Thursday, October 9
Arnold Kling, some dweeby dude from TechCentralStation, has a (for me) spot-on letter to Paul Krugman about what constitutes a reasonable argument. It nails one of the reasons I have such a strong distaste for Krugman and why I'm typically mum about my political inclinations with people outside my core friends. These type of M arguments that Kling lays out have been going on for long enough now that they have become "common wisdom". Conservatives hate the environment, they hate blacks, they hate the poor, they want to "get rid of the Head Start program" and so on. That's frustrating because it's not true, and it's nearly impossible to break. It's lost at the start based on incorrect assumptions.
The frustration doesn't end there for me with Krugman however. I think he's worse than Kling suggests. I think his motives are far from pure. I'm not sure why, but I just can't get over the fact that Krugman... a professional economist, teaching at one of the most premiere schools in the country can honestly talk about the 'huge, wasted surplus' and not have other purposes in mind. He quotes off the ten-year projection numbers like they were fact and guranteed. He does this without note and nothing to point out that such projections have never been right. He ignores evidence of a slowdown as far back as fourth quarter 1999 (first layoffs at DoubleClick, mind you) and shoves it all at the foot of the "tax breaks for the rich" and GWB.
Now, I have no idea if the tax cuts were a good idea. I know that it's been tried in a similar spot not long ago and it didn't work out so well. But I also know that not enough did I hear a quality explanation of the counter-point, instead all I heard from that side is that GWB was giving breaks to his friends. And if you're Paul Krugman, you should be much, much, much better than that. It could sway my opinion if clearly illustrated, but when it's done with M methods, I swing the other way.
And who knows? Maybe they did do something.
The frustration doesn't end there for me with Krugman however. I think he's worse than Kling suggests. I think his motives are far from pure. I'm not sure why, but I just can't get over the fact that Krugman... a professional economist, teaching at one of the most premiere schools in the country can honestly talk about the 'huge, wasted surplus' and not have other purposes in mind. He quotes off the ten-year projection numbers like they were fact and guranteed. He does this without note and nothing to point out that such projections have never been right. He ignores evidence of a slowdown as far back as fourth quarter 1999 (first layoffs at DoubleClick, mind you) and shoves it all at the foot of the "tax breaks for the rich" and GWB.
Now, I have no idea if the tax cuts were a good idea. I know that it's been tried in a similar spot not long ago and it didn't work out so well. But I also know that not enough did I hear a quality explanation of the counter-point, instead all I heard from that side is that GWB was giving breaks to his friends. And if you're Paul Krugman, you should be much, much, much better than that. It could sway my opinion if clearly illustrated, but when it's done with M methods, I swing the other way.
And who knows? Maybe they did do something.
View My Stats