Okrent V. Krugman

Daniel Okrent, outgoing Public Editor at the Times, threw down the gauntlet to Paul Krugman in his farewell column:

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

Paul Krugman gets a bit of space to reply a week later in the "Letters to the Public Editor", but the real story is that these two will slug it out at the Public Editor's website this week.

Had I been advising Mr. Okrent, I might have argued against an overly specific indictment, and and urged him to make the broader claim that Prof. Krugman relies on his economic reputation to present as settled economic questions that are actually in serious dispute.  Some examples of Krugmania from out of the archives:

(1)  "Mathematically impossible" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Very briefly, Dean Baker made a plausible point about the economic forecasts presented by the Social Security trustees - although the trustees included profitability of the corporate sector in their long term GDP forecasts, they did not explicitly forecast capital usage; consequently, it was entirely possible that the returns on capital implicitly embedded in those forecasts were much lower than the 6.5% long term equity returns that privatizers argued could be earned by stockholders.

Krugman then made a more expansive argument in his column - not only did these forecasts not embed a 6.5% return on capital assumption, it would be "mathematically impossible" to do so, since population growth over the next seventy-five years will be less than over the previous seventy-five.

Oh, dear - eventually, Brad DeLong, Dean Baker, and Paul Krugman presented a paper explaining that "mathematically impossible" meant, paraphrasing, not very likely.   This is a bit of a comedown for economists who like to argue that their use of the high-priced math lends their field a rigor that other social sciences lack.

And why these three consider a slight increase in corporate after-tax profitability (due, perhaps, to several years of stagnant real wages and reduced corporate taxation) to be hopelessly unlikely is not addressed in their paper, although Paul Krugman fretted about those very things here.  (Some of the arithmetic is illustrated here; more here.)

(2)  What Were Once Bubbles Are Now Baselines

Krugman has fretted on many occasions about the loss of jobs under Bush.  Eventually, even Brad Delong felt obliged to admit that maybe, just maybe, setting the employment baseline at the high-water mark of the tech bubble may not be appropriate.

Jon Henke returned to this theme recently when Paul Krugman discovered signs of "stagflation".

(3)  Don't Cry For Me, Argentina

Paul Krugman likes to use the phrase "banana republic" and compare the US fiscal situation to Argentina.  He does not like to remind people that, unlike Argentina or a typical banana republic, almost all of the US debt is denominated in our own currency.  We will wave in Brad Delong again to explain the difference.

(4)  Where Are The Immigrants?

On the subject of income inequality, Krugman had a NY Times magazine piece just prior to the Okrent era.  Nowhere in the article does he mention immigration as a possible factor driving our income inequality statistics.  He does cite as one of his sources Prof. Rosenthal, who said this in his own paper on income inequality:

Let me return to the results on the distribution of income between citizens and non-citizens. These results further suggest that the problem of inequality may be less than it is often made out to be. Those with low incomes are disproportionately unnaturalized immigrants. They are almost certainly substantially better off than in their country of origins. The slight bump up, from 1973 to 1996, in the fraction under $20,000 that I reported above, may be in part a response to immigration.

Surely immigration merited a mention by Krugman.

(5) Tin Soldiers And Nixon Coming

Krugman asserted on several occasions that we are a more polarized society now than in 1970, prompting guffaws from Dan Drezner.  However, writing on income inequality back in the fall of 2002, he also cited a draft of a study by McCarty, Rosenthal and Poole showing that rising political polarization could be tied to rising income inequality.

Ooops - folks hooted at the time (well, I did), and the authors did go back to their statistics.  In their draft version, they had alluded to the possibility that the Southern realignment was driving this result - a bunch of conservative Southern Democrats switched parties, and resulting voting patterns look more partisan.  In their final version, they acknowledged this to be the case.

To be fair, Krugman may have been a victim of the old switcheroo, but the paper to which he linked as supporting his statement was replaced by a final draft which pulled the rug out from under him.

Now, I am not going to say that Krugman was lying for basing a statement on the draft version of unpublished research.  However, I can say that the Poole result defied common sense (mine, anyway), and the authors themselves had hinted at a major problem, so I will cite this as an example of Judgment Flawed.

(5)  What Is Real?

This is trivial, but it is also exactly the sort of thing to which Okrent may be referring:

To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet, and still end a presidential term with fewer jobs than when you started.

The jobs baseline question was mentioned earlier.  The point I also noted - as a percent of GDP, which is the conventional yardstick, we did not recently have the largest budget deficit in the history of the planet, or even of the US.  Heaven forbid if Bush had said that our economy had expanded by the largest amount ever, which is true in absolute terms, although false as a percent of GDP.

OK, put your favorite hits below.

[A LATE ADDITION:  Jim Glass has his own hit list - I defy anyone anywhere to come up with something funnier than his Number 2.  And while you try to top it, I'm going to steal it!

Feb 13, 2000 - A long tirade by Krugman wacking McCain for opposing a sales tax on goods sold over the internet.

Feb 20, 2000 - Nevermind.  Here is the crushing correction:

In my Feb. 13 column I described the Internet Tax Freedom Act of           1998 as a legal impediment to sales taxation. In fact it only prohibits taxes on Internet service providers.

Reading the Feb 13 column with the Feb 20 correction in mind gives "misdirected" a higher meaning.  More background is here.

UPDATE:  Let's get Andrew Samwick (a right-ish former Clinton Bush II Admin economist currently at Dartmouth) into the mix.  These two posts, and the responses there-to, nicely illustrate the all-too frequent nature of these Krugman discussions - you're wrong, Krugman's right, you're wrong, Krugman's right, OK, you may be right but it is a minor, nit-picking point.

And (again in the comments) the Angry Bear (a left-ish economist) makes the case for Venn diagrams and greater political diversity on America's campuses:

While I don't wish to associate with the likes of Donald Luskin, your post is likely to be cited by this crowd. It ain't my choice of folks to run with - and I'd caution anyone else to stay far, far away from their insanity.

Let's simplify that - right wing cranks criticize Kruman; you are criticizing Krugman; therefore, you may be mistaken for a right wing crank.

Well, that puts the "silly" in syllogism.  But one wonders - how many lefties routinely circle the wagons if their criticism of a lefty icon might become fodder for Rush Limbaugh and that ilk?  Or is it only in blogs that they self-censor?  Or might it include, for example, newspaper interviews?  Where is the point at which the pursuit of truth occurs without fear or favor?

Michelle Malkin reminds us that Krugman is an economist, not a lawyer.

Jon Henke has a few catches.

And why all the rancor?  Arnold Kling addressed this a while back - people seem to respond poorly to Krugman's insinuations that people who disagree with him are corrupt, dishonest, or stupid.  So did Robert Kuttner, years ago.  Go figure.

STILL MORE:  Brad DeLong picks up the broom yet again.  I will just cryptically add that the CBO, in this 2002 paper, seem to be impressed with the Polivka and Miller data adjustments.

