Professor of Economics and Head of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston University London, and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous private debts accumulated globally, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Oh My, Paul Krugman

  1. myopia says:

    What’s that quote “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win..”

  2. NeilW says:

    Q: What do John May­nard Keynes and Steve Keen have in common?”

    Let’s park that for a few years and see if the answer changes to “events proved their analy­sis largely correct”.

  3. barrythompson says:

    Check out this com­ment on Krugman’s teach­able moment post:

    * kban­desz
    Dear Mr Krugman,

    I really adore your work in many fields of eco­nom­ics, but regard­ing this issue you, together with many aca­d­e­mic econ­o­mists, are wrong. This is not a sim­ple oper­a­tional ques­tion. The shifts in the demand curve you men­tion are so huge on a daily basis that a CB pick­ing B* would kill the pay­ments and bank­ing sys­tem very shortly. And no CB ever really fol­lowed a strat­egy of pick­ing B*. This is a myth (see links below). The only rea­son the money mul­ti­plier story sur­vived is the fact that it is so sim­ple that it can be explained to under­grads. But this doesn’t make it true. An inter­est­ing ques­tion to think about: if the mul­ti­plier story is true how can cen­tral banks with zero reserve require­ment (e.g. Canada, Swe­den) con­duct mon­e­tary policy?

    I am writ­ing this as a for­mer cen­tral bank econ­o­mist, now teach­ing at a university.

    There are many works at the BIS, Fed, ECB and other cen­tral banks refut­ing the text­book the­ory. I like the most Ulrich Bindseil’s work, because he has a his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive, but there are many others.

    Here is a paper:

    And a whole book:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=jEe2y00axOsC&lpg=PR7&ots=mrLyJI… mon­e­tary pol­icy implementation&lr&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q=bindseil mon­e­tary pol­icy implementation&f=false

  4. Krug­man really doesn’t under­stand very much, this is prob­a­bly why he was hired by the New York Times in the first place. After all, the Times is Dan Yergin’s bully pulpit.

    Give Krug­man some credit: he did men­tion Peak Oil in an arti­cle once upon a time. He did it once (and was likely severely rep­ri­manded for it).

    Mod­ern bank­ing is iden­ti­cal to the futures mar­kets. If any­one has bought or sold futures con­tracts they will grasp mod­ern com­mer­cial bank­ing with­out any dif­fi­cul­ties. A bank loan is effec­tively a long futures con­tract (on the borrower’s abil­ity to repay the loan). The bank does not need deposits to make any loans just like the Nymex does not need a short to sell con­tracts to a will­ing long. The bank issues the loan/ the exchange issues the con­tracts. The con­tracts are resold to cor­re­spond­ing bank/ the exchange bank.

    Krug­man has not traded futures. He seems to think of bank­ing like the old-fashioned Bai­ley Build­ing and Loan in ‘It’s A Won­der­ful Life’. Kapra’s ver­sion of bank­ing isn’t too far off the mark. He under­stood Potter’s bank as the cor­re­spon­dent for BB&L. With­out the cor­re­spond­ing bank there is no sense of where the client bank’s lend­ing capac­ity comes from.

    Krug­man misses cor­re­spond­ing banks and their abil­ity to ‘man­age’ lia­bil­i­ties, that is one rea­son why the money-center banks have got­ten so large (and inte­grated with the Fed).

    Good argu­ing with the Krug­man, maybe you should come to New York and chal­lenge him to a duel!

  5. Kristen says:

    Prof. Keen I can’t tell you how much I appre­ci­ate your arti­cles — though it is an unbe­liev­able exam­ple of how mis­guided we are as a soci­ety and how we become and Stay that way, how sad Krug­man still has such an presence.

    Could you clar­ify a point for me? What hap­pens to deposits when loans go belly up …(or Large banks are allowed to fail?) Do the deposits cre­ated by these loans still exist or are they both wiped out? Thank you! Kristen

  6. Robert K says:

    Where is Max Planck when we need him? (I am afraid I know the answer to that

  7. RJ says:


    Can you explain why the deposit would be affected in any way just because a loan goes belly up

    Just fol­low the jour­nal entries


    This deposit is then paid to Sue etc

    This is one advan­tage with banks as opposed to one per­son deal­ing with another one privately.

    Banks guar­an­tee deposits. They do not trace the deposit back to the loan (and likely could not any­way) if the loan goes belly up.

    As Bob may pay Sue who then uses this money to pay Tim who then pays Mary etc etc etc.

