Krugman Debate
I ran across Brooks at Economist Mom, http://economistmom.com/2010/02/why-paygo-isnt-enough-but-why-well-take-it/#comments 
, and started to get into a debate about Paul Krugman's writing. That's not the place for a debate, but we can continue it here.
Unfortunately, I did not click through on Brooks' initial comment or I would have seen that most of my points had already been covered here by knocienz.
March 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/11KRUG.html , just before the second round of Bush tax cuts and before the Iraq war started, in an op-ed Krugman compared the administration's fiscal policies to a train wreck.
August 2009, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/the-burden-of-debt/ , when it looked like health care reform was soon to be passed, Krugman indicates in his blog that the size of the debt is not the scary part.
February 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ref=opinion , Krugman says in an op-ed that "the long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t".
Brooks says these articles taken together are inconsistant and are proof that Krugman is a hypocrit. I am not inside Krugmans' head to determine whether he is a hypocrit, but I say that since they are not really about the same subject, they are not evidence of such.
- Arne's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Answers as requested
Brooks posted again at EconomistMom after I idicated I was done, complaining that I had not answered the question "Are you saying you don’t see in each of Krugman’s columns an assertion about the level of risk/cost associated with the long-term fiscal imbalance?"
He can have his answer here.
In 2003 he said "train wreck" about policies.
In 2009 he said "relatively sanguine" about debt.
In 2010 he said "there is a longer-term budget problem"
So the answer is no, only in two out of three, and they are at least as consistant as is the context.
Obviously very poor
Obviously very poor argumentation (at least obvious to anyone actually checking and considering the totality of Krugman's columns and who has any sense and any objectivity). Not sure if Arne buys it himself, but I wouldn't doubt that he does.
I would call his representation of the relevant portions of Krugman's columns "distortionary cherry-picking", but that would be giving it too much credit. It's certainly that -- in spades -- but even what he presents he fundamentally mischaracterizes. Take his statement that "Krugman compared the administration's fiscal policies to a train wreck". Actually, what is relevant to my question (and my assertion) is that he is referring to the course he saw us on at that point -- in other words, the consequences toward which we were surely heading, not about (or at least not just about) the policies that put us on that course. In other words, when Krugman says "the fiscal train wreck, is already under way" he is making an assertion about the level of risk/cost associated with the long-term fiscal imbalance.
As I said on EconomistMom before Arne stopped erroneously, yet snarkily claiming that my charge of Krugman's hypocrisy was in valid:
Arne seems to be arguing, rather incoherently, (1) that differences in "context" (Krugman advocacy Policy X in one case vs. opposing Policy Y in another case) for some reason changes the fact that, in making his case, he was making an assertion about the level of risk/cost associated with the long-term fiscal, and/or (2) that he was making such an assertion, but that there is no difference in matter of degree as long as he was acknowledging that there was a long-term problem of some level of cost/risk.
Pretty silly.
Debt does not equal deficit
In the August 2009 blog, Krugman does not provide his "view of the long-term harm/risk associated with a given level of projected long-term fiscal imbalance".
You are making the error of equating level of debt to level of projected deficits.
Debt does not equal
lol -- gee, thanks, I always get those two confused (not).
But I'll save the "LOL" in caps for your assertion that...
Huh?? The whole darn piece is about the long-term outlook for the debt-to-GDP ratio -- a.k.a. "the long-term fiscal imbalance" -- and the level of harm/risk associated with that outlook. What in dog's name are you talking about? (If anyone is reading this, read Krugman's piece and if you have any theory on how Arne could conclude what he just said, please let me in on the fun krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/the-burden-of-debt/
)
I have read your comments
I have read your comments before, so I don't believe you are inclined to mix up deficit and debt, so perhaps it is a matter of terms. What does "a given level of projected long-term fiscal imbalance" mean? It means nothing unless you are talking both debts and deficits.
Take Krugman's writing in reverse order. In the 2009 blog post Krugman talks about the debt, but not the deficit. In 2003 Krugman is discussing Bush policies that will (did) increase the deficit - to the point that the projected long-term fiscal imbalance (not his term) will lead to a fiscal train wreck.
Taken together in reverse order it says, we can fill that hole, but not by giving the guy in the bottom a bigger shovel.
OK, technically he says we don't need to fill the hole, but I claim literary license.
This is silly. Either you're
This is silly. Either you're quite confused or your pretending to be so you can create the impression among someone who may be reading this that you may actually have a valid point. You don't. In each case Krugman is commenting on the level of long-term harm/risk associated with a given level of projected long-term fiscal imbalance. It ain't hard to see.
So post a quote.
I say it is not there. You say it is.
I cannot post a quote of what he did not say. It is up to you to show what he did say (that supports your case).
Geez Louise -- As on
Geez Louise -- As on EconomistMom, I extracted upthread the relevant comments of his from his 2003 and 2009 -- see swordscrossed.org/diary/20100210/krugman-debate#comment-114200
, and on EconomistMom I referred in my initial comment and then a second time in my exchange with you the relevant Krugman language/assertions in his 2010 column. Re: the latter, as I said, Krugman is:
And now you ask me to copy and paste it all in large chunks because for some reason you still don't get it (or are pretending not to get it). For example, you absurdly said "In the August 2009 blog, Krugman does not provide his "view of the long-term harm/risk associated with a given level of projected long-term fiscal imbalance". Well guess what -- to reply to that absurd assertion I initally went to the 2009 piece to copy and paste in longer form, but I found that if I were to copy & paste all the statements he makes that show that he IS indeed expressing his view of the long-term harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance, I would have to copy and paste nearly every word, so I didn't bother.
Either you are an idiot or this is an attrition strategy of yours -- persisting with the pretense that you have some valid argument until I decide to stop wasting time and/or run out of ways to point you to the obvious and explain to you what it is hard to believe someone still would not get. You wasted a LOT of my time with such idiocy or pretense on another thread a while back -- starting at swordscrossed.org/node/1720#comment-88296
That's a cop out.
The reason you do not quote the 2009 blog is that it discusses debt and not deficit.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/the-burden-of-debt/
Can you at least make it
Can you at least make it clear what you are confused about? The long-term fiscal imbalance is mainly the projected debt-to-GDP ratio over the coming decades (which affects how much we need to borrow each year and how much it will cost us), along with the projected annual deficits over that period (which represents the amount we must borrow each year). On our current long-term course, eventually debt-to-GDP and interest expense would spiral out of control, and interest rates would be sky high, and that expense plus those interest rates would kill our economy and eventually force default (unless the awful effects of monetizing the debt away were preferable to default -- and it may not even be possible to monetize enough of it away, because as things get worse our creditors will require shorter periods to maturity). Short of that full-scale disaster, we could suffer from a crisis (creditors demanding much higher interest rates) that imposes great pain on us in terms of our economy, taxation, and spending, all much worse than the sacrifices we'd have to make if we substantially mitigate the long-term fiscal imbalance sooner.
That's essentially what the long-term fiscal imbalance is and why it would be bad to try to keep going for long on our current course. And the magnitude of that fiscal imbalance is large enough that substantial sacrifices will have to be made sooner to avoid much greater pain later. That's what the "harm/risk associate with a given level of our long-term fiscal imbalance" (and that would include the context of timing vis a vis the baby boomers retirement, as I've mentioned before) is about. Does Krugman explicitly mention all of those elements in those columns? No, but that's what he's talking about when he's talking about the implications of the long-term fiscal imbalance.
Now that you have this nutshell primer, what exactly is your problem?? At least try to make clear what your confusion is. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste more time trying to educate you and get you to think logically and sensibly.
no confusion
I am not confused. You are correct about everything you say about the long-term fiscal imbalance. I agree it is a serious problem and we will need to do something about it. The minor quibble is in determining what sooner means. If we were not in the midst of an economy with high unemployment and underutilized capital, sooner would be now.
The point of the debate is whether Krugman said anything contrary to that in his 2009 blog post.
He did not. He showed that when we get to it, it is clear that there are policies that can reduce the debt (as a percentage of GDP) because there were such policies in 1950. He does not say anything that suggests continuing current fiscal policies in regard to the deficit is not still a train wreck (or any other evaluation of risk).
Re: your first paragraph,
Re: your first paragraph, believe me, I was not seeking your opinion on fiscal policy nor a discussion thereof with you.
No kidding.
As for your last paragraph, you still don't get it (or you're pretending not to get it) -- dumb or dishonest, take your pick. It is hard to believe you could still somehow think that he's not (1) associating an extremely high level of harm/risk with the long-term fiscal outlook in 2003 AND (2) asserting in 2009/2010, amid a significantly WORSE long-term fiscal outlook, that the problem is really quite manageable and calling anyone who asserts anything even close to the level of harm/risk he asserted in 2003 "hysterical" and obviously wrong on the basis of history (the 1950s in particular) -- saying that the only way “to make the debt look scary” is to ignore the clear lesson of history to the contrary, etc.
If anyone has bothered to read this exchange, go back upthread to my initial comment and read about what Krugman asserted (and check the columns/posts themselves). It's downright silly for anyone to persist with the argument with which Arne is persisting.
try another quote
Your quote from the 2009 blog is about debt, not deficit. Since you can't find a quote to back up your assertion you are trying to bluster your way through it.
Geez Louise, you really are a
Geez Louise, you really are a piece of work. Just for kicks I'll ask you to actually lay out what supposed point you supposedly think you are making regarding debt vs. deficit. So go ahead -- what's your friggin' point? Tell me how whatever it is you think you're pointing out means that Krugman was NOT making an assertion about the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance. If you really do think you have an actual point and if you are at all capable of presenting a relevant, clear, coherent argument (rather than some ambiguous or indecipherable one liner like "He's talking about debt not deficits), go ahead.
In Aug 2009 Krugman was
In Aug 2009 Krugman was talking about the debt.
The debt is not the same as "the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance".
Therefore, your assertion that Krugman was talking about "the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance" is false.
ok, I think I'm done trying
ok, I think I'm done trying to get an actual argument from you. You are either extremely thick or you are pretending to be in some pathetic effort to save face via the pretense that you actually do have some argument. I ask you to explain to me what it is you are pointing out and why it demonstrates that he wasn't making the assertion I claim he was making and all you can say is "The word X is not the same as the assertion Y, and he discussed something related to the word X, therefore he wasn't making assertion Y." You are either (1) a complete idiot or (2) completely disingenous and not at all concerned about wasting the time of someone who is willing to give you even a shred of the benefit of the doubt that you just maybe, maybe might be engaging in good faith.
Is this simple enough for you?
Krugman did not discuss "the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance", therefore he did not discuss "the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance".
It's simpleton enough for me
It's simpleton enough for me to confirm I'm right about you. Yeah, because the guy didn't use that exact phrase it must mean that he wasn't making that assertion. Sure thing.
A quote would have done the job.
In August 2009 Krugman wrote "The Burden of Debt"
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/the-burden-of-debt/
I have linked to it and explained that it not discuss "the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance."
In your response on EconomistMom you pieced together a quote
Although this mischaracterizes what he is saying, I should have realized (as I finally did while thinking about it last night) that the use of quotes indicated that the debate should be about not one, but two pieces of Krugman's writing. A review of your debate with knocienz
helps me find it again.
"How big is $9 trillion?" http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/how-big-is-9-trillion/
In it the lead paragraph Krugman says about the "cumulative deficit" of "$9 trillion over the next decade". "Don’t get me wrong: this is bad. But it’s being treated as an inconceivable sum, ..." I agree it is a comment on "the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance."
