Is This Spinning, Ignorance, or Just Blantant Stupidity?

[Composed Thinker]

Is this spinning, ignorance, or just blantant stupidity?

Posted 12:11 PM by Robert Musil
The Ecs Come For Herr Doktorprofessor!

Arnold Kling <http://www.techcentralstation.com/100703B.html> posted a thoughtful article explaining how and why Herr Doktorprofessor Paul Krugman has gone so badly off course. Kling argues in part that Herr Doktorprofessor routinely fails to establish economic facts or likelihoods, but instead imputes the motives of any person who disagrees with him - often asserting that the person is lying.

Don Luskin <http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_10_05_chronArchive.asp#106559950095458455> points out - I think quite correctly - that Herr Doktorprofessor's problems go further and deeper than those described by Kling:

With the imprimatur of his Princeton professorship and the New York Times, Krugman dares to hold his own opinions so sacred that to differ with them is to lie. Krugman is lying about lying.

With the imprimatur of his Princeton professorship and the New York Times, Krugman dares to hold his own opinions so sacred that to differ with them is to lie. Krugman is lying about lying.

Luskin's point is very well taken. Indeed, my reference to Paul Krugman as Herr Doktorprofessor in this blog is an allusion to his tendency (now an obsession) to treat his own attenuated economics arguments as TRUTH, as some of the more bombastic professors in 19th century german universities were infamous for doing. Herr Doktorprofessor's columns scream: YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME, I AM A FULL PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AT PRINCETON, I HAVE WON THE CLARK MEDAL AND I WRITE TOO OFTEN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES. AGREE WITH ME OR YOU ARE A BASE LIAR, AN ENEMY OF SCIENCE AND OF REASON ITSELF ... AND A DUMMER KOPF! And he does this despite the fact that his economics arguments are increasing pale and specious, and - as with his most recent embarrassing and confused extrusion <http://www.pkarchive.org/column/101003.html> - entirely gone, with the column having the intellectual content of a stuck-out-tongue. Charming.

OpinionJournal today provides a spectacular example of Don Luskin's point in the form of an article by three distinguished economics professors <http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004152>, Gary S. Becker http://www.src.uchicago.edu/users/gsb1/], Edward P. Lazear <http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/lazear.html> and Kevin M. Murphy http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/kevin.murphy/research/]. Professor Becker is, of course, a winner of a Nobel Prize in economics, and Professor Murphy is a winner of the John Bates Clark Medal <http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/97/970314.murphy.shtml> of the American Economic Association, which is also Paul Krugman's greatest credential. The OpinionJournal article begins and ends as follows:

Every Democratic candidate for president has called for rolling back all or part of George W. Bush's tax cuts. All politics aside, and with the economy showing signs of recovery, perhaps now is the right time to revisit the rationale behind tax reductions and what seems to be an excessive fear of budget deficits. ....

The evidence is clear: Cutting taxes will have beneficial effects. Tax cuts will keep government spending in check and will provide the incentives necessary to produce a highly skilled, productive work force that enables high economic growth and rising standards of living.

I do not want to argue here that these three worthies are right (I agree with them, that is irrelevant). But I do want to point out that Herr Doktorprofessor has repeatedly treated his conclusion that the Bush tax cuts and the deficits he associates with them are dreadful for the nation as indisputable, economic, scientific facts - and he has correspondingly bottomed many of his hysterical (in both of the common meanings of that term) assertions that the President is a base liar on that "economic fact" and his observation that the President just doesn't see things the way Herr Doktorprofessor does on this point. Herr Doktorprofessor routinely and repeatedly argues that it is a fact that the tax cuts are ineluctably dragging the nation down the path of economic decline already traveled by Argentina. If there is one person on the globe whose writings express an excessive fear of budget deficits, it is Paul Krugman. In short, this OpinionJournal article is not directed at Herr Doktorprofessor Krugman (these three authors couldn't be bothered with such an insignificant target, I am sure) - but the article does, incidentally, demonstrate the fault line in his thinking.