Finally, Krugman explains that "retirement income" routinely means all income available to retirees.  Fine.  But try and square that with his classic explanation that "Medicare" routinely means "Medicare, Part A".

UNRELENTING (AND UNFORGIVEN):  Jim Glass has a list, and his Number 2 makes Krugman look as if he stepped in... - well, read Krugman's Feb 13 2000 column in light of his Feb 20 2000 admission that his entire premise was flawed.  Then say it with me (and him, and all the acolytes) - NEVERMIND!

Comments

[Crank]

Here's one.

[Jor]

Just on style, Orkent got killed. Only a third grader running for class president would make the types of attack he did and not provide an example. At least the examples Krugman addressed, Orkent got killed on.

I offered him only three examples of “shaping, slicing and selectively citing” (for some reason, he’s left one out of his rebuttal) because I was at home when he began bombarding me with outraged demands for retraction and apology; I’d completed my tenure as public editor the preceding week, and did not have any files with me.

That is like, my dog ate my homework excuse right there. I mean he's kidding right?

Even I know Krugman can be excessively shrill at times, but half the job of being a public editor is saying things diplomatically,

"If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I’ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.

I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.

Another sign of maturity.

Krugman might be even bitchier in his private remarks to Orkent, but at least hes got the god damn common sense to tone down what he let out.

[Jor]

In terms of (1) -- this just appears anal retentive. If we applied this standard of rigidity where columnists cant use mathematically impossible synonmously with very unlikely, -- I'm not sure a single column from WSJ woudl be left standing.

In terms of (2), this is more reasonable. Although public opinion polls on the economic outlook really coincide with gloomy job loss. So, there isn't a gigantic disconnect.

[Michelle Malkin]

Here are two more: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000033.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000095.htm

[Paul Zrimsek]

I'm glad Okrent said it the way he did originally. It's been a hoot hearing all the cries of "where are the examples?" from people who've spent the last five years excusing every Krugman gaffe on the grounds that he hasn't got enough column inches to explain things properly.

[Andrew Samwick]

The discussions are alive and well at http://voxbaby.blogspot.com>Vox Baby. Please read http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2005/05/critiquing-krugman.html>Critiquing Krugman and http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2005/05/re-critiquing-krugman-with-friends.html>Re-critiquing Krugman, with Friends.

[Jor]

Paul, did you read the exchange between Orkent and Krugman? You should read it again.

[Jor]

Andrew, I skimmed your posts & basically find myself siding with the problems result from the op-ed format just as much (if not more so) than with Krugman himself. So you're expecting one man to single handidly reform such an old institution? I agree that your suggestions for making the process better make sense to me. But at the same time, you want to be careful that you don't wind up with dull editorial board op-eds either. But having a research team help edit an op-ed seems like a great idea. Especially in this day and age, where few op-ed writers, like Krugman get a giganticily disproportionate amount of attention than the majority who go mostly unread.

[TM]

In terms of (1) -- this just appears anal retentive.

If Krugman ever collects his Nobel Prize, it will be because his early work in international economics deveoloped some mathematical models that "proved" certain things could happen in certain situations - not that they were either inevitable or impossible, but a mathematically possibility.

Words have meaning.

[Joe Mealyus]

Of the Krugman controversies covered on JOM, to me the one that best fits Okrent's "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" formulas is his "Little Black Lies" column:

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/012805.html

PK: "But the claim that blacks get a bad deal from Social Security is false."

To support this he cites both facts (e.g., black life expectancy at age 65, for which JOM commenters as I recall made a strong case as selective) and theory (*), but his facts and theory - I believe - leave us some considerable distance from a verification of his thesis.

(* "blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits" as support of his "bad deal false" thesis amounts to a theoretical proposition that blacks are actually benefitting from being more likely to receive disability payments, which may or may not be true)

[Joe Mealyus]

"...that 'mathematically impossible' meant, paraphrasing, not very likely."

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that their position is that "mathmatically impossible" meant really really not very likely? Maybe 3 or 4 really's even. "Not very likely" is the 2005 Nationals, say, winning the World Series. But I think they're talking the 2005 Devil Rays winning the World Series.

[TexasToast]

Wow Tom

Krugman could say -

"4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum” and you would object because HE DIDN’T TELL US ABOUT THAT OTHER DENTEST!!!!! Seems to me that the word parsing you require would make footnotes a requirement for an opinion column – as if many would actually read them. I didn’t realize that an opinion column required the prose style and rigid authority of a legal brief – in 12 column inches or less.

[Jor]

TM, would you like to provide an example of a conservative columnist that could pass your word-parsing tests on a day-to-day basis? Maybe Safire. I think it was orkent who lumped the difference between "mathematically impossible or really unlikely" as the same sin as "still believe al Queda and Saddam are connected".

Once upon a time, conservatives liked to live in the world of reality, where pragmatism was more important than "gotcha".

[SteveMG]

It is risible reading the apologies for Krugman. The man is a crank. He is intellectually (or emotionally, I'll leave it to the psychobiographers here to address that one) incapable of presenting an argument. It must include a whole series of fallacies - non sequiturs, strawman arguments, tu quoque errors. And that's in one of his good columns.

It's not sufficient for him to say that an opponent is wrong. No, the opponent is evil, malevolent and sinister and the worst thing in the history of recorded civilization.

He doesn't argue; he accuses. Such a style, admittedly, has its place in the raucous discourse of politics, American or elsewhere. But not, it seems to me, on the op-ed pages of the most influential newspaper in the nation.

SMG

[Jon Henke]

I think it's important to note that Okrent's assertion was essentially that Paul Krugman was too tendentious. Not that he outright lied, but that he presented evidence in a misleading way. Hell, in the very May 2005 column he was defending today, he suggested that it would take Bush *years* to get to the full employment estimated by own 2002 Economic Report of the President. He cited their figure of 138 million.

But "full employment" is not measured by total population working. Full employment is measured by the unemployment rate. You know, the NAIRU and all that. It wasn't so long ago (1995) that Professor Krugman himself was suggesting that 5.0% was the absolute floor. (Note that he didn't give a population figure)

But he neglected to mention that the same 2002 Economic Report projected a 2004 unemployment rate of 5.2%...and when he wrote the column, we were already down to 5.5%.

He compared the 2004 to 1994 labor market increases, but completely neglected to mention the marked difference in the unemployment rates. Presumably, because the April 1994 unemployment rate was 6.4% -- even though they were 7 months farther out from the 90-91 recession than was Bush in '04, when the April unemployment rate was 5.5%.

He completely elided those statistics, because--as Daniel Okrent said--he has a "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers". He's not dedicated to presenting perspective...he's dedicated to presenting a case for his side. That's precisely what Okrent alleged.

[Jeff Hauser]

Re (5) -- where is the deficit relative to GDP when one doesn't put the Social Security surplus into general revenues, i.e., one follows the 1983 Greenspan et al plan?