Had you provided the simple quote as requested, we would have seen there were two sources under discussion. Or, if I had followed all the links and read your whole debate with knocienz, I never would have posted on EconomistMom in the first place.
Well, that's a bit creative
Well, that's a bit creative as a way to try to save face, but no dice. The Augus 28, 2009 Krugman post ("The Burden of Debt") to which YOU linked and referred, and to which I referred in the first place, was much more than sufficient in itself to see very clearly that Krugman was obviously commenting on the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance. Throughout the entire column Krugman is doing so. And you can say that I mischaracterized what Krugman was saying -- whether because you are just clueless or because you are just lying -- it doesn't make it so, and it isn't so.
So not only were you wrong all along (as you've finally realized), but it should have been clear to you all along, based on the columns to which YOU referred, that a contention such as the one you presented and with which you persisted was wrong. I realize you're trying save face by excusing yourself from and blaming me for your failure to see (or to admit) the obvious. As I said, at least it's a bit creative on your part as an attempted face-saving tactic.
[edit: Oh, but do feel free to call out Krugman on his analytically unjustifiable reversal, now that perhaps you see it. He is reversing his analytical view for no good reason, apparently to support his case for policies he now favors, as opposed to supporting his 2003 case against policies he opposed. Any chance you'll admit that someone on your "side" is disingenuously presenting misleading analysis to serve the purpose of advocacy?]
Not that it matters
Apparently you cannot admit an error on your part. The August 28 post does not comment on "the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance." Not that it matters.
Disingenuous: "Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating." I believe that you are correct that Krugman was calculating. On the other hand, I also believe that he was sincere. It is pretty obvious he is advocating particular policies.
Hypocrisy: "the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself." Krugman supports deficit spending to respond to high unemployment, but not to provide tax cuts. Is that hypocritical? I stand by my first two posts defending Krugman at EconomistMom. I recant everything after that. Not only was it my fault for starting the debate, I started it because I had not re-read all the Krugman material.
Not that it
Not that it matters, but only an idiot could read Krugman's August 28 post and think what you've just said (and have been saying repeatedly), and only a super-idiot could be so sure of it and thus so oblivious. As I said, the whole darn post is commentary on the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance. It is nothing short of asinine for you to contend that he isn't making such commentary. What in the world do you think he is talking about if he is not presenting such commentary?? And if you repeat some indecipherable, nonsensical one-liner that you refuse to explain regarding "debt" vs. "deficit" you'll just highlight the extent to which you are either a moron or highly and persistently disingenuous.
Oh please. You try to avoid a clear answer by referring only to "calculating". Are you or are you not acknowledging that he was apparently deliberately misleading readers in 2003, 2009/10, or both, rather than putting forth his good-faith analysis -- that on at least one of those occasions he is apparently presenting a distorted analytical view (regarding the level of harm/risk associated with the long-term fiscal outlook) vs. what he really thinks? Don't try to escape by using only the ambiguos term "calculating". Even you can't be so stupid that you don't know what I'm asking. Does it seem likely that he deliberately misled his readers or not?
And his sincerity in terms of advocacy -- i.e., his truly believing the policies he was advocating are good policies -- is obviously irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether or not he was deliberately misleading people regarding the analytical support for the policies he was advocating. Are you able to distinguish between the two? Perhaps not.
As for "hypocrisy", the point is the one described in the preceding two paragraphs, whether one calls that "hypocrisy" or something else, and I never said he was being hypocritical in his policy preferences or economic assumptions regarding when or why deficits are good or bad, so that is completely irrelevant.
Again, you had much more than enough Krugman material without that August 23 piece for it to be quite clear that you were wrong. I suppose you are just trying to find some way to save a bit of face. While at least you're admitting some error and recanting your overall assertions -- which is more than many in the blogosphere can bring themselves to do -- it's really quite silly for you to keep claiming that you needed both the 8/23 and the 8/28 when the latter much more than sufficed.
Aug 28 piece
To meaningfully discuss risks associated with the projected imbalance you need to include the level of debt and the rate at which it is changing (the deficit). In its discussion ot the debt the August 28 piece implies a deficit that is a smaller portion of the increase in GDP than the debt is of the GDP. Such a deficit is counterfactual.
Either
1) At such point the deficits are low enough that there is indeed no train wreck
or
2) It is not an assessment of the risk because it is counterfactual.
1) is a silly interpretation, so we are left with 2).
LOL, what in dog's name are
LOL, what in dog's name are you talking about? Thanks for the chuckle, but it couldn't possibly be any clearer that Krugman is commenting on the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance throughout the August 28 post. And the criticism by Jim Hamilton that Krugman references and links to, and to which Krugman is responding in his own defense, is all about the same. Geez, one would think that at some point someone in your position would just cut (all of) his losses, dust himself off, and take tomorrow as another day. But at least so far, it seems one would be wrong in your case.
[Edit below]
Oh, and Arne, the blog etiquette when one has done what you have done is to edit one's posted diaries to state explicitly that he realizes now that he was simply wrong from the start and that the snarky insults in his diaries of a particular other blog participant were, in retrospect, unjustified and regrettable. Feel free to do so with both of the diaries you posted, or at least the one at swordscrossed.org/diary/20100208/using-other-peoples-blogs-debate-forums
which contained snarky insults (the diary of this thread did not).
Sorry if it was not clear to you
I only recant what I said on EconomistMom. I stand by everything I said here. Since I only linked the one 2009 Krugman blog, everything I said here is valid. Since it was not all that you were talking about, it is essentially pointless. That does not make it wrong.
I don't know how many times
I don't know how many times you need it repeated to you, but the Krugman pieces to which you linked in your diary (post) here is all one would need to know that I was right and you were wrong. It is absolutely absurd for you to contend that the Krugman is not making an assertion regarding the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance in his August 28 post.
For the benefit of any others who may not bother to check that Krugman column and who may think there's even a possibility that Arne has a clue, see below.