So long ago, as the forces of Herr Doktorprofessor Kraugaman pillaged the fair valleys of economics and public policy, the Man Without Qualities pined <http://musil.blogspot.com/2002_12_22_musil_archive.html#86641819>:

Yes, it is true that with each <http://deinonychus.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_deinonychus_archive.html#86600579> Kraugaman foray <http://jottings.blogspot.com/2002_12_22_jottings_archive.html#90095653> a fellowship <http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/001617.html> of the ring of Kraugaman <http://www.justoneminute.blogspot.com/> watchers sallies <http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp> forth to flood <http://www.jaycaruso.com/archives/001086.html> the zone with Kraugaman-corrective <http://hoystory.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_hoystory_archive.html#90094054> critiques <http://www.tvh.blogspot.com/2002_12_22_tvh_archive.html#86563012>. But where is the powerful if slow moving leader to arouse the Ecs <http://economics.uchicago.edu/>- the ancient shepherds of economic intellectual growth! Do they think this is not their battle?

What will it take to stir them to flood the zone at Ostelfenbeinturm as Treebeard led the Ents to flood the zone at Isengard <http://valarguild.org/varda/Tolkien/encyc/ents.html#Beechbone_>!

Or will the Ecs hold off indefinitely? As one Ec remarked about an advocate of dangerous market and price regulation fulsomely praised <http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/opinion/24KRUG.html> by Kraugaman: "I think we have better things to do than beat up a straw man <http://musil.blogspot.com/2002_12_08_musil_archive.html#85950936>."

MORE <http://www.musil.blogspot.com/2002_12_29_musil_archive.html#86756332> and MORE <http://www.musil.blogspot.com/2002_12_29_musil_archive.html#86719370>.

And now, tho the ecs write in an elliptical manner uniquely their own, it has come to pass. The Ecs seem to have completed some inconceivably long council and concluded that the kind of argument that Herr Doktorprofessor and others, such as the Democratic presidential wannabees, have been offering for so long is just bad economics and contrary to the clear evidence that cutting taxes - including these Bush tax cuts - will have beneficial effects.

Now, is Herr Doktorprofessor going to accuse Professors Becker, Lazear and Murphy of lying? Or is he going to admit that his accusations against the President and Congressional Republicans amount to nothing more than criticisms of their failure to accept Herr Doktorprofessor's side of an academic dispute on which the better economists substantially agree with the President?

And, if Herr Doktorprofessor doesn't make such an admission, who's doing the lying then?

http://musil.blogspot.com/2003_10_12_musil_archive.html#106598586651460905

[priller]

1. Since Krugman is one of the most effective Bush critics out there

he has spawned a whole cottage industry of haters and slimers. They can't debate him on the issues, so they just call him names and make fun of him. Luskin, especially, is deranged.

[wtmusic]

2. Luskin is infatuated with Krugman

Read some of Luskin's prior articles on Krugman. He supposedly loathes him, then waits in line so Paul will sign his book; he goes into minute detail recording Krugman's gestures, breaths, and even lip smacks (for real)...

IMO he wants Krugman to tie him up and paddle his 'supply side'.

[Composed Thinker]

3. To both you and the person above:

it appears Luskin is now obssessed with Krugman to the point of stalking him. It is, as you both asserted, creepy.

[demgrrrll]

4. Is Krugman still up for the Nobel prize or has that been decided?

I had heard that he was a contender. If he does win that will really drive those folks around the bend. The Nobel prize for economics. Tough to argue with that. What you posted seems like incoherent rambling rather than spin. How do you manage to wade through that nonsensical speech? I'm curious about what you were able to make of the postings. I am unable to make any sense at all of the material.

[Composed Thinker]

10. You'll laugh at what Luskin/Bartlett imply about Krugman's possible Nobel

"Nope. Clive Granger and Robert Engle. Reuters reports: "U.S. economist Robert Engle and Britain's Clive Granger have won the 2003 Nobel economics prize for inventing models used to evaluate investment risk and study the relations between simultaneous economic phenomena. 'This year's Laureates devised new statistical methods for dealing with two key properties of many economic time series: time-varying volatility and non-stationarity,' the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday. The two men share the 10 million Swedish crown ($1.3 million) prize, which has been awarded since 1969."

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002420.html

I often wonder if I am missing something when I read through that, so I post it here. But like you, it often seems like nonsense, or worse yet, incoherent nonense.

And yes, if Krugman did win the Nobel Prize, that would drive his detractors nuts. (As he pointed out, however, he already won the Clark Medal, and according to him, that's slightly harder to win than the Nobel Prize.) You'll really get a kick out of what Luskin and Bruce Bartlett imply about Krugman and the Nobel Prize: they feel that all of the good work has already been awarded, and that people like Krugman really don't deserve it. No, I'm not kidding you. A college drop out feels that way about a world renowned economist.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Liebes Gott!!!

If that's a blog, I would hope he knows a bit more about economics than the English language.

At any rate, I can't help notice the proliferation of Chicago School types quoted.

Chicago-- home of the Laffer Curve and Supply Side. I swear that place exists only to come up with half-assed excuses for rightwing excesses. The obverse-Keynesians... deficits are good, but only if they don't buy anything worthwhile, like roads and stuff.

[Mairead]

6. Certainly partly arrogant ignorance

For example (and I point this out as a symptom of his uncaring ignorance, not because it's important in itself) it's not hard to discover that the conventional German phrase would be 'Herr Professor Doktor Krugman' or 'der/the Herr Professor' if using 3rd person. Under no circumstances would it be 'Herr Doktorprofessor'. So he's someone trying to be cleverly sarcastic by using German social forms for someone of German descent, but only making himself look a fool by bungling the job.

[hippywife]

7. Okay! I vote blatant stupidity!!

I'll put it in simple terms so this bombastic idiot will understand it better.

If I'm running my household and I have a mortgage and bills to pay, groceries to buy, and all of a sudden the car decides to blow up, I don't tell my employer..."No, no...that's okay! I don't need a paycheck. You keep it." And then go on a Marshall Fields shopping spree. :eyes:

Krugman is just being pilloried for calling it like it is. The man is Sec. of Treasury material. :)

[Composed Thinker]

11. You know, I don't agree with Kucinich on a lot of things, particularly

his stances on pulling out of NAFTA and so forth. But the main stands up for what he believes in and isn't afraid to speak his mind. I just thought I'd mention that.

While Luskin and Bartlett imply that Krugman isn't Nobel material, Luskin also says that Krugman has ruined all of his chances for ever getting the top economic advising job for a Democratic president. How the hell he thinks that knows is beyond me. Wouldn't it be wonderful, though, if Krugman were picked for such a position? Luskin would go insane.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. What bullshit nonsense

"Tax cuts will keep government spending in check"

Well, you'd think. But nooooo.

"Federal tax receipts relative to the overall economy have reached their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, while government spending has climbed to the highest point since Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over, according to new figures released by the Congressional Budget Office."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10618-2003Oct10.html

Which of these things is bad for the economy: a "tax and spend liberal" or a "slash tax and overspend neo-conservative"?

[Bandit]

13. "Tax cuts will keep government spending in check"

But I thought the basis behind Supply Side Economics was that Tax Cuts provide for more spending money. Tax Revenues are supposed to rise so spending can also. I guess this is a hidden admission that the goal isn't really increased revenues but cutting social programs.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

9. Check Krugman's NYT Forum

Luskin and every other wing-nut, would-be Randian thinker spend way too much time trying to establish how wrong Krugman's thinking is and how right their econo-babble is. It's as close to the "thousand monkeys with typewriters" experiment as you'll ever get.

[Composed Thinker]

12. Is that a reference to a part of "The Simpsons? Or am I...

thinking of a reference that was on "The Simpsons" but not created by the show?

[LoneStarLiberal]

14. Economics As Art, Art As Science

Much of what goes on in these debates is art, not science.

The art in economics debates is talking past one another while using science to justify your invincibility.

I do at times think that Krugman is guilty of such behavior...but far less so than the schills and hacks that always sally forth to do battle on behalf of the administration's latest wealthy welfare policy.

It boils down to whether or not you believe that giving tax cuts to wealthy people is fair when you could give them to the middle class and lower class instead.

Economics as art, art masquerading as science.

[Composed Thinker]

15. That seems fair

[screaming_meme]

16. What I like about Krugman

Is that he sees tax policy as a form of social engineering, to make sure the rich dont become too wealthy and upset the basic democratic nature of the country. It's pretty hard to argue that tax hikes actually BENEFIT the economy, but Krugman attempts to. But if you read his article in the NYT Magazine from about 6 months ago, you can see the real reasons behind his opposition to tax cuts. And I agree. I dont want to go back to the bad old days of the Gilded Age, Robber Barons, and Upton Sinclair.