Talk:Paul Krugman

Section Free-trade

I'm not adding my point of view; I'm just quoting Krugman's different positions on free trade. I'm not violating wikipedia's neutrality at all because I'm showing all of krugman's points of view on the bre exchange . Moreover, the quotations are not out of context, they correspond precisely to the situation Dolytoit (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The clique that guards this page won’t allow anything other than glowing praise and admiration for Krugman (which is hardly neutral). It’s one example of why Wikipedia is not trusted 2601:6C5:8400:3F80:849A:D5AF:D1F3:927D (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a legitimate talking point. SPECIFICO should not be vandalizing views he doesn’t agree with. Obviously at least two people have other views 2601:6C5:8400:3F80:849A:D5AF:D1F3:927D (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Green New Deal

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: " Cherrypicked BLP content and article text over-generalizes from the source". I think it is relevant and should be included.

Template:Quote Template:Reflist talk -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Expanded quote

My expansion of the quote from David Kennedy's review of The Conscience of a Liberal was reverted with the comment: "There's nothing wrong with expanding content on the book and its significance, but this snippet does not add to the shorter version, and Kennedy says many other contextualizing things in the review that could be summarized and paraphrased for a more meaningful look at his reaction." It is untrue that the edit adds nothing to the shorter version. Kennedy points out that the book makes a serious contribution to the debate concerning the expansion of healthcare insurance, a topic that Krugman has addressed frequently and about which little is said in this article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

PAUL KRUGMAN I Was Wrong About Inflation

This is an op-ed from July 21: [1]. Seems relevant. I haven't read it yet, though. What, if anything, should be added from this? If we have any WP:SECONDARY sources, that would be helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that op ed and the other pundits to which he refers in the op ed. It's really nothing significant in terms of his life, his career as an economist, or for that matter public policy. The Times had the cute idea of asking 8 columnists to come up with a "thing" they were wrong about. Were it not for the current obsession with monthly inflation figures, I'm sure he might have come up with something much more interesting and substantive.

But he didn't. I don't think this is a good pick for "criticism" or even "fallibilty of the pope" section. IP has not come up with any content proposal that would pass sourcing and content guidelines, so I think we can relax until there's some tofu on the table. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

People make mistakes, and I agree that we don't need to point them out just for the sake of pointing them out. I would be interested to see what addition could be proposed, but if the whole idea here is just a "gotcha!" then this isn't worth the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Association with Enron

There should be honest discussion about Paul Krugman praising Enron in publications prior to the scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.221.186.82 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)