This one is responsive
Although I believe Krugman intends to comment on the level of debt, when he says "assessment of the debt situation" he does open up the topic. The other two blockquotes are still about the level of debt, but not about how current (or any particular) policies affect our ability to pay it down.
In my original diary, I said that you do not have evidence that the linked items provide evidence of hypocrisy by Krugman. Your example of the car running out of gas (critique of that in a separate comment) provides a context in which your case is at least presentable.
I believe there is also ample evidence for the view that Krugman was responding with data for the view that it is not the level of the debt that is worrying, but rather the policies that keep increasing the debt (when deficit spending is unwarranted) that is a train wreck.
Geez, man. Give it up. It
Geez, man. Give it up. It couldn't possibly be any clearer that Krugman is making the type of assertion I'm saying he's making in each column/post. I guess you've resumed your strategy of just continuing to reply with incessant repetition of your nonsense to try to create some impression on someone's part that you have some valid point. You don't. Period. He was indeed making an assertion in each case regarding the level of harm/risk he associates with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance. It's plain as day, no matter how many silly comments you persist in posting in some desperate effort to save some face.
Of course he's talking about debt (debt-to-GDP), but his point is that the level of debt combined with long-term projections of deficits, GDP, and thus debt-to-GDP, based on the underlying assumptions regarding the drivers of those projections (most notably the baby boomers entering retirement age [affecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs] and the assumed growth in healthcare spending per Medicare and Medicaid beneficiary), represents an outlook carrying X degree of harm/risk, considering the potential/likely consequences of proceeding per those projections for many years and considering our ability to (and the pain involved to) change course to get on a better path, and the likelihood of our doing so before Y level of harm comes to us. You probably either still don't get any of this, or you'll pretend you don't so you can persist with your rhetorical strategy of attrition, as in "just keep posting comments that somene may think just might contain some valid point, even though there is none. Eventually B Rational will tire of pointing out how nonsensical my comments are, and maybe someone will end up thinking, that in the end, there was some valid point I made".
In 2003 Krugman was looking at the projected long-term fiscal imbalance and the drivers of that imbalance (the "aging population", meaning the baby boomers moving toward their senior years), and asserted emphatically and with great alarm that great harm to our economy was unavoidable based on that observation. Again, he told readers that he is “terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits… we’re looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high”, describing this fiscal outlook as a “really scary…threat to the federal government’s solvency”, saying “the conclusion is inescapable. Without the Bush tax cuts, it would have been difficult to cope with the fiscal implications of an aging population. With those tax cuts, the task is simply impossible. The accident, the fiscal train wreck, is already under way”.
Then in 2009 and 2010, with the medium and long-term fiscal outlook much WORSE (substantially larger deficits and debt-to-GDP and now on the verge of baby boomers beginning to enter their senior years), Krugman asserts emphatically that those expressing anything anywhere near the level of worry that he expressed in 2003 (see above) is "hysterical", a "fear mongerer" using "scare tactics", and asserted that the lesson of the post WWII years (a period of history with which he was undoubtedly already familiar when expressing such fear and making his prognostication in 2003) is that we'll be just fine -- we have a problem, but it's clearly manageable and we'll handle it and be ok. Yet somehow you either can't grasp this obvious, major self-contradiction or you want to keep pretending you don't see it.
Obviously a ridiculous point. Sure, he expressed views about when deficit-spending is warranted vs. unwarranted, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he was contradicting himself on the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance, just like, in my story, Krugman can tell Joe that skipping the gas station is warranted under one set of circumstances and unwarranted in another, but that has nothing to do with his radical change in his stated, supposed analytical assessment of the risk of running out of gas based on how much gas he thinks is in the tank and a given number of expected miles to travel to reach the destination. And as for a "train wreck", it obviously refers to very bad consequences -- as in train's hitting each other and people getting badly hurt/killed and large pieces of property being destroyed ... ya' know, a friggin' train wreck -- not (or at the very least not "just") to bad policies that produce those consequences. I guess you'd say about an actual train wreck "No, the train wreck wasn't the train wreck. The only train wreck was the switching of one of the trains onto the same track as the other one. That act was the only train wreck, not the train wreck." (And of course even that is leaving aside the fact that Krugman was obviously talking about implications for the future -- consequences (expected harm and/or risk of harm).
Got any more clueless nonsense? Probably.
Pardon for the delay in answering
Actually the question was whether he was hypocritical. That is why I posted a definition of hypocrisy. We are after all discussing the meaning of rugman's words. Hypocrisy did not fit.
I skipped over straightforward and candid because the seem inapplicable to the use of a hyberbolic metaphor like train wreck. But what is your beef? I agreed that Krugman was calculating and that would seem to mean that disingenuous is an accurate characterization.
Misleading? I have already said this, but here goes again. In 2003 Krugman was bashing a policy which altered the 10 year deficit by over $8T. Delaying fiscal tightening during a recession actually has a much smaller impact. So, no, he was not "misleading people regarding the analytical support for the policies he was advocating."
After your second paragraph I
After your second paragraph I was planning to give you credit for acknowleding his disingenuousness, but that you inexplicably pivot to saying that, although he was disingenuous, he wasn't misleading. What do you think was the purpose of his disingenuousness if not to mislead people to support the policies he was advocating (and/or to bolster his marketability to his target audience)??
And you proceed to once again confuse (apparently) disingenuous, analytically unjustified self-contradiction in analysis with a change in prefered policy under changed circumstances. Again, I am not talking about nor criticizing Krugman at all for advocating high deficits amid a deep recession after he opposed them at a different point in the economic cycle. It so happens I share those general views, thought the incremental deficits caused by the Bush tax cuts represented bad policy, and think recent/current high deficits now are good policy. But again, that's not my point.
