In a series of posts, Niall Ferguson chides Paul Krugman for being so harsh and unruly on the blogosphere.
- Part 1
- Part 2
- Part 3
(HT Mankiw for pointing all three).
And today he argues the same on Proj Syndicate as well calling is civilising the marketplace for ideas:
Like any market, however, the marketplace of ideas needs regulation: in particular, its participants should be bound by norms of honesty, humility, and civility. Moreover, every idea-trader should adhere to these principles.
Of course, politicians through the ages have polluted the marketplace of ideas with invective. But in American politics, surprisingly, there has been progress. According to a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, there has been less incivility in Congress in recent years than in the 1990’s or the 1940’s. Republican Senator Ted Cruz was widely condemned for his aggressive questioning of incoming Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel back in January. But casting aspersions on a nominee’s patriotism was the norm in the McCarthy era; it is less common today.
Academia, by contrast, appears to be moving in the opposite direction. A “social science” like economics is supposed to be free of partisan vitriol. Yet economists now routinely stoop to ad hominem attacks and inflammatory polemics.
Then he takes on Paul Krugman for using his Nobel position and power to criticise and bad name all those who don’t agree with him.
even if Krugman had been “right about everything,” there would still be no justification for the numerous crude and often personal attacks he has made on those who disagree with him. Words like “cockroach,” “delusional,” “derp,” “dope,” “fool,” “knave,” “mendacious idiot,” and “zombie” have no place in civilized debate. I consider myself lucky that he has called me only a “poseur,” a “whiner,” “inane” – and, last week, a “troll.”
Far from engaging in Holmes’s free trade in ideas, Krugman has been the intellectual equivalent of a robber baron, exploiting his power to the point of driving decent people away from the public sphere – particularly younger scholars, who understandably dread a “takedown” by the “Invincible Krugtron.”
My preferred solution would be accountability. But I have given up hope that the New York Times will perform its proper editorial function. So, instead, I would suggest the intellectual equivalent of an antitrust law. For every word that Krugman publishes, he must henceforth commit to having first read at least a hundred words by other writers. I cannot guarantee that reading more widely will teach him honesty, humility, and civility. But it will at least reduce his unjustifiably large share of the marketplace of economic ideas.
Well, one can only agree with Prof Ferguson. Why does Prof Krugman use the vitriol he uses against other economists? He does not need to. All he needs to do is write and write and simplify economics to rest of the world. He does the writing bit but gets way too offensive. Debating and disagreeing is fine, but one should always maintain the decorum..
But then Prof Ferguson himself is guilty of making a really sad comment on Krugman earlier. So it is all over the place..
Well, one expects a much better behavior from acads..
Mostly Economics 
