Ketchup with your crow, Mr. Krugman?

Last Friday, I noted that after Paul Krugman gave faint praise to the economic recovery, he put a “stick in the sand” – a hard target – for what he considers success: “And unless we start to see serious job growth — by which I mean increases in payroll employment of more than 200,000 a month — consumer spending will eventually slide, and bring growth down with it.” So 200,000/month = 600,000 a quarter.

Now the EconoPundit cites some predictions from Yale’s Fairmodel on the projected job growth: “Job loss actually zeros out this quarter. By New Year's Day, 600,000 new jobs will have been generated by the recovery.” Furthermore, the model predicts a million new jobs in both the first and second quarter of 2004.

So, if true, that means Krugman will have been wrong on both growth and jobs. All that’s left is the deficit which he’ll surely elevate as the new anathema. But as Tom Maguire correctly points out, even on this issue Krugman can’t gain traction because, while the budget deficit is large in dollar amounts, it’s by no means out of step with historic levels on a percentage of GDP basis:

All of which the Earnest Prof knows, but evidently forgets when he is excited. Or, as when contemplating the recent quarter's results, depressed. Being a Serious Economist is apparently a sometime thing when he is preparing polemics for the NY Times…. I cannot shake the feeling that Prof. Krugman excoriated someone for mixing nominal, real, and percentage comparisons. It might be lovely to find it.

Perhaps a student at Princeton could come forward?