Since nothing so far seems to be breaking through your confusion, let me try telling you a little story I've composed for you and anyone else afflicted by this confusion:
COMMENTARY: Joe is correct. And that’s the case not because Krugman changed his recommendation, nor whether or not Krugman’s preferences at each point, with information available at each point, were wise, but simply because, without any analytical justification, Krugman substantially changed his assessment of the level of risk of running out of gas, claiming lower risk when a factor driving that risk had changed in a way that would increase that risk, and Krugman did so apparently to support the choice he was advocating.
But Arne would say "Krugman is being calculating and disingenuous, but he is NOT misleading Joe regarding the analytical support for the choice he was advocating." (Whatever sense that is supposed to make.)
"Misleading"
I recognize that this is a digression, let's take a look. We are talking about how words are used, so we should be careful about definitions.
mislead: to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit
You are saying that Krugman wants people to have mistaken beliefs.
Here is some true misleading. Jim Glass on EconomistMom http://economistmom.com/2010/02/a-first-assignment-to-the-fiscal-commission-find-out-if-we-americans-are-indeed-better-than-our-leaders-ask-us-to-be/#comments
I plotted the data here
, but I left in the 45-64 year-old data that Jim left out. Now we can see that income actually increases for each decade until 65 and then drops faster than it rose.
Will I see a comment from Brooks calling Jim out for this hypocrisy?
I recognize that this is a
LOL, actually, for your purposes it serves as a diversion, not just a digression.
Well, at least maybe, maybe, maybe you've given up on your pathetic persistence with your nonsense regarding my charge re: Krugman.
Anyway, so now you are implying that I play favorites on the basis of ideology and/or policy preferences (and even that per some assumption you have about my ideology and policy preferences that is probably mostly baseless and mostly mistaken)? Nice try (well, not really), but no dice. Although I'm unfamiliar with the data myself, assuming your data are correct, Jim's omission seems suspicious to me and it seems more likely than not that he deliberately omitted those data to knowingly present misleading "analysis" to support his policy preference(s).
[edit below]
I just took a moment to check Jim's comments there further, and I must pull back on the degree of my criticism. In fairness to Jim, upthread from that comment he did seem to be making the point that he was contrasting the lower income and wealth of "the young, who *also* have the largest family obligations, the cost of raising kids and the rest … with medical costs coming out of their paychecks one way or another. This makes their disposable income per person yet smaller. These are the ones paying the income transfer." And Jim also notes upfront that "The richest as you note are the old. But they also have the smallest households. In the 50s and 60s their income tops off, they are the richest of all people, after that because their households are so small they maintain high disposable income per person as their income glides down … *and* they have the wealth to cash in if they want, *and* they have their medical bills covered and receive SS income."
And then even in introducing those data (with the omitted age brackets), he says "here are some numbers I took and figured from the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2008, for representative age groups (”young”, “child raisers”, “retirees”)". So I jumped the gun a bit after seeing Arne's charge that Jim was being deliberately misleading. That said, I still think it was inappropriate to leave out those data, and I still wonder if they were left out deliberately to cherry-pick the age groups that make his overall point look strongest.
it was a simple question
Your posts about hyperpartisans derides people for not calling people out. I did wonder how you would react when you were informed about an error of fact in one of your regular comment spcaes.
The real point of the comment was to provide an an example of what misleading really means. Unless you willfully misinterpret them, Krugman's words do not lead a reasonable reader to a mistaken action or belief.
A reasonable reader of Krugman 2003 would conclude that starting a war and reducing taxes are bad ideas.
A reasonable reader of Krugman 2009 would conclude that we need to do something about the deficit (what that is is not discussed), but not right then.
You are not a reasonable reader of Krugman. For whatever reason, he bugs you so much that rather than accept a reasonable interpretation of his words, you look for something to disagree with. You found it - for you it is evidence of hypocrisy - but I doubt that a reasonable set of judges would agree with you.
You are just such an idiot
You are just such an idiot (or so incredibly dishonest and insecure that you feel compelled to keep pretending to be confused and clueless). It's like you're saying, using my "Krugman and Joe" story: "A reasonable person in Joe's shoes would not see Krugman as trying to mislead him about the risk of running out of gas, only that Krugman is expressing his view about whether or not they should stop for gas, based on conditions in each case". Of course Krugman is expressing his supposed analytical view on the risk of running out of gas as part of the case for the choice he advocates, just as Krugman is obviously presenting his supposed assessment of the level of harm/risk associated with a given level of projected long-term fiscal imbalance in each case as part of his advocacy for particular policies. How friggin' thick can you possibly be??
Oh and re:
Not your fault if you're not familiar with my commenting elsewhere on places you don't frequent (which I guess would mean generally blogs outside of your safe, insular ideological echo chambers), such as EconomistMom, on which you hardly ever participate (I know because I am a long-time, very frequent participant), yet on which you felt free to judge and call discussion/debate of my charge against Krugman inappropriate for that thread, but anyway, if you had been familiar with my comments elsewhere in the blogosphere (including on SC when I was a regular here, or were you ignorant of that as well?) you'd know that I don't shy away from calling people out when there is strong evidence that they are likely being deliberately misleading, evasive, or acting in bad faith in some other way, regardless of the venue or the ideology or issue position of the person, even if the person is advocating the same policy choice that I am (yes, I call people out for misleading argumentation, evasiveness and other apparent bad faith moves, as well as analytical errors, errors of fact, logic, whatever, even if they are advocating the same policy choice that I am -- and that's one big difference between hyperpartisans and me).
what comes from reasoning by analogy
I can see that if you think you can compare the economy to a tank of gas then you can characterize my comments (and Krugman's) just as simplistically. You might even convince some readers, but a reasoning reader understands that your gas tank is a lousy analog to national debt.
LOL, so weak. Pathetically
LOL, so weak. Pathetically weak. I don't know if it's that you are incredibly stupid or incredibly insecure and dishonest, but man are you thick or pretending to be. Yeah, analogies are used to focus on a particular element or set of elements that are analogous to their conceptual counterparts (i.e., equivalent or sufficiently similar to serve the purpose of communicating the point) in another context. Any idiot (e.g., you) can respond by saying "Uh, well, your analogy doesn't work because it's simple and the broader topic related to the point you're making via the analogy has all kinds of dimensions to it."
First, it would be obvious to any "reasoning reader" that you can't relate in the least to a reasoning reader, given how different you are from one. Second, any reasoning reader will know that the gas tank was not meant as analogous to the national debt; obviously it was just a vehicle (if the reasonable reader will pardon the pun) for presenting an illustration of a radically altered assessment of risk without any analytical justification. But this is all way over your head, which is probably a good thing, because if it were close to within your mental grasp and you thought real hard on it, you'd probably end up with one hell of a headache.
But keep goin'. There are few things funnier than someone who combines snark with such great stupidity that he has no clue that he is consistently, repeatedly exhibiting his stupidity. Reminds me of that funny line in Woody Allen's Take the Money and Run in which a character says "One day he told me he was a gynecologist [but] He couldn't speak no foreign languages... [laughs] who is he kidding?" See lines starting at 8:55 of video below. That's Arne! (and unfortunately many others like him in the blogosphere) I mean the character speaking those lines, not the character about whom he's speaking (although that character wouldn't be too far off either!)
Arne
You are correct. A gas tank is just like the economy, because..........?!?!?
There is no way out of this economic crises without creating jobs and growing the economy..... whatever it takes. I'd be thrilled if the private sector would step up to the plate and spend some money to create jobs. So why don't they? (Profits for preferred shareholders, perhaps?)
If a drastic crises scenario arose, many of those shrieking about the debt now would have no hesitation spending whatever was required for a war without blinking an eyelash as to the cost.
I'm only half stupid
Yah, I saw where this was going to go
When I saw the subject and BRs pouncing on this.
Because of my professional background, these types of accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy really frustrate me, but what are you going to do other than bang your head against a wall?
First, I didn't "pounce on
First, I didn't "pounce on it". It was Arne who posted here, after responding to a comment of mine elsewhere.
As for your second paragraph, I don't know where you ended up in our discussion, but I don't think a generic lament about "accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy" is meaningful, and although it's not fully clear, you seem to be presenting a correspondingly unsubstantiated criticism of me and of others who make such charges simply by virtue of having made them, which wouldn't be sensible. Obviously some such accusations have merit (are valid and worth pointing out) and some do not. I clearly demonstrated the validity of my charge that Krugman was blatantly inconsistent in his analysis without any analytical justification whatsoever for the abrupt shift (and please let's not revisit the confusion over being in recession vs. not, or advocating one policy vs. not, because that misses the point entirely, as I've explained repeatedly and in a variety of ways, including my little story upthread at swordscrossed.org/diary/20100210/krugman-debate#comment-116103
).
It seem extremely likely that Krugman was being deliberately misleading, deliberately presenting skewed analysis (about the level of harm/risk he associates with a given level of projected long-term fiscal imbalance) in order to serve his advocacy. That's inappropriate and is one of the greatest public disservices committed by experts these days. We depend to a great extent on expert analysis to identify and "quantify" trade-offs associated with policy choices (and other choices) so that we can then apply our own values and priorities in choosing among those alternative trade-offs. It's a disservice when experts take an "end justifies the means" approach to presenting analysis, deliberately misleading folks about what those alternative trade-offs are so they can do an end run around our application of our own values and priorities, as if they know what's "best" from every perspective, so they should trick us to prevent us from making the "wrong" choice based on supposedly inferior values or priorities, or even our errors in other analytical areas pertaining the the issue.
So if you have a more meaningful point to make than the generic lament above that does not distinguish at all between meritorious charges and non-meritorious charges, please make that point if you wish. If your point is simply that you still think my charge is either invalid or not worth making, well there's little question that I've established the validity, and if you don't consider it worth pointing out, I very much beg to differ.
A pounce is a reply
I saw the diary at its start, saw that you were engaging right away; i.e. pouncing. There is no negative connotation to 'pouncing' in this environment and you should assume no judgement on my part.
re: accusations of inconsistency and hypocricy
Put into my area of expertise, you should not have folks logging into a computer with the built in administrator account (or 'root' on UNIX). Having folks do that is a horrible violation of best practices and people are fired for it on occasion. But I've done it, and when I did it, not only was it OK, but it was the absolute right thing to do. And here's the thing; I'm neither inconsistent nor a hypocrite for being upset about it in some situations and doing it in others. Even if non-experts can't distinguish the criteria that makes the difference.
ok re: my engaging "right
ok re: my engaging "right away" ("pouncing"), but it seemed odd to note since it would seem fairly natural that I'd respond "right away" or not at all, considering Arne posted a comment on the other blog economistmom.com/2010/02/why-paygo-isnt-enough-but-why-well-take-it/#comment-6842
announcing and providing a link to his initial one on SC swordscrossed.org/diary/20100208/using-other-peoples-blogs-debate-forums 
which he followed shortly with the diary of the thread we're on. But no biggee.
You lost me on your analogy. Are you just saying that sometimes it's ok to break a rule, or that sometimes it's ok to break a rule that you generally criticize others for breaking? I'm not seeing the connection, unless your point is that sometimes an expert is justified in abusing the trust people place in him (by virtue of his expertise) to mislead them into doing the "right" thing if they would likely choose the "wrong" thing if given his good-faith expert assessment. If that's your point, I would agree -- and I'd also point out that there is literally nothing that cannot be justifiable under some circumstances (I think consequentialism is the only sensible approach to morality, and a deontological approach is nonsensical).
That said, the first question is whether or not Krugman did what I charge him with doing, and if so, the next, separate question is whether or not it is justified. And I think it's important to take a broad view of consequences to include not just some policy debate at hand but the broader effects when one contributes to a climate of such a breach of ethics, considering the increased likelihood that experts will deliberately mislead people into choosing "bad" things (whether the advocate considers them bad [and has a selfish motive] or not), considering the likely loss of weight the public will give to expert analysis due to a loss of trust in their good faith (and as a result, less rational and poorer policy choices), etc.