[JohnH]

The very first words that Okrent uses to characterize PK are "shaping and slicing". To me, this refers to how selective he is in his use of numbers and examples. He has been the most unrelentingly anti-administration-biased columnist in America (and Coulter is the most pro-admin one). But Krugman selects his facts, when they are facts, in such a way as to paint a completely distorted picture of the economy. My liberal friends only read the NYT and LAT. They sincerely believe that the U.S. economy is in dreadful shape, that the poor are being robbed to add to the coffers of the rich, and every other thing that they learn from Krugman, Ivins and their echos. The worst aspect of Krugman is not "he lies" so much as that he distorts the picture of the U.S. to the point that no one can recognize the place.

[jolang]

The worst aspect of Krugman is not "he lies" so much as that he "distorts the picture of the U.S. to the point that no one can recognize the place."

If the above isn't the definition of "lie" then what is? I'll miss Okrent - he was the brightest light.

[Jor]

SMG, true satire -- I assume unintentional -- just like our hero, Orkent!. As for some other detractors, its amazing how its so hard to find examples, but not so hard to put together a list of obscenities.

[Dollar]

Okrent got his ass and his hat handed to him.

Krugman, as usual, gets the facts right, and bludgeons fools with them.

[Akira]

Michelle Malkin?

You're treating her like she should be respected?

Michelle Malkin?

The same racist that sought to apologize for putting Japanese into concentration camps?

Get real.

[Mark Wilson]

I'm amazed to see that Krugman has so many acolytes. Krugman's transition from ground-breaking economist to partisan hack is one of the most dramatic falls I have ever seen, both in its speed and its extent. He has become almost irrelevant to any rational discussion of the social choices we face.

[bob]

the thing which I find to be somewhat perplexing is that I actually was forced to read the age of diminished expectations in economy class at Wharton of all places. Dont talk to me I was in the School of Arts & Sciences and know nothing. I picked up the book a few years ago after an especially virulent column and re-read it. I think its funny that no one ever mentions that book because it seems at least to me to be the perfect transitional example between the brillant economist and plodding political hack. There are good points in the book and they probably looked not only valid but cogent in the early-to-mid 90s, but his incessant harping on the Japenese saving rate as an unendying motor for domestic GDP and oligarchic business giants seem really myopic now (unless you are European)and even then against the grain of history. yeah, germany, japan and perhaps even china will or have experienced a period of rapid growth due to the savings rate but that is capital at fixed rate of return which mathematically (most probably impossibly) peters out as an effective exponent of capital production. his whole the japs are coming in the real estate market is a chapter worth a laugh. I half expected him to mention the mariners or black rain. tosser

[SteveMG]

The obscenity, friend Jor, is that Krugman is given the pages of one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world to disseminate his Manichaean worldview.

If one disagrees with Krugman, or interprets things differently, can they simply be wrong? No. In his view one is a fraud, a liar, a thief, a crook.

He does not argue; he spits. He does not convince; he indicts. He does not think; he accuses.

Obscenities? That's Dr. Krugman's trade, not mine.

SMG

[TM]

TM, would you like to provide an example of a conservative columnist that could pass your word-parsing tests on a day-to-day basis?

And the point would be what? I can find plenty of folks who will recite some version of the following in response to any and every criticism of Krugman - he won a Bates medal and you didn't, you can count on his economics not to be blinded by partisanship, his critics aren't fit to sharpen his pencils.

Here is a recent citing from Matt Yglesias's blog where the topic came up:

Simple question for Krugman-bashers: please give a detailed citation of one or more claims Krugman has made which proved to be false.

Or, a bit further down:

I hear so many rightwingers claiming "Krugman lies". My standard reply - provide me with one example. They never do.

My official position - even if Krugman is wrong sometimes the war in Iraq might still be a bad idea.

However, that does not mollify everyone.

[The Towering Barbarian]

Akira,
I'm curious. Are you claiming Michelle Malkin's posts are inaccurate, or are you merely in the business of rejecting facts because you don't like the person who presents them?

[Yoshiro]

Malkin's a hack, not to mention heoplessly inaccurate.

Paying attention to her is like paying attention to David Duke.

[TigerHawk]

Krugman spoke to Princeton alumni at reunions Friday afternoon. I covered it here. Krugman got a question on Okrent, and basically said that Okrent's attack was founded on a deep psychological need to appease his conservative critics. In any case, he not surprisingly denied that he had ever used data in the manner Okrent suggests.

[The Towering Barbarian]

Yoshiro,
Ah! Another person who believes in the "If someone you don't like says 2+2=4 then you can dismiss 2+2=4 with a wave of the hand because life is a popularity contest" school of thought?

Precisely *what* in those posts did you consider inaccurate? Or are you too in the habit of judging posts without reading them?

[BD]

Interesting - Krugman's fans use the same tactics in addressing critics ... the exhibits from this thread are "Malkin's a racist" and "Malkin's a hack".

I guess we just have to accept that the liberal mind is so convinced that it is right that it need not even concede the possibility that someone could disagree in good faith.

[IMHO]

Krugman has used his economics pedigree to buy credibility as a political polemicist.

He is the de facto economic leader of the Left despite his full immersion in ideological advocacy.

[Jim Glass]

"I hear so many rightwingers claiming 'Krugman lies'. My standard reply - provide me with one example. They never do."
~~~~~~

Alan Greenspan testifying on why he supports private accounts in Social Security...

As reported by MSNBC:

"The normally placid Greenspan rose almost to the threshold of passion as he made a class-based argument by contending that private accounts would allow low-income people to become mini-capitalists — in his view, a very good thing.

"'When you have assets which you own, which you can bequeath to your children, (assets) which have your name on them, I think it is highly desirable thing, because you give wealth to people in lower-and middle-income groups who have not had it before'..."

[This before AG goes onto his support of private accounts to increase national savings, secure promised benefits, etc. and so on.]

As reported by Krugman:

"On Wednesday Mr. Greenspan endorsed Social Security privatization ... he offered no justification at all ... Mr. Greenspan offered no excuse for supporting privatization"

Does that count as a lie?

Maybe a little fib? Truth? Fair and accurate reporting?

Someone e-mail Matt and ask him. OK?

I've gotta say I was rather surprised when this flew by and apparently nobody at all caught it or complained about it. I'm getting to think Krugman's pushed himself so far out that he's marginalized himself to the point where reasonable people who would catch this sort of thing just don't care or pay attention to him any more.

And Krugman must know it to be that brazen.

[Jon Henke]

The thing is, a *lot* of us provide examples of Krugman "shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers". I did it earlier in the comment thread, and I've got plenty more. But, for some reason, supporters seem to think that Okrent said that Krugman flat-out lied, instead of what he actually said -- i.e., that Krugman is misleading, selective and tendentious.

On the other hand, as Jim Glass observed -- and I've noted elsewhere -- there are examples of Krugman writing at cross-purposes with reality.

[Paul Zrimsek]

If it weren't for double standards, Krugman's fans wouldn't have any standards at all.

[Brainster]

Let me guess; none of the people putting down Michelle Malkin for "In Defense of Internment" have read the book.

[John Emerson]

Political dialogue is impossible any more. I'm glad I quit trying.

I still haven't seen a justification of Okrent's parting shot, which made a fairly serious charge without any specifics. Maguire's criticisms of K were all reasonable criticisms of what may have been reasonable mistakes by K -- not the kind of thing Okrent was talking about. And Henke seem to be redefining what Okrent said, in order to make it look better and more accurate.

They say Okrent was pimping for the oft-discredited autodidact Luskin. Makes sense to me.

[Wilbur]

Actually I would suggest that Jim Glass is the individual being more than a little disingenuous in the way he took Krugman's point out of context. I think it is obvious to anybody with a high school reading level that the point of Krugman's synopsis was whether private accounts would help in any way with social security's solvency. That is the question that Greenspan was at the hearing to defend. The idea of being able to pass along accumulated wealth from generation to generation was, for the most part, irrelevant to the discussion.

When Krugman said that Mr. Greenspan offered no excuses for justification he was doing it in this context. Mr. Greenspan did offer no excuses based in social security solvency, or even debt reduction in his testimony.

In the final analysis I think it you showed both Mr. Krugman's article and Mr. Glass' discussion of it to an upper level rhetoric, political science, or economics class I believe the consensus would be that it is Mr. Glass who was being disingenuous in order to put Mr. Krugman in as ugly a light as possible. That is regrettable.

[Jon Henke]

How the hell did I redefine what Okrent said? He accused Krugman of "shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers" in a way that panders to his side. Is that really in any doubt? Do you really suggest that Krugman is even-handed? Because, if so, you're welcome to point out his many NYTimes criticisms of Democrats. Or his occassional defenses of Republicans.

I mean, he certainly did that sort of thing prior to 2001. It's just that he hasn't really done it since.

In any event, I wrote that Okrent said Krugman was "misleading, selective and tendentious". Which of those words is different in nature from what Daniel Okrent said of Krugman? Any of them? No.

[Zathras]

As I recall, Daniel Okrent made his observation about Paul Krugman in a column that made brief comments about a number of subjects and at least two other NYT Op-Ed columnists (Maureen Dowd and William Safire, if memory serves). Perhaps none of the other people he commented on reacted the way Krugman did because they were all going on vacation or into retirement.

We all know, of course, that the real reason Krugman reacted the way he did is that he is very thin-skinned, like many academics. It's not an admirable quality, but it's not a crime either. What I have trouble understanding is the response this gets from his supporters and critics -- especially, I suppose, the supporters, because many of Krugman's critics are economists of whom one might expect public criticism when another economist publishes analyses they think flawed.

Krugman is a professor of economics, and a newspaper columnist. That's all. He will never occupy a government post with real responsibility; he will never run for office. His partisanship is by now so well established that even Democratic politicians seeking factual support for their arguments will look to someone else.

I can understand passion about a public figure who can or might someday be able to make public policy reflect his views, or who stands for some vital and embattled principle. Whether one agrees with him or not it seems absurd to believe that Paul Krugman is either of these things. People getting this excited about him really get excited too easily.

[Cecil Turner]

"In any event, I wrote that Okrent said Krugman was "misleading, selective and tendentious"."

You know, I'd probably support you on that, except it also perfectly describes the management of comments on your own blog. (It was, however, entertaining to get kicked off a comments section.)

[/taking up TM's bandwidth for personal use]

[Anonymous]

Andrew Samwick was a Bush administration economist, not a Clinton administration economist.

Imagine if Paul Krugman made this type of error in a piece.

[Jim Glass]

"Actually I would suggest that Jim Glass is the individual being more than a little disingenuous in the way he took Krugman's point out of context. I think it is obvious to anybody with a high school reading level that the point of Krugman's synopsis was whether private accounts would help in any way with social security's solvency."

Well, if you were right, this would be exactly the sort of slicing and shaping we are talking about!

I mean, being that private accounts are not designed to address the solvency issue, and both Greenspan and the Bush Admistration are quite open about that (which is why Bush proposed Pozen's graduated indexing to address the solvency issue), it's kind of convenient for an opponent of them to decide to judge them solely by how they address the solvency issue, eh?

So Krugman latches on to that issue as the only one he will acknowledge, and your logic runs like this:

There are other good plausible reasons to support private accounts in Social Security.

Greenspan testifies giving these other good reasons, A, B, C, & D, to explain his support for private accounts.

Krugman then thinks: I sure don't care about any of those other reasons (and certainly don't want to answer any of them!) so ... they don't exist.

He then writes not: "Greenspan gave no reason that I agree with for supporting private accounts", but instead: "Greenspan gave no reason at all for supporting private accounts, none!."

And he thinks: I told the truth!

But you tell me, who is being more than a little disingenuous? ;-)

[Jim Glass]

One of the thing that makes Krugman watching so much fun is that everybody can collect his own list of Top 10 Krugmanisms without duplicating any on anybody else's list!

Here's my baker's dozen.

[TM]

OK, good point about Samwick, who was The Chief Economist on the staff of the CEA in 2003/4. We may never know who I might have been thinking of.

As to Wilbur's suggestion that we can't read if we think Krugman's attack on Greenspan was unfair, geez - I appreciate the assistance in illustrating the commitment and enthusiasm of the acolytes, but aren't you even a little worried that someone might follow the links?

A longer excerpt from Krugman:

In 2001, Mr. Greenspan offered a convoluted, implausible justification for supporting everything the Bush administration wanted. This time, he offered no justification at all.

...This week, Mr. Greenspan offered no excuse for supporting privatization. In fact, he agreed with two of the main critiques of the administration's plan: that it would do nothing to improve the Social Security system's finances, and that it would lead to a dangerous increase in debt. Yet he still came out in favor of the idea.