  8. Steve Keen says:

    Hi Kris­ten,

    They still exist. What hap­pens though is that the bank has to make good the loss from its equity. So it trans­fers funds from its equity account to its cap­i­tal account (I may not have described these prop­erly for accoun­tants, but that’s the basic idea). This reduces the bank’s capac­ity and will­ing­ness to make future loans–if it becomes a sys­temic thing. Banks plan for a cer­tain frac­tion of loans to go bad like this even in good times.

  9. jon_w_h says:

    It seems Mark Thoma thinks the fail­ure to under­stand is yours:


    Can’t say I quite under­stand what the debate is all about but would be inter­ested in your response?

  10. alainton says:

    My head was in my hands over Krug­mans ‘teach­able moment’ post — although a update + two (strike threehttp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/things-i-should-not-be-wasting-time-on/) more posts in a day — ooh it must be get­ting to him.

    So after in three days try­ing to dust off the cob­webs of loan­able funds, the wages fund, mon­e­tary base the­ory circa 1979 what does Krug­man have up his sleeve ta da a rehashed IS/LM curve !!! Embar­rassed silence from audi­ence. At the moment being taught eco­nom­ics by Krug­man is hav­ing the same effect as being taught com­edy by Sarah Teather http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/19/sarah-teathers-awful-stan_n_969945.html

    Come on Paul you can do bet­ter than that, why not hunt around at the back of the fridge for the lump of labour the­ory, Says Law, or just head over to John Quig­gan for Some more Zom­bie ideas to dust off — oh dear you already hold to three of Quiggan’s top five fan­tasies http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/15/five_zombie_economic_ideas_that_refuse_to_die

    Seri­ously though Krug­man is attack­ing a straw man is his ‘refu­a­tion’ of Scott Fullweiller

    banks…can cre­ate unlim­ited amounts of inside money’

    Now there may be some MMT’s who claim this (not all) but as far as I remem­ber Steve has always refused to endorse this as the credit the­ory of money has since its ori­gins always accepted that there is a cash flow con­straint on the rate at which money can be cre­ated by banks

    Primer Inside Money -: The qual­i­fiers inside and out­side refer to the
    asset coun­ter­part of the money v clas­sic def­i­n­i­tion ‘The qual­i­fier inside is
    short for (backed by debt from) inside the pri­vate sec­tor.’ — — John G. Gur­ley and Edward S. Shaw Money in a The­ory of Finance 1960.

    Now there is a strand of thought from Gur­ley Shaw through Kiyataki-Moore (the later the­ory Krug­man has backed) that inside and out­side money exist in an equi­lib­rium, which a cen­tral bank can influ­ence with its oper­a­tions. Now this idea is not obvi­ously bad — although you would have to sub­sti­tute dynamic dis­e­qui­lib­rium as Nick Rowe does. Indeed most of the key thinkers who have held a credit the­ory of money have said some­thing sim­i­lar. But Krug­man is not refer­ring to ‘out­side money’ but base money — not the same. It would also seem that Rowe and Krug­man are argu­ing very dif­fer­ent things but with the same pol­icy con­clu­sion which is very confusing.

    Ulti­mately though Krug­man seems to be acknowl­edg­ing that cen­tral banks must be accom­mo­da­tion­ist but that the ISLM curve can sur­vive if the cau­sa­tion is reversed. Now agree with this not that’s quite a rev­o­lu­tion­ary con­ces­sion and should be acknowl­edged grace­fully. In fact im only slightly unfair because his new model is really IS only.

    Now this model isnt new, indeed Narayana Kocher­lakota — Pres­i­dent
    Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Min­neapo­lis pre­sented it at the 2nd Annual Minksy lec­ture a cou­ple of weeks ago http://www.minneapolisfed.org/news_events/pres/speech_display.cfm?id=4839

    His con­clu­sion
    ‘The first impli­ca­tion of the model is that mon­e­tary pol­icy can off­set the impact of the prod­uct demand shocks on employ­ment, but it can­not off­set the employ­ment loss due to the fall in labor demand and any asso­ci­ated slow real wage adjust­ment. As a result, the level of “max­i­mum employ­ment” achiev­able through mon­e­tary pol­icy is less than the “full employ­ment” of labor resources.
    A sec­ond impli­ca­tion is that non-monetary poli­cies specif­i­cally designed to stim­u­late the demand for work­ers (such as gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies for hir­ing) can off­set some of the employ­ment loss due to the labor demand shocks, but only if accom­pa­nied by mon­e­tary eas­ing. That is, mon­e­tary and non-monetary pol­icy must work in con­cert to reduce the impact of a decline in labor demand; nei­ther can do it alone.… this model sug­gests that the Fed­eral Reserve is per­form­ing about as well as it can on both man­dates. The Fed­eral Reserve’s accom­moda­tive pol­icy has off­set much of the impact of prod­uct demand shocks and so has kept infla­tion near tar­get. How­ever, this pol­icy has been unable to off­set the large adverse shocks to labor demand. The model implies that, in terms of employ­ment, there are lim­its to what mon­e­tary pol­icy can achieve on its own.’