Pouncing suggested high tempo
If I see that the response occurs right away, then odds are that there will be a high tempo discussion. High tempo does not always mean that it will be heated, but it often does.
No. That's not what I meant, but that is the type of comment that causes the frustration I mentioned. The general rule is just that, general. There are specific cases where certain people need to login as root, but if you haven't been trained on when those cases apply, then you shouldn't be doing it. Period, Full Stop.
I'm not abusing your trust if I tell you that it is an insane threat to the integrity of the system to log in as root to browse online and then, when the system is already compromised, I log in as root to start eliminating malware. "But K, if logging in as root is an integrity threat on an uncompromised system, it must be even worse on a compromised system!".
A plastic surgeon is not misleading you when they freak out because you are using a scalpel to deal with a pimple while they use a scalpel to deal with major disfigurement. "But doctor, if using a scalpel on a minor blemish can lead to disfigurement, then using it on a disfigured person must be a really bad idea! You must be a hypocritical hack!"
I see no connection between
I see no connection between your examples and my criticism of Krugman.
Your examples seem to assert that sometimes it is justified for someone to do something that he tells others would be wrong to do (because of his exceptional expertise; because of exceptional circumstances; etc.). ok, I agree. What's the connection to my criticism of Krugman?
That's only part of my point
Other portions include
Those exceptional circumstances may be very clear to an expert and not to someone else
That it is really fricking annoying to experts when non-experts insist that those exceptional circumstances shouldn't make a difference
And that it is often the case that the actions need to be taken to solve the very problem that they would cause were they used inappropriately. This last one applies with deficit spending/taxing being the tool/action in question.
Again, I see no connection
Again, I see no connection between your points (with which I concur) and my criticism of Krugman. Perhaps, despite my repeated, explicit statements to the contrary, you still think I'm criticizing him for opposing large deficits under one set of conditions (economic expansion) or as a trade-off for one type of policy (the Bush tax cuts) and then advocating large deficits under a different set of economic conditions (deep recession) and for a different purpose (stimulus). If so, I don't know how anyone can make it any clearer than I've made it, but I'll say again, not only is that NOT the self-contradiction and apparent disingenuousness for which I am criticizing Krugman, but I also happen to agree at least in general with those positions (I strongly opposed the Bush tax cuts due to their exacerbation of our medium/long-term fiscal imbalance and I have strongly supported large deficits amid this recession, although I don't know whether or not Krugman is right on the optimal size of stimulus).
Was that your misunderstanding? Are you clear on the above now (i.e, clear on what is NOT my criticism of Krugman)? Do you understand what my criticism actually is (if not, try reading that little "Krugman and Joe" story I wrote at swordscrossed.org/diary/20100210/krugman-debate#comment-116103
which hopefully helps you distinguish between a criticism of changing policy positions (which was NOT my criticism) vs. a radical change in one's stated (supposed) analytical conclusions when there is no new relevant information or any other legitimate cause for that change in his analytical view (unless we are to believe that Krugman was completely unfamiliar with the debt-to-GDP trend from 1945 - 1960 when he wrote his 2003 column, which obviously would be a silly assumption, and then learned of these data by the time he was writing in 2009).
Your car analogy has four flat tires
There are only three people in your story. The current economic crises in this country is not just like two guys running out of gas, who could if necessary walk the distance to either help their friend or walk back to the gas station with purchasing power and then drive up the road to help their friend.
You can flag Krugman as a hypocrite if it makes you happy, but that is just whistling in the dark. Krugman has adopted to the new reality. Good for him.
Where is the criticism of those who claimed to be economic gurus, the Alan Greenspans of the world, who insisted everything was fine and ignored all warnings that our economy was on the brink? The point being that circumstances have changed so drastically that the old prescription of no deficits will now cause the most harm to the most people.
That still leaves out the vast number of hypocrites with an R after their name who had no problem creating the structural imbalance in our current financial system. Why on earth should we listen to the folks that crashed the economy, when their prescription to fix the current crises is exactly the same dogma have espoused for decades?
I'm only half stupid
LOL -- Ahh, MissLiberties,
LOL -- Ahh, MissLiberties, same old irrelevant, confused, gratuitous, hyperpartisan rants.
Same old pure insult from you.
Please forgive my intrusion into your bubble. A pox upon me. I will be gone now.
Yes that is complete sarcasm, since you appear to be a rank literalist and can not do nuance or innuendo at all ever.
_____
Usted necessita ayuda de Dios por que tienes una cabesa sin ojos.
__
Vive Démocratie Libérale forever!
I'm only half stupid
Same old pure insult from you.
Please forgive my intrusion into your bubble. A pox upon me. I will be gone now.
Yes that is complete sarcasm, since you appear to be a rank literalist and can not do nuance or innuendo at all ever.
_____
Usted necessita ayuda de Dios por que tienes una cabesa sin ojos.
__
Vive Démocratie Libérale forever!
I'm only half stupid
.
.
I'm only half stupid
.
.
I'm only half stupid
I understand your criticism
I realize that you don't see the connection and I'm aware of your criticism. My issue is this -
This is the entire reason that I am frustrated with this type of conversation. Your determination that the new information (and there is plenty of new information) is irrelevant.
You've stated in this single comment that we probably went from bad deficit spending to good and necessary deficit spending That type of change is extremely relevant (at least to me).
To simplify your complex scenario, we have gone from driving away from a gas station to driving towards a gas station. Even though the situation has deteriorated (we are farther from the station and have less gas) it isn't odd that the guy with the map (our expert) has gone from upset to calm.