I thnk we can read.

[TM]

But I don't thnk we cn spll.

Jim, I loved your post. On point 2, you left out the post-script, which is that Krugman admitted his error a week later (remember, Clinton was still President). From the Feb 20 2000 column:

In my Feb. 13 column I described the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 as a legal impediment to sales taxation. In fact it only prohibits taxes on Internet service providers.

Originally published in The New York Times, 2.20.00

The absurd magnitude of that correction can only be appreciated fully by reading his Feb 13 2000 column - without the connection to a sales tax, his column would reduce to "John McCain has a bill about the internet. Paul Krugman. 2/13/2000".

The editor probably would have asked for more.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I'll add to Jim's list.

Krugman 'Dowdified' remarks Alan Greenspan made at Jackson Hole in the summer of 2002 to make it appear that The Alan was reversing his stance on bursting the stock market bubble from what he'd said in 1996:

"...there is evidence that Mr. Greenspan actually knew better. In September 1996, at a meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, he told his colleagues, 'I recognize that there is a stock market bubble problem at this point.' And he had a solution: 'We do have the possibility of . . .increasing margin requirements. I guarantee that if you want to get rid of the bubble, whatever it is, that will do it.' "

Krugman quotes Greenspan as changing his mind at Jackson Hole(2002):

"Is there some policy that can at least limit the size of a bubble and, hence, its destructive fallout? . . . the answer appears to be no."

With the ellipsis replacing Greenspan's: "From the evidence to date....".

Also being ignored by Krugman, was Greenspan's explanation:

----------------quote------------------
6. Some have asserted that the Federal Reserve can deflate a stock-price bubble--rather painlessly--by boosting margin requirements. The evidence suggests otherwise. First, the amount of margin debt is small, having never amounted to more than about 1-3/4 percent of the market value of equity; moreover, even this figure overstates the amount of margin debt used to
purchase stock, as such debt also finances short-sales of equity and transactions in non-equity securities. Second, investors need not rely on margin debt to take a leveraged position in equities. They can borrow from
other sources to buy stock. Or, they can purchase options, which will affect stock prices given the linkages across markets.

Thus, not surprisingly, the preponderance of research suggests that changes in margins are not an effective tool for reducing stock market volatility.

It is possible that margin requirements inhibit very small investors whose access to other forms of credit is limited. If so, the only effect of raised margin requirements is to price out the very small investor without addressing the broader issue of stock price bubbles.

If a change in margin requirements were taken by investors as a signal that the central bank would soon tighten monetary policy enough to burst a bubble, then there might be the appearance of a causal effect. But it is the prospect of monetary policy action, not the margin increase, that should be viewed as the trigger. In a similar manner, history tells us that "jawboning" asset markets will be ineffective unless backed by action.
-------------endquote--------------

And, surprise, surprise, that's entirely consistent with Greenspan's 1996 argument, when we read it completely too:

-------------quote--------------------
I recognize that there is a stock market
bubble problem at this point,and I agree
with Governor Lindsey that this is a
problem we should keep an eye on.We have
very great difficulty in monetary policy
when we confront stock market bubbles.
That is because,to the extent that we are
successful in keeping product price inflation
down,history tells us that price-earnings
ratios under those conditions go through the
roof.What is really needed to keep stock
market bubbles from occurring is a lot of
product price inflation,which historically
has tended to undercut stock markets almost
everywhere.

There is a clear tradeoff.

Now, unless we have the capability of playing in
between and managing to know exactly
when to push a little here and to pull a little
there,it is not obvious to me that there is a
simple set of monetary policy solutions that
deflate the bubble.We have the possibility of
raising major concerns by increasing margin
requirements.I guarantee that if you want to
get rid of the bubble,whatever it is,that will
do it.My concern is that I am not sure what
else it will do.But there are other ways that
one can contemplate.
-------------endquote--------------

Quoting the above as: "We do have the possibility of . . . increasing
margin requirements", with the ellipsis substituting for Greenspan's:
"raising major concerns by", would seem to be...(how does one put it on the
pages of the NY Times?)..."disturbingly evasive".

Especially since Krugman labels the above as, "and he had a solution", when
pretty clearly Greenspan didn't think so then: "I am not sure what else it
will do". Nor now:

" If a change in margin requirements were taken by investors as a signal
that the central bank would soon tighten monetary policy enough to burst a
bubble, then there might be the appearance of a causal effect. But it is the
prospect of monetary policy action, not the margin increase, that should be
viewed as the trigger.".

I also note that Krugman didn't comment on Greenspan's: "the bubble,
whatever it is".

[Joe Mealyus]

Wilbur: "Actually I would suggest that Jim Glass is the individual being more than a little disingenuous in the way he took Krugman's point out of context. I think it is obvious to anybody with a high school reading level that the point of Krugman's synopsis was whether private accounts would help in any way with social security's solvency."

Krugman (fuller quote): "This week, Mr. Greenspan offered no excuse for supporting privatization. In fact, he agreed ... that it would do nothing to improve the Social Security system's finances...."

Since Krugman's meaning is clearly not what Wilbur suggests, it might be worth taking him at his word. When he says "Greenspan offered no excuse" or "no justification at all," I think you can argue that he's essentially commenting on Greenspan's testimony, not simply describing it. (The insertion of the word "valid" may have made things more clear, but may have been unacceptable for stylisic reasons).

The other option is simply that Jim Glass's point is well taken.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Here's another Krugman misrepresentation:

-------------quote--------------
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH (6/10/03)

Readers of the Unofficial Site may recall that Ben Stein launched a frantic attack on me after my quite innocuous column Missing James Tobin . Among the things that drove him wild was my statement that Milton Friedman's monetarism was a rather "naive" doctrine that has not stood the test of time.

But guess who now concedes the point?
--------------------------------------------

Well, not Friedman. The source is a poorly informed journalist who had lunch with Friedman, and erroneously wrote:

"In the early 1980s, both the US and the UK set interest rates according to Friedman-style targets for money-supply growth. The common aim was to bring down inflation without the pain of recession."

1. Monetarism didn't 'set' interest rates, it set monetary aggregate targets and let interest rates respond.

2. Friedman was famous for saying recession was the side effect of the cure for inflation. He compared it to the short term pain a chronic alcoholic would undergo when he first stopped drinking.

The most Friedman's reported statement concedes:

"The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success,...I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did."

is that is might be necessary to control the money supply indirectly, by working through interest rates.

This Krugmanism was even too much for Brad DeLong:

"To be fair to Uncle Milton, his focus on having a central bank set and hit its targets for monetary aggregates always had as much to do with building central bank credibility--demonstrating that it would keep the promises it made, and that it was serious about constraining the growth of nominal variables, and in versions like his Program for Monetary Stability the recommendation to target M was accompanied by plans for banking regulation (very strict and onerous regulation!) that would more-or-less force M to be proportional to PY. The argument for targeting M was as much political-economy as economic."

[TM]

On Andrew Samwick:

Imagine if Paul Krugman made this type of error in a piece.

Imagine if I had his editors, and got his paycheck...

[Wilbur]

I mean, being that private accounts are not designed to address the solvency issue, and both Greenspan and the Bush Admistration are quite open about that (which is why Bush proposed Pozen's graduated indexing to address the solvency issue), it's kind of convenient for an opponent of them to decide to judge them solely by how they address the solvency issue, eh?