    Now the reac­tion of many cen­tral bankers was — aghast he’s gone to the dark side. Mon­e­tary pol­icy can achieve everything.

    Now if you sub­sti­tute Kocherlakota’s ‘shocks’ for Steves aggre­gate demand func­tions in Kocherlakota’s model you get some­thing rather inter­est­ing — a tool which might com­pletely junk ISLM and which really would be a teach­able moment — just a thought. Per­haps SK and PK arnt that far apart at the macro level as the heat of the argu­ment suggests

  11. Robert K says:

    The only con­straint on a bank’s lend­ing is its’ SOLVENCY, as deter­mined by the
    quar­terly bank exam­i­na­tions. (If they are hon­est) The sol­vency is a func­tion
    of TCE (tan­gi­ble com­mon equity) as Steve indi­cates, its’ capac­ity to absorb loss.
    At the point where TCE falls below a cer­tain thresh­old, the bank must either
    raise equity, either through new share sales, or from sell­ing off loans. If nei­ther
    option is viable, the bank is closed and its’ assets trans­ferred to a new bank. If
    deposits are insured, depos­i­tors are spared losses. Krug­man would be cor­rect,
    amus­ingly enough, under a Gold Stan­dard, where reserves ARE indeed lim­ited,
    but where other prob­lems (bank runs where the peo­ple at the end of the line get
    noth­ing) leave many depos­i­tors INSOLVENT.

  12. alainton says:

    woops sorry meant IM only model of course

  13. Pingback: Markets … | Economic Undertow

  14. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    re Steve’s post April 3, 2012 at 7:43 am

    That’s inter­est­ing because you are start­ing to scratch the sur­face of the topic of risk. From a prac­ti­cal per­spec­tive the whole bank­ing oper­a­tion revolves around the con­cept of risk man­age­ment. Leads me to think that yes banks can cre­ate money out of thin air, but if they do things blow up. I would look to banks that didn’t blow up as to why in a prop­erly func­tion­ing finan­cial sys­tem the notion of cre­at­ing money out of thin air is far from accurate.

    Fol­low­ing on from the Coper­ni­can anec­dote, the research into risk man­age­ment and to a large degree risk man­age­ment in prac­tice employs math­e­mat­ics pio­neered by Ein­stein. The debt­cen­tric model explains a very tiny frac­tion of the known universe.

  15. alainton says:

    Krug­man takes his ball home

    Update: OK, I’m done with this con­ver­sa­tion. I’ve had enough back and forth, includ­ing off-the-record stuff, to con­firm for myself that there’s no there there. And there are more impor­tant bat­tles to fight.’

    It was prob­a­bly right for him to with­draw from the field, because as one poster on NYT put it ‘in dou­bling down on each new post’ has was begin­ning to look quite fool­ish. Now at least he can go away and think.

    More impor­tant bat­tles to fight’

    In the last week Krug­man has
    –aban­doned the text­book view of the mul­ti­plier and exoge­nous money
    –accepted that there is no cash con­straint on the cre­ation of bank inside money
    –aban­doned the IS-LM model which he was famous as the most vocif­er­ous advo­cate of in favour of an IM only model with reversed causal­ity where the influ­ence of mon­e­tary pol­icy alone is weak

    So there is ‘no there there’ — rather there is lit­tle left there. And if there was no there there why has Krug­man in a mat­ter of days scrapped and hastily rewrit­ten his hole macro­eco­nomic framework.

    As a teach­able moment per­haps Krug­man can take some of this won­der­ful advice from the Uni­ver­sity of Sus­sex on how not to win argu­ments (one to cut out and keep)

  16. Pingback: The Keen/Krugman Debate: A Summary « Unlearning Economics

  17. Pingback: Hubris leads to incompetence: the Rowe & Krugman edition | Relentlessly Progressive Political Economy

  18. creditdefaultswap says:

    Thanks Steve for keep­ing up this edu­ca­tional process. I learned through these inter­net blogs of how the US FRB reserve require­ments were gut­ted start­ing in the 1980s to where it is today about 1 per­cent of US bank deposits are required reserves at the FRB.
    I am just amazed by how many com­ments still talk about US 10 per­cent reserve require­ments, as if they only thing they know is their Samuel­son eco­nom­ics text from the 60s or 70s.
    Yes the FRB did buy and sell Trea­suries to play with short term inter­est rates, when the FRB should have been rais­ing rates to limit the US debt bub­ble, they ran far short of the mark.

