Out economy is now in the hands of an entitled narcissist with clear cognitive decline, surrounded only by enablers. Policy is determined by personal aggrandizement, greed, and vendettas. It's fucking crazy and to pretend otherwise is fucking crazy.
Judging policy solely by the their promoter would normally be wrong (book by its cover, eh?), but these days there's been some consistency in the quality (and lack of same) by various groups so challenging them out of the gate isn't unreasonable.
Sure, but my point is that there are people that reason like "such and such an elected official is bad, therefore everything they do is bad and will have drastic results", and that's not particularly informative even when I agree about the elected official being bad.
Krugman does a decent job of not letting his opinions about the political aspects color his analysis too much.
Things like
"Contrary to what many people believe, tariffs don’t necessarily lead to high unemployment. America had a high average tariff even before Smoot-Hawley — 15.8 percent in 1929 — but the unemployment rate in 1929 was under 3 percent."
He doesn't like the tariffs, he (and pretty much any serious economists) think they're bad, but he tries to be clear about why they're bad rather than just waving his hands at everything.
Politics and economics are two different lenses on the same subject matter, because “wealth” and “power over others” are two different ways of saying the same thing.
This is also why capitalism and democracy become progressively more clearly opposed the farther the status quo environment you are working in gets from feudalism or absolute monarchy, under which both seem to be changes in the same direction.
> This is also why capitalism and democracy become progressively more clearly opposed
You mean linked? Capitalism is what lets the people make economic decisions, democracy is what lets people make political decisions. I think you mean communisms where people can't make economic decisions is what's oppose democracy.
> Capitalism is what lets the people make economic decisions
No, it isn't. Capitalism is the organization of power around a narrow elite defined by the ownership of the non-financial means of production, the feature for which it was named. It was (at least initially) progress in the direction of democracy from control of the same thing being in even narrower hands than the early mercantile class defined by ownership of land under systems like feudalism, to be sure.
But, still, ultimately it conflicts with the equal distribution of power defining democracy.
They are rationalized as consistent by pretending that economic and political power are different things, rather than different applications of the same, undivided, power.
On election night when Trump was elected in 2016, Krugman wrote in the NYT that the markets would never recover, and that there would probably be "a global recession, with no end in sight".
He definitely lets his political angle completely color his economic analysis. Now that Trump is back in the White House we are of course doomed, same as the last time he was in the White House, same as the next time.
If you've got a political angle that is closer to Krugman's than say Trump's maybe this is fine? I mean as long as you're OK with an economic analyst who doesn't have the slightest idea how banks work. If that's the kind of writing you're looking for, Krugman is a very good choice.
> Krugman wrote in the NYT that the markets would never recover, and that there would probably be "a global recession, with no end in sight".
I think this needs some context. Remember that in 2016 we didn't know how Trumps rhetoric works and how seriously he will push his agendas. Now we know about TACO and how he was held back by the adults in the room. How would you feel about the future if you thought the POTUS will annex Greenland and Canada, and impose tariffs of 100-200% globally?
> If the political angle is not relevant to the analysis, then why do you enjoy it?
The politics angle is unavoidable because Krugman is commenting on the impact that the economic policies of the current US administration is having on the US economy.
This is the same US administration that fires staticians for reporting numbers that render bare the impact of their own economic policies, which they are actively trying to censor.
We live in a day and age where in the US reporting facts leads to political persecution. Of course mentioning stagflation, as Krugman does, is deemed political.
Personally, I would feel like a discussion about economics that completely avoids politics would be missing something, and I would enjoy it a lot less.
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/its-beginning-to-smell-a-...
He's obviously got a political angle, but doesn't let that completely color his economic analysis.