This is just an out and out falsehood isn't it. I mean when Bush introduced the privitization he said it was to deal with the solvency issue (if not then why the whole social security is going broke discussion?) The Pozen idea was interested much later (even after the Krugman column in question I believe) when it became apparent that nobody was buying that argument.

I believe the column was in relation to Greenspan's testimony in front of a panel on the solvency of social security. In his testimony he back private accounts but gave no excuses why it might lead to solvency, as a matter of fact he argued against that. Greenspan needed to choose another venue I think to say private accounts are a good idea.

It is easy to say Krugman is a liar when you live in an alternative universe

[Jim Glass]

"'I mean, being that private accounts are not designed to address the solvency issue...'"

"This is just an out and out falsehood isn't it..."

Do you remember the big press briefing on the SS private account proposal given by "Mr Senior Administration Official" just before the State of the Union Address, which got so much publicity at the time?

Q.: ... am I right in assuming that in the way you describe this, because it's a wash in terms of the net effect on Social Security from the accounts by themselves, that it would be fair to describe this as having -- the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: ... that's a fair inference.

Try to find an administration projection for private accounts that says different.

OK, since private accounts aren't intended to affect solvency at all, arguing against them on the grounds they don't is bogus nonsense.

Now say again that in that column when PK said Greenspan made no arguments in favor of private accounts, PK was of course considering only arguments for improving solvency. ;-)

Well, of course, it's true, he was!

OTOH, if you want to say the Bush Adminstration has done one sucky awful bad job at explaining the ideas behind its proposal to the public, that's true too.

They've made public presentations I've barely understood after going over them three times.

[Jim Glass]

The Minuteman wrote:

"The absurd magnitude of that correction can only be appreciated fully by reading his Feb 13 2000 column ..."

And by reading the correction itself in your hands in the dead-tree version of the paper.

It was set below the regular column, with no context, in especially small "teeny weeny type", about half the size of the normal type of the column, so you had to squint to read it.

If there'd been any more like it I would've thought the Times was running a co-promotion on magnifying lenses.

I remember it all well. I was a big fan of PK when he was at Slate, and very happy to seem him come to my home town paper. Yeah, he had a problem with righteous name calling and writing things in anger (Fraga, Arthur/Arrow, etc. ) but when he disciplined himself to sticking to facts all that dropped out and he was really very good.

I assumed that nobody would want to be embarrassed by making factual errors in the op-ed pages of the Times (Bob, Mo ... whatever was I thinking???) so we'd get only the best of him.

This column was about a month after he started. I work with this stuff for a living, so my morning coffee was dripping out of my open mouth as I recognized it for the whopper howler it was. Then, later, came the itsy-bitsy teeny "nevermind".

And then I realized we were going to be getting all the righteous name calling with the discipline imposed by facts dropping out. And so it has been.

The final irony is Krugman's attitude towards admission of error...

the Bush administration has an infallibility complex: it never, ever, admits making a mistake. And that kind of arrogance tends, eventually, to bring disaster.

Oh, OK, the irony will never be final with PK. ;-)

[TM]

I believe the column was in relation to Greenspan's testimony in front of a panel on the solvency of social security.

I believe in looking things up.

Here is the MSNBC account Jim left earlier; here is the FRB transcript of his opening statement.

The transcript gives a hint as to the forum:

Federal Reserve Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress

Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

February 16, 2005

Chairman Greenspan presented identical testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, on February 17, 2005

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to present the Federal Reserve's Monetary Policy Report to the Congress. In the seven months since I last testified before this Committee, the U.S. economic expansion has firmed, overall inflation has subsided, and core inflation has remained low.

And so on -he went on for quite a while about the economic outlook. In the Q&A (for which I have not seen a transcript) Senators were free to raise other issues, and Social Security came up.

So Wilbur, cling to your beliefs. But I believe you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Wilbur]

Uhm now wait a minute. Before a State of the Union an unnamed source (they type of source the Whitehouse now claims should never be used) said the private accounts have nothing to do with solvency, and the in the televised State of the Union which is arguably the most important speech the president gives during the year he really punches the solvency card in bringing up private accounts - and you are saying this single blind sourced briefing give the entire Bush administration a pass on linking solvency to private accounts? Come on, do you really believe that, or is it just reaching?

As for Greenspan, you yourself say he was talking about monetary policy. Private accounts the way you are describing them really have very little to do with federal monetary policy, which would be primarily concerned with the deficit and the issue of debt which is directly related to the key social security issue. (I'm not an economist but even I know that Greenspan's rationalization concerns micro/family economics rather than macro/national policy. Honestly, I think you are grasping at straws here.

[Steven J.]

TOTAL PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
(IN THOUSANDS)

BUSH 2
JAN 2001 111560
APR 2005 111543

NET == -17

SOURCE: WWW.BLS.GOV

[MB]

"It might be necessary to control the money supply indirectly, by working through interest rates."

That's what they were doing all along. They do control interest rates, they don’t control the money supply. The Fed provides the banks with as much liquidity as they demand at whatever the interest rate is.

"In the early 1980s, both the US and the UK set interest rates according to Friedman-style targets for money-supply growth." This is true.

[TM]

More from Wilbur:

As for Greenspan, you yourself say he was talking about monetary policy.

Actually, Wilbur, *you* were quite specific - here is your quote, again:

I believe the column was in relation to Greenspan's testimony in front of a panel on the solvency of social security.

I said he was presenting his semi-annual testimony to Congress, and the Senators were free to ask about anything of interest to them in the Q&A.

Where the fantasy about a panel on the solvency on Social Security came from, I have no idea. Maybe an alternate universe.

the Bush administration has an infallibility complex: it never, ever, admits making a mistake.

LOL.

[Wilbur]

All right it was a panel on monetary policy and not social security solvency. You still haven't spoken to my substantive points which are,

Bush did tie solvency to his private account - he did it very vociferously,

and

Greenspan was talking in the context of macro economic policy.

"Grasping at straws, grasping at straws," he said with a sad shake of his head.

[Jim Glass]

Sheesh...

"Greenspan was talking in the context of macro economic policy."

What point do you imagine you are making?

Greespan spent five hours (it's on video, or was at the committee website -- I spent a good bit of time watching it) talking about SS answering every question asked by every Congressman in whatever context the Congressman put it -- not in the context that you want to put it in.

But if you want to keep saying "macro policy, macro policy", fine!

Greenspan said as a matter of macro policy reasons to support private accounts were that they would increase national savings, increase capital investment and future production, reduce the budget crunch of 30 years from now by prefunding benefits (it's a lot easier to tax or borrow today than it will be with 20% of GDP deficits!), secure the benefit income of retirees against the future cash crunch, and reduce wealth inequality too. All as *quoted* in the media via the link I posted before.

So there's a bunch of macro reasons that he gave for supporting private accounts.

You somehow think this helps justify Krugman saying that he gave no reason at all?? ;-)

BTW, even if you reject reducing wealth inequality as a "macro" reason, for Krugman to reject it is another enjoyable example of his selective slicing and dicing.

Krugman's written maybe 100 columns damning economic inequality as a terrible malignancy across our society.

So Greenspan makes an impassioned plea for private accounts as a device for reducing wealth inequality, just what Krugman wants -- and Krugman, instead of dealing with it on the merits, puts his thumbs in his ears and his fingers over his eyes and says "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"

