Paul Krugman vs. Dan Okrent (Daily Howler)

[springhill]

Is Dan Okrent doing the Bush Administrations's bidding? I don't think it is just coincidence that the biggest critic of Bush has been smeared in such a manner.

WHEN FOPS ATTACK: Okrent v Krugman? Just like that, it has all been posted, on the Times public editor’s site. First, Paul Krugman replies to the nasty attacks in Dan Okrent’s final column. Okrent then responds to Krugman; finally, Krugman makes a brief closing post. And what has come from this exchange? Incredibly, Okrent’s specific complaints against Krugman are even more daft than we would have expected. As we’ll see below, Okrent has to struggle hard to come up with any complaints at all; indeed, to build his total up to five, he has to cut-and-paste something Krugman brought up in his initial reply! Meanwhile, how inane are the mighty Okrent’s objections? Here is one of his five complaints, with an explanation by Brad DeLong:
COMPLAINT BY OKRENT: 2/3/04 assertion that tax proposals offered by Democrats would help the 77 percent of taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket or less. The most recent generally accepted figures available at the time indicated that the number was actually 64 percent.
EXPLANATION BY DELONG: I believe that 77% of all taxpayers are in the 15% bracket or less; 64% of those who pay income taxes to the Treasury are in the 15% bracket or less; there are a bunch of people who pay taxes but not income taxes.

In short, Krugman’s assertion from 2/3/04 was perfectly accurate, as you can see if you link to his column. (Note that Okrent has to search back sixteen months to come up with even this bungled complaint.) Krugman himself says this, in his brief final post: “I could explain why 77 percent, not 64 percent, is the right number, but does it really matter? The only significant example was his claim that I blended household and establishment survey data on jobs, in an attempt to score political points. But as I showed in the previous note, I didn't and in the column itself I pointed readers to the correct data.” Krugman’s demolition of this, Okrent’s “only significant example,” is at the public editor’s site.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

[springhill]

1. Sheesh....

And I thought people would want to read this. Another newsperson in the pocket of this administration.

[LynnTheDem]

2. Every sentient being on the planet knows Paul Krugman is an

unimpeachable, highly credible, very expert expert.

Anyone saying otherwise is an idiot, so there's no need to read anyone's detailed precis showing how Krugman was/is 100% accurate and how Okrent is a 100% idiot.

All idiots are bushbots. Obviously.

Although it is fun to watch Okrent admirably demonstrate what a total brainless idiot he is. :)

[BurtWorm]

3. Here's the actual confrontation.

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/publiceditorswebjournal/index.html

Sample of Krugman's argument:

Krugman Lays Out Why He Believes Okrent Was Wrong

When I asked Daniel Okrent for the specifics behind his final attack, he offered two examples of what he claimed was improper use of numbers. This was the first time I heard from him, or anyone else, about either alleged problem.

:thumbsup:

Sample of Okrent's incredible whining!:

Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don’t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. 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.


:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

4. If you want a good laugh at Okrent's expense, this is a must read!

:rofl:

"No, there’s nothing wrong with making big bucks, or with gulping down tripe, or with cross-referencing your jazz collection as your nation’s political wars are unfolding. But only a fop would then believe that he was equipped to discuss Paul Krugman—a man who developed his manifest talents, then fought his generation’s current wars. Plainly, Okrent wasn’t up to the task. But overpaid, over-praised Manhattan fops are never quite able to see that."

[river2]

5. Okrent is just a wierdo

a plain wierdo....

[newyawker99]

6. Hi river2!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: