Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Krugman, Is Paid $25,000/month To Study Inequality

Recommended Posts

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-17/krugman-who-paid-25000month-study-inequality-says-nobody-wants-us-become-cuba

When it comes to Krugman's views on any particular topic, he may be right and he may be wrong, but whatever his opinion he always has a much to say about it (even if the factual backing is of secondary importance or outright missing). Today, his chosen topic is inequality, and in an interview with Bloomberg's Tom Keene, shown and transcribed below, he certainly says much, encapsulated perhaps by the following gem:

"There's zero evidence that the kind of extreme inequality that we have is good for economic growth. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that it is actually bad for economic growth.
Nobody wants us to become Cuba
. The question is, do we have to have levels of inequality that are getting close to being the highest levels ever anywhere. We're really starting to set new records here. Is that a good thing for anybody? If you look at our own history, it's not true. The fact of the matter is since inequality began soaring around 1980, the bottom half of America has been pretty much left behind. It has not been a rising tide that raised all boats."

Ah yes, inequality, the same inequality that the Fed - Krugman's favorite monetary stimulus machine, after all it was none other than Krugman who suggested that in order to offset the bursting of the tech bubble the Fed should create the housing bubble - has been creating at an unprecedented pace since it launched QE. Just recall: "The "Massive Gift" That Keeps On Giving: How QE Boosted Inequality To Levels Surpassing The Great Depression."

So while Krugman is right in lamenting the record surge in class divide between the 1% haves and the 99% have nots, you certainly won't find him touching with a ten foot pole the root cause of America's current surge in inequality.

And, tangentially, another thing you won't find him touching, is yesterday's revelation by Gawker that the Nobel laureate is the proud recipient of $25,000 per month from CUNY to... study inequality.

From Gawker:

According to a formal offer letter obtained under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, CUNY intends to pay Krugman $225,000, or $25,000 per month (over two semesters), to “play a modest role in our public events” and “contribute to the build-up” of a new “inequality initiative.” It is not clear, and neither CUNY nor Krugman was able to explain, what “contribute to the build-up” entails.

It’s certainly not teaching. “You will not be expected to teach or supervise students,” the letter informs Professor Krugman, who replies: “I admit that I had to read it several times to be clear ... it’s remarkably generous.” (After his first year, Krugman will be required to host a single seminar.)

Krugman has certainly made it in the income stakes, Produce very little and get huge reward, it's almost at banker level and certainly at def con 1 on the inquality stakes at least they want him to study it from the top down perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Barclay brothers' useful idiots in the Torygraph today is offering the opinion that while rentierism has its negative aspects it's essentially good since it inspires 'strivers and entrepreneurs'. I'm sure Krugman feels the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would study ladies' chest bumps for that money! It makse just as much sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So actually $225k/year, or £130k/year.

Like a headteacher or GP then.

It's less than David Cameron gets paid for creating more of the inequality he'll be studying, and far less than Mark Carney gets paid for helping him.

Less than a third of what Mark Carney gets. About half of Mark Carney's additional housing allowance, (because he can't be expected to pay the ridiculous cost of rent in London, that he is responsible for).

I don't agree with Krugman's ideas, but this is insidious ********.

If you want to criticise the rich and powerful, better not be rich or powerful. Only poor and weak people can criticise the rich and powerful otherwise, well, they're just being hypocrites aren't they?

£130k pounds per year :lol: . Fred Goodwin still gets paid twice that, now. ******ing Bruce Forsythe gets three times that.

Incidentally, I think a lot of the reason I don't agree with Krugman is that his ideas are absolutely wrong in the context of the British feudal economy. Whether it would make more sense in the US, I don't know or care.

Not sure why people (including him) insist on comparing the two, they aren't the same at all.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.