    Since in the US, the US banks own the FRB and elect the local FRB board of direc­tors, it is not sur­pris­ing that the FRB has been run to sup­port the banks as opposed to safe­guard­ing the US econ­omy from the debt bub­ble and finan­cial crisis.

  19. Dannyb2b says:

    I rekon money can be endoge­nous or exoge­nous. It just depends on the laws that limit the mon­e­tary sys­tem. I like the idea of exoge­nous money with strict rules on the mon­e­tary author­ity relat­ing to infla­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion of newly cre­ated funds.

    A sys­tem were the CB is the only entity capa­ble of cre­at­ing money and wereby pri­vate banks have to source funds before lend­ing would be really stable.

    Remem­ber its not all about money its about real eco­nomic activ­ity with the mon­e­tary sys­tem just facil­i­tat­ing an effi­cient economy.

  20. RJ says:

    A sys­tem were the CB is the only entity capa­ble of cre­at­ing money and wereby pri­vate banks have to source funds before lend­ing would be really stable”.

    I think this would be a dis­as­ter. But inter­est­ingly when I ask peo­ple advanc­ing this solu­tion how this would work in detail includ­ing all the jour­nal entries. I never get a detailed answer. Can you pro­vide one?

  21. Steve Keen says:

    He’s mak­ing a Twee­dledee vs Twee­dle­dum dis­tinc­tion Jon–a piece of localised “Tal­mu­dic” schol­ar­ship, which is ironic given the “I Don’t Care” posi­tion on read­ing the lit­er­a­ture that Krug­man opened with. Only a rabidly Neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mist could argue that NK, DSGE and NK mod­els are fun­da­men­tally dif­fer­ent. To any out­side observer, it’s a round pea try­ing to dis­tin­guish itself from a smooth one. They’re still both peas.

  22. Luke Davis says:

    I have to laugh at this. This is like watch­ing two physi­cists argu­ing about whether grav­ity exists while the 10 year old asks what holds his feet to the ground. As the 10 year old I picked a bank at not so ran­dom, The Com­mon­wealth Bank in this case. Looked up their annual report and found the two lines show­ing whether they had more loans or deposits.


    Page 100 — Bal­ance Sheet

    Deposits and other pub­lic bor­row­ings 307,844

    Loans, bills dis­counted and other receiv­ables 377,195

    QED they have lent out more than they have deposited.

  23. Dannyb2b says:

    “I think this would be a dis­as­ter. But inter­est­ingly when I ask peo­ple advanc­ing this solu­tion how this would work in detail includ­ing all the jour­nal entries. I never get a detailed answer. Can you pro­vide one?”

    The cen­tral bank is an entity owned by the cit­i­zenry. When it prints money it is print­ing a share in the mon­e­tary sys­tem. Look at notes as if they are some­thing peo­ple own not owe.

    The point of orig­i­na­tion is what mat­ters. After this in the pri­vate sec­tor any­one can lend or bor­row money like now thats fine.

  24. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    Add the debt issues to that LD, but then it is really not as sim­ple as look­ing at a bal­ance sheet i’m afraid.

    I’m really inter­ested as to how this notion is seen to work in prac­tice. The mech­a­nism that I’ve seen pro­posed so far is that on any given day the loans that a bank cre­ates is bal­anced out with the cen­tral bank account. This is no more than a guess at how it would work if real­ity fit the theory.

    If you start with real­ity, you have a mech­a­nism in place where the fore­cast growth in loans is pre met with fund­ing. Liq­uid­ity is what ulti­mately deter­mines sol­vency, banks gen­er­ally try not sub­ject them­selves to avoid­able liq­uid­ity risk. It’s not just a mat­ter of risk man­age­ment, it’s also a mat­ter of cost, if a bank is run­ning a tight liq­uid­ity posi­tion it means firstly that this will be fac­tored into their credit rat­ing and sec­ondly they get their fund­ing in a more des­per­ate state and ulti­mately end up pay­ing a higher price. Hav­ing a liq­uid­ity cush­ion allows for some more favourable price selection.

    If real­ity can­not be taken into account and con­tin­ues to be ignored how is that any dif­fer­ent to what neo-classical eco­nom­ics is being cri­tised for? Except per­haps that the false assump­tions are more trans­par­ent and there­fore much eas­ier to actu­ally criticise.

  25. NeilW says:

    If nei­ther
    option is viable, the bank is closed and its’ assets trans­ferred to a new bank. ”

    To do that there has to be some­body in the sys­tem pre­pared to take that deci­sion and enforce it.

    Because the other option is to weaken the cap­i­tal ratio require­ments under vocif­er­ous lobbying.

Leave a Reply