I thought perhaps you'd pick
I thought perhaps you'd pick up on that phrase and it would cause confusion on your end (as it has) and I started to address it pre-emptively but then deleted my note because I didn't want to make a statement that could perhaps spark confusion that may not otherwise have arisen). Anyway, no offense, but you are still confused about what my criticism is. Yes, again, as I keep saying as clearly as I think is humanly possible, the "new information" in terms of changing economic conditions (i.e., the deep recession in 2009) is highly relevant, but is not at all the type of "new information" to which I was referring. Again, I am NOT criticizing Krugman for (and I happen to concur with) opposing large deficits in 2003 and advocating them in 2009 due to the recession in 2009. What I'm saying is that there is no new, relevant information pertaining to the level of harm/risk Krugman associates with a given level of projected long-term fiscal imbalance.
That's exactly what my "Krugman and Joe" illustration was supposed to illustrate. Yes, there is new, relevant information pertaining to what policy choice one considers best (in that case, skipping the gas station), but there is no new, relevant information regarding the risk of running out of gas (other than the information that increases that risk, not decreases it). Similarly, as I pointed out from the start, Krugman's argument in 2009 is that the post-WWII 15 years or so supposedly clearly demonstrate that we'll be ok and folks expressing anything anywhere close to the level of alarm that he expressed in 2003 (when the fiscal outlook was LESS severe) are "hysterical" (etc.), but I think it's very safe to assume that in 2003 Krugman was already familiar with the debt-to-GDP trend and it's drivers during that post-WWII period, so these data are NOT new information that could be the basis for a good-faith change in his analytical conclusion about the level of harm/risk he associates with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance. Do you understand now?
Wow. I agree with BR
I'm not inside his head, either, so I can't say for certain exactly what Krugman meant. However, I think the evaluation of Krugman's level of hipocrisy really depends not on some set of incontestable facts based on intense parsing of his phraseology, but instead is really just "what would a reasonable person take away from those series of columns?" He's not writing a paper. He writes short columns that must of necessity be brief and rather glossy
I read them, and I tend to lean to BR's interpretation: Krugman has indeed backpedaled a bit, most likely for a set of reasons that he feels justifies a modification of his rhetoric. I think a reasonable person can come away with that impression. But his revisions don't really bother me; the current economic situation is chaotic, not algebraic, and evolving, and I'd expect a good economist (or any expert, actually) to use both his knowledge and his personal instincts when formulating his opinions.
I'm also never freaked out by hipocrisy in general. I tend to see it as intrinsic to the human condition ;-)
"A bit" ? Not to disagree to
"A bit" ? Not to disagree to agree (if I may reverse the common phrase), but if you think Krugman just "backpedalled a bit", you don't agree with me. Look at the extreme language he used in 2003 regarding the risk/cost he associated with our long-term fiscal outlook at that time. Then in 2009 and 2010, with that fiscal outlook much WORSE (In terms of numbers and in terms of time before the bulk of baby boomer retirements), he is basically saying we have a very manageable problem and that anyone who is expressing anything even close to the alarm he expressed in 2003 is "hysterical" and need only look to history to know we'll most likely be just fine.
"Backpedaled a bit"? Re-read my excerpts in comment upthread and tell me you don't think he has reversed himself considerably more than "a bit".
Krugman angered many
liberals-turned-deficit hawks by claiming back in 2006 that if/when Dems got control of government again, it would be unwise to try to balance the budget because the next Repubs would just bust it again. I don't see him hypocritically praising Dem deficit spending and trashing R deficit spending in isolation.
Forget Keynsian theory about major recessions requiring deep deficits to improve the long-term fiscal outlook, which alone should justify Krugman's assessment that 2009 deficits were OK but 2003 deficits weren't.
Krugman's 2003 column was about fears of inflation causing interest rate hikes. Sure, deficits drive inflation, but recessions slow it. Future interest rates depend on Fed policy and economic robustness, much of which can be driven by current fiscal policy.
I suppose it kind of boils down to what kind of deficit spending is better for the economy long-term. I'd like these cowardly supply-siders and red-herring hypocrisy hunters to find some hard data showing that top-heavy tax cuts and starting wars are better fiscal policies than extending unemployment benefits, infrustructure projects and small-business tax credits.
Since it's childishly easy to expose Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck contradicting themselves when Ds and Rs do the same thing, the right seems to think they can do it just as easily to our leading thinkers. But there is no fundamental law of symmetry to apply to our political discourse.
Krugman's assessment that
As I made clear in every comment in every discussion I've had on this matter, the self-contradiction with which I'm charging Krugman has absolutely nothing to do with Krugman thinking deficits in 2003 were bad and deficits in 2009 were good. The self-contradiction is in the assessment he gives in each case of the level of harm/risk associated with the projected long-term fiscal imbalance. I'm not going to go through the whole exercise yet again, so if you still don't understand that fundamental distinction, your on your own. Hey, who knows -- maybe at this point even Arne could explain it to you.
Don't bother replying to my posts.
I don't read yours anymore.
You're a simpleminded condescending jackass, and I'm not interested.
Coming from you, that's a
Coming from you, that's a badge of honor.
ok, not really. The real badge of honor would be if I helped you reform yourself, to be less of the typical blogosphere hyperpartisan jack*ss (not that you're the worst -- I usually put GR, Centinel, and ML at the lowest level and you perhaps a rung above) and more someone who engages in discussion/debate thoughtfully, responsively and in good faith. But short of that, being viewed negatively by someone like you is at least a quasi-badge of honor.
And I rather doubt you didn't read my reply to your comment. Much more likely, you did read it, perhaps realized you erred (or perhaps just recall from history that you generally can't hold your own in disagreements with me), and decided to avoid addressing my correction to your comment. I suppose now you'll either ignore this comment or reply again by saying that you didn't read it, again dubiously.
But hey, Arne will probably find some solace in your antipathy toward me and perhaps (due to emotion, not reason) even see in it some validation of his arguments and other claims.