Then, when it's over, Krugman reports to his readers that Greenspan gave "no justification at all" for supporting private accounts!!

Ha, ha, ha! That's our Paul!! ;-)

[Brad DeLong]

Okrent's column is really weird...

Okrent knows that two BLS researchers wrote about changes in estimates of the average duration of unemployment that may have come about as a result of the 1994 CPS survey redesign, but whoever told him about this did not also tell him that their conclusion was that the 1994 redesign may have raised the average duration of unemployment by approximately one week--not a change that matters for much.

Okrent thinks--presumably because somebody told him--that the rule-of-thumb that the economy needs 140,000 or so new payroll jobs each month to keep labor market conditions stable is derived from the CPS survey, when it is actually an estimate of the current overall trend in payroll employment.

Somebody has been using Okrent as a patsy.

[Jon Henke]

Okrent thinks--presumably because somebody told him--that the rule-of-thumb that the economy needs 140,000 or so new payroll jobs each month to keep labor market conditions stable is derived from the CPS survey, when it is actually an estimate of the current overall trend in payroll employment.

I'm not sure what Okrent's position is here, but that rule of thumb is a bad one. Since 2001, the monthly increase in the size of the labor force has been much, much lower than 140,000. That number shouldn't have been cited at all.

[TM]

Somebody has been using Okrent as a patsy.

Can I put five dollars down that the initials "DL" will be a winner?

I feel bad that I gave up hectoring Okrent - who knew he was listening?

If he was a bigger target (or I were a bigger man) I would wack my man Don. My secret prayer was that he would not mention the "divide by ten" jobs debacle, but of course, he opened with it.

My official view was that Krugman was less wrong than Luskin (and Max Sawicky swept up after the elephant this time).

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "I'm not sure what Okrent's position is here, but that rule of thumb is a bad one. Since 2001, the monthly increase in the size of the labor force has been much, much lower than 140,000..."

Exactly. That's a reason to be unhappy with the state of the labor market--a reason reinforced by the fact that the excess supply of labor has been big enough to keep more than a trickle of productivity gains from flowing through to boost real wages.

[Scott McArthur]

Jim,
I don't understand why you expect Krugman to write Greenspan's subtle propaganda into his columns?
Because you agree with Greenspan's idea?
It was a do-it-because-it's-good-for-the-children justification for private accounts that is completely unrelated to efficiency or stability of the system.
Why should we buy heritage foundation red herrings?
Then you turn around and accuse Krugman of being dishonest for not reporting the lie you want.
Clever.

[Jon Henke]

That's a reason to be unhappy with the state of the labor market--a reason reinforced by the fact that the excess supply of labor has been big enough to keep more than a trickle of productivity gains from flowing through to boost real wages.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another point of view would observe that we experienced a bubble in the mid-late 90s that drew a lot of people into the labor market. Once that bubble popped, thing settled back down to almost exactly the same labor participation rate that we had in 1994.

Is 64.4% the optimal rate? I don't know, but the fact that the only time we ever had such a high rate of labor participation was during a bubble seems to indicate to me that the labor market is simply finding a normal equilibrium, rather than suffering from some sort of policy-induced malaise.

And if it's the former, then it's worth including that fact when noting that payrolls and wages aren't increasing as fast as they were in the build-up to the bubble. I mean, if we can stipulate that the late 90s were a bubble, then that means we were necessarily operating above equilibrium.

So, why is it a policy problem when we operate below that equilibrium?

[Jim Glass]

"Jim, I don't understand why you expect Krugman to write Greenspan's subtle propaganda into his columns?"

Greenspan gives reasons A, B, C, & D for why he supports private accounts.

Krugman reports to his readers: "Greenspan offered no excuse for supporting privatization."

And you say this is correct because Krugman shouldn't repeat Greenspan's "subtle propaganda". ;-)

Boy, what passes for truth in the we-make-our-own-reality based community is really entertaining these days!

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "Is 64.4% the optimal rate? I don't know, but the fact that the only time we ever had such a high rate of labor participation was during a bubble seems to indicate to me that the labor market is simply finding a normal equilibrium, rather than suffering from some sort of policy-induced malaise."

The fact that the gap between real compensation and productivity has massively widened is very strong evidence that there's substantial deficiency in labor demand...

[Paul Zrimsek]

How do you guys decide that our productivity statistics are veridical, so our unemployment statistics must be bad? Offhand, I'd think the latter is quite a bit easier to measure accurately.

[TM]

OK, here is a helpful chart of productivity v. compensation going back to the early 80's.

Now, here is an observation that may serve as a misdirection play - the productivity and compensation stats are *average*, not marginal - maybe the next worker to be hired (in sooo many different industries) is just not productive enough to be worth it.

Why this gap between average and marginal is so much wider than ordinary now is a new question.

[Wilbur]

Jim Glass,

The difference between micro and macro is a very big thing. It involves two different arenas of activity. I am sorry if you have trouble understanding that. I could suggest some texts for you.

As far as Greenspan's testimony, I'm sorry but right now I believe you are bluffing about how much of it you actually have witnessed or read. I will say this though, if you can give me one other example from the entire five hours where Greenspan responds to policy questions with a micro system/economics analysis (and I would ask for both a quote of the question and the answer) I have no trouble apologizing and saying that perhaps in this instance Krugman was being selective. If however, you are unable to provide this I would suggest the best course of action would be an apology to Mr. Krugman for your ad hominem attacks.

From a logical perspective unfortunately the burden of proof is on you. The question for me is did Greenspan not use a micro analysis in any other part of his discussion. Because you can't prove a negative there is no way I can prove that. The question for you is did Greenspan use a micro analysis in another area, thus suggesting that his discussion of family economics in relation to social security privitization was not an opportunisitic red herring as it were. That is eminently provable. Good luck and hope to hear from you.

[TM]

Wilbur - the goalposts have moved so far that I can't even remember what game we are playing.

But, at least in my reality, we are adressing the question of whether these statements by Krugman are accurate:

"On Wednesday Mr. Greenspan endorsed Social Security privatization ... he offered no justification at all ... Mr. Greenspan offered no excuse for supporting privatization"

No, perhaps I am being dull and unimaginative, but it seems to me that evidence of Greenspan offering justifications for privatization would falsify that assertion.

Now, at one time your position was that Greenspan's justifications were out of bounds because he was speaking at a panel on Social Security solvency, and his rationales strayed from that theme.

Your current position seems to be, hmm, unless somewhere in the five hours Greenspan offered a similar micro-based arguemnt on some other topic, this micro-based answer does not count?

Why does that make any sense at all? Just for starters, wouldn't it depend on just what questions and topics the Senators chose to raise?

Or should Greenspan demand some other micro-based questions in order to justify his earlier micro-based answer?

Wilbur, you have done yeoman work in demonstrating the argumentative qualities and capabilities of a certain type of Krugman acolyte. Give it a rest.

And while resting, puzzle over this:

The question for me is did Greenspan not use a micro analysis in any other part of his discussion. Because you can't prove a negative there is no way I can prove that.

Don't get lazy now - some negatives can be proved, if the data under discussion is sufficiently limited. Just watch the five hours and see for yourself.

Or, if you don't beleive me, I can prove a negative right now - no one in this discussion thread has (as yet) typed in a mention Superman's relationship with the puzzling Mr. Mxyzptlk.

That said, I cannot prove that no one commenting here thought of Mr. Mxyzptlk, but decided not to mention him.

Extraordinary. The things we learn, about the inabilty to prove a negative.

