Paul Krugman is impressed with Hillary Clinton’s knowledge of the economy. I’m not:
Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Paul
Krugman praises Hillary Clinton as being a presidential candidate who "seems
comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy" ("Responding
to Recession," January 14). Still praising Sen. Clinton, he adds:
"there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re
talking about."
I wonder what grade Professor Krugman would give
to a student whose term paper proclaimed – as Ms. Clinton did last week
when announcing her economic "stimulus" plan – that "You know, the
economists can argue about [whether the country is headed for a
recession]. Some say, yes, it’s going there. Some say, not yet. Some
say, oh, no. But the statistics are one thing, the stories are
something altogether different…. It doesn’t matter what you’re
told. It’s what you feel, what you feel deep down."
In my
class, that answer gets an F. As imperfect as they are, statistics
remain a far better guide to the facts than do feelings.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Sen. Clinton’s husband felt our pain. Now Ms. Clinton feels our facts.
No one should read my letter here (or anything I write elsewhere) as being an implicit endorsement of any other of the candidates. McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Obama, Edwards — each one creeps me out; I’d permit none of these people to set foot in my house. Mark Steyn’s recent take down of the vacuous Obama is well worth reading. (HT Jan Jorgensen)
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 28 comments }
The Mark Steyn article is indeed well worth reading, though I think it takes down the whole lot of candidates, not just Obama, when he argues what the true definition/cause of change is.
Some say, oh, no. But the statistics are one thing, the stories are something altogether different…. It doesn't matter what you're told. It's what you feel, what you feel deep down."
In my class, that answer gets an F. As imperfect as they are, statistics remain a far better guide to the facts than do feelings.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Wow that's interesting. How about the statistics they give regarding "feelings"…I mean consumer confidence? They really mean nothing?
I've said it here many times before … I am at a loss as to how Krugman still gets to be called an economist. If a math PhD. repeatedly told us that 2+2=5, wouldn't he be drummed out of the industry by his peers?
Shooting fish in a barrel …
I don't know much about his academic work, but the Krugman I know is a celebrity talking head rather than an economist. Economics is by far the most political of the social sciences. Scientific economics exists, I suppose, but I don't read much about it in the mass media. I don't read much about Quantum Mechanics either. I read about Schroedinger's Cat, "Quantum Consciousness" and stuff like that instead.
Boudreaux wants a piece of the talking head pie too; otherwise, we'd be discussing something else.
"In my class, that answer gets an F. As imperfect as they are, statistics remain a far better guide to the facts than do feelings."
This is the conservative/liberal divide.
And "..I mean consumer confidence? They really mean nothing?" That's correct. They really do mean nothing.
Tom: "This is the conservative/liberal divide."
All I've heard for the last five years is "be afraid … be very afraid …". And I've heard it mostly from the "conservative" political party, because it happens to hold power at the moment, and the systematic scare campaign has cost taxpayers trillions and funneled billions to wealthy elites a stone's throw from the state.
The nominal "conservatives" are on the way out after a relatively brief hold on power, because you can't fool all of the people all of the time. We can expect the "liberals" next, so I suggest we start reminding them what "liberalism" means historically. That's the best we'll be able to do. If we call them "fools" instead, they'll just do even less of what we say and more of what we do.
Donald J. Boudreaux: “In my class, that answer gets an F. As imperfect as they are, statistics remain a far better guide to the facts than do feelings.”
Which obviously must be of great comfort for those receiving an F and from there go on to a successful political career… in order to get back at those who said that feelings don’t count as much as facts while at the same time, with gusto, they frequently turn a blind eye to some selective facts…just because of feelings.
“If a math PhD. repeatedly told us that 2+2=5, wouldn't he be drummed out of the industry by his peers?”
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl | Jan 14, 2008 10:42:09 AM
Not necessarily since that would mean having PhDs to admit that a PhD could be wrong and which of course is not something to be taken lightly by such a risk-adverse group.
This is of course ignoring that in some circumstances perhaps a 2+2=5 could be right. Who am I to know? I’m no PhD
"Mark Steyn's recent take down of the vacuous Obama is well worth reading."
Vacuous? Fortunately he has a track record. Senator Obama is the only candidate who voted NOT to spend $10,000 of each Americans money to help get the oil companies product to the market. Had everyone voted his way 30,000+ soldiers and their families would still be intact. Likewise he, while not supporting the war, he has been at the forefront of helping the vets as they return war-torn from their tours with increased funding for the VA and other support programs.
In my opinion…those aren't the actions of a vacuous man.
See!! Hillary doesn't understand economics because she said one sentence that sounds kinda tocuhy-feely!!!! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!! OMG, STRING PAUL KRUGMAN UP BY HIS THUMB NAILS!!111
Clinton said: "It's what you feel, what you feel deep down."
Don Boudreaux disagrees: "In my class, that answer gets an F."
But let's compare this to an excerpt by Russell Roberts last fall:
http://cafehayek.com/2007/10/a-few-more-empi.html
"My basic point was that when it comes to high-powered sophisticated statistical techniques, our biases as researchers and as consumers of that research often triumph over truth."
But what is GDP, CPI, etc. other than "high-powered sophisticated statistical techniques"?
Therefore, I have to assume Don would give his co-blogger an F as well. Isn't Don head of the department? Russell, maybe you should be looking for a new job?
"We need to take those (oil company) profits a put them in a strategic energy fund."
If that doesn't sends chills down your spine, I don't know what will.
Bret-
I read the post you cited and you totally missed the point. GDP and CPI are not high-powered statistical techniques, but measurements (albeit imperfect). These measurements may rely on sampling and assumptions, but I believe Russ was clearly referring to a much different class of techniques – "The truth is elusive in complex systems with many things changing at once. It’s hard to isolate the independent effect of one particular variable. When scholars can run hundreds of multivariate regressions at very low cost, it easy to convince yourself that the results that confirm your prior beliefs are the “right “ results. The ones that failed must be the “bad ones.”"
Your post is pretty typical of the "gotcha" that relies on negligence or bad faith.
I should have prefaced that with her reasoning for this was because XOM had just broken the record for largest nominal profit (note the lack of the word margin or real and the use of a single data point).
"Fortunately he has a track record. Senator Obama is the only candidate who voted NOT to spend $10,000 of each Americans money to help get the oil companies product to the market."
says muirgeo
He voted "Yes" to the 'