Joshua Clover has a great one-page article on Krugman in this week's Nation. I'd like to quote the whole thing. But I'll make do with extracts:
"Consider the phenomenon of Paul Krugman, of late taking a curious turn... ...Krugman [is] advantageous[ly] position[ed] as a public intellectual famously handy with hard data and rigorous analyses. Ask Thomas Friedman: anyone can be a blowhard on matters global. Few can do the math.
...as a star economist, [Krugman's] historical role has been to reinvigorate the duel between liberal Keynesians and the recently regnant monetarists of various stripes...
...For the record, I greatly preferred the Backstreet Boys to 'N Sync...
The oppositions Republican/Democrat and monetarist/Keynesian are in this regard pure pop. They are, as you will have noticed some time ago, choices only in the most straitened sense: minimally distinct management strategies for capitalism. Their present distinction lies in whether crisis is best managed by allowing the owners of capital everything they want immediately, or at pace lest they choke on something...
And yet. In December, Krugman wrote two blog entries in swift succession: 'Rise of the Robots' and 'Human Versus Physical Capital'. Inequality, his charts informed him, was itself a consequence of the opposition between capital and labor—specifically the increasing domination of capital in the form of machines—as labor is expelled from the production process. That ratio turns out to be basically the same measure as productivity, sine qua non of economic progress.
Moreover, in a development Krugman couldn't quite bring himself to declare, his charts suggest that a generally declining labor share since the 1970s has also spelled bad news for overall profitability outside the finance sector. The productivity race wasn't just unfortunate for the unemployed; it was for capital a poison pill of its own making. Thus Krugman's comedy: always on the verge of discovering the arguments of a 150-year-old book; always turning away at the last second. In Krugman's words, 'I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of inequality, for several reasons. It didn't seem crucial back in the 1990s, and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism—which shouldn't be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable implications.'
Does it? I suppose so. And that uncomfort is what pop, for all its pleasures, must defer. Pop must affirm the way things are, no matter how often it choruses the word 'change.' You cannot be Paul Krugman, Pop Star, and at the same time discover that capital is built to break us, and itself—even if your charts so testify. So you will not be shocked to discover Krugman stepped back from this realization and continued about his business, scarcely speaking of it again. There are some things you do not say. They are not popular."
"Technology and Wages, the Analytics" was another Krugman post in the same period, along the same lines. I've already commented on that one.
Posts
3 comments:
Oh yeah, Josh Clover is a literature/poetry professor at UC Davis. He was very active demonstrating against the Chancellor, alongside students outraged the administration got a raise in salary and spent needless funds constructing unused buildings while simultaneously firing professors, shutting down the textile department, among other unique departments only UC Davis had (e.g., hydrology!).
He's also a music critic. I remember he wrote a bad review of Liz Phair's 2003 s/t album. Had no idea he'd taken to commenting on economic issues. Umm, small world? --ren
Thanks for the comment.
I have not previously looked at pqnelson's blog with notes on Sraffa's book.
Post a Comment