[TM]

Filed under "Cheap Shots I hope I remember to post someday", Krugman subfile:

Paul Krugman is the only winner of both the John Bates Clark Medal for economics writing, and the Norman Bates Medal for political commentary.

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "That said, I cannot prove that no one commenting here thought of Mr. Mxyzptlk.."

*I* think of Mr. Mxyzptlk often...

[Wilbur]

TM,

I'm sorry but in current discourse there are rules of logic (pretty much no matter how you define logic, from the logical positivists, to Dewey's Inquiry, to the Post Modern logic suggested by Foucault pretty much one constant is that you cannot prove a negative and you should not try (perhaps a little Karl Popper is in order). It has nothing to do with laziness, it has to do with general sense of social communication. One of the really frightening things that has happened to our discourse of late is that common rules of social discourse has been thrown out the window in order to meet ideological or otherwise arational needs. Think of what would happen if this broke down. One country could go to another country "Prove that you don't have weapons of mass destruction or we will attack you." Something like this would of course already presuppose an attack based on this statement because there is no way to prove a negative. However if you dispense with that rule what might happen is that the attacking country would attack only to find that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Let's try and keep the whole idea of it being impossible to prove a negative so we don't wind up dealing with this type of nightmare situation. You know, for the good of humanity. Even if it means snarky comments like "don't be lazy" which devalue the discourse just a little bit.

As for watching the five hours of Greenspan. I said up front that I didn't. Jim Glass said that he did to prove his point. I challenged him to them use his knowledge to prove me wrong (that Greenspan was not reaching for an arational justification which would, by definition, not be a reason).

This is my entire point. That Greenspan's comments did not fit in the context of the discussion, therefore it was not a rational comment, therefore it did not represent a reason. It is very easy to prove me wrong (by the way do you have Popper on your shelf?) Just come up with one single example that is unrelated to privitization where he does the same thing. I am setting the bar for you and your friends very low on purpose (usually you would have to show more and how it fits in to a pattern, but what the hell, I feel like apologizing).

If you talk about economics you can probably wipe the floor with me. If you are talking about social discourse, which is what your argument is about, go to the library.

[TM]

So if I am following, Jim Glass and I should either apologize to Krugman or invade Iraq. Or is it North Korea?

I think it's a bit late for an argument from authority, Wilbur. But feel free to set the bar wherever you like - I don't have any inclination to jump over it, any reason to think you would acknowledge it if I did, and any confidence that you won't invent a new standard if I do (and, if I am counting correctly, that would be your third).

Save us all some time - go tell your friends that you won your argument defending Krugman with a masterful demonstration that one cannot prove a negative. I think the only person you have convinced is yourself, but that should suffice, yes?

[Wilbur]

ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of a fool. At least they used to be. Now they get you book contracts and your own television show.

[Harry Arthur]

Now we're being lectured about ad hominem attacks?

And, no I don't have Popper on my shelf. Will Pepper do?

"I'm sorry but in current discourse there are rules of logic (pretty much no matter how you define logic, from the logical positivists, to Dewey's Inquiry, to the Post Modern logic suggested by Foucault pretty much one constant is that you cannot prove a negative and you should not try (perhaps a little Karl Popper is in order)." Aren't we lecturing just the slightest bit condescendingly here? I'd have to say that as far as logical arguments go, Tom's is by far one of the better more stimulating sites I've seen. I certainly see very little logical argument from the left these days unless a pie in the eye or a good personal attack qualifies. And pardon me for trodding the sacred ground of Paul Krugman's opinions but he's one of the very first to throw out a good ad hominem, even to the point of suggesting that he can discern motives.

Finally, I know you've got this big "issue" with proving a negative, even to the point of sneaking in a tangential reference to the Iraq war. Of course we weren't asking Saddam to prove a negative at all, were we? What we were really doing is asking him to simply abide by the multiple UN resolutions requiring him to disarm and to produce the evidence of having disarmed to UN inspectors who were to have unfettered access to his facilities. Kind of a "not-so-logical" leap to suggest otherwise - all in the context of the "rules of logic" while we're on the subject of course.

[Wilbur]

All right, let's try and raise the discourse just a little bit shall way. But first, your comment on ad hominem attacks seems to something like this.

You say: You're a bastard

I say: Please don't call me a bastard

You say: Don't lecture me on calling you a bastard you bastard.

Sort of the John Bolton view of discussion - oh, I forgot, he's going to be our U.N. Ambassador.

I was just discussing last night with some colleagues how difficult it is to convince students that they need to make evidence based arguments. To tell you the truth it is close to impossible. What we concluded is that when highly paid media analysts don't feel the need to make evidence based arguments how do we convince students. I will say this over and over, you do your society great harm by diminishing the discourse simply to serve your own ideological needs.

In the spirit please provide an example where Krugman uses ad hominem attacks. I'm sure he's had at least one slip, but I don't remember him doing this. I'm sure you know ad hominem means "after the person". Trying to discern a person's motive's from their actions is not an ad hominem attack. As a matter of fact if you read any of the literature on perspective taking that is what we are supposed to do as mature adults.

Now to get back to the argument. The issue of not proving a negative was tangential, but I believe in the larger scheme important because when we don't obey this rule it leads to tremendous social problems (I pointed out just one. I am sorry if it upset you but I think if you actually go back and look at the history of what happened it is pretty much on the money).

My major argument was that Greenspan offered a reason for social security conversation which I believed was out of context, therefore irrelevant to the conversation and arational. This is because Greenspan offered a microsystem analysis in a macrosystem discussion. Let me try and give you another example.

Let us say we are discussing universal health care. The discussion is what impact with universal health care have on our budget policy. After discussing the issue a few hours and not being able to come up with any reasons why it would be good for budget policy (this is just for the sake of argument, I actually think you can come up with reasons) I say, "Yes, but you should have universal health care because it will put more money in people's pockets and allow them to buy more clothes for their children." Now this is certainly a reason in the broad sense of the word but is totally unrelated to our conversation. If you put it in more scientific terms it is what you would call a false positive. It seems a reason but it is not for other logical reasons. This is what I believed Greenspan did. Now the argument against this is that Greenspan always meant to include microanalysis in his discussion. Interestingly enough here is where we get back to your discussion of motives. Is there any way to determine his motives? Well there is one. We ask, did he bring up the issue of microanalysis before so it is a pattern in his discussion points. The idea of pattern is very important. But as I said, I am fine with keeping the bar relatively low and ask you for just one examplar when he did this.

By the way, it is true I made a mistake about the type of panel Greenspan was speaking in front of (though not the context) and I apologized for that.

All right, because the first response might easily be an ad hominem attack (based on patterns of response mind you), let me get that out of the way and respond to myself.

"You God damned leftie you always have to be right and you always think you know everything. Well big deal, go tell your friends you had the last word and you made the better argument, which isn't true at all you better know because Tom and everybody else is so much smarter than you and that guy Krugman and anyway everything you said we do Krugman does. I'm rubber and you're glue and everything you say bounces off me and sticks to Krugman and you. Nah - nah - nah. Boy am I smart to make this great argument back to you."

[molo]

[http:statisticsoftheworld.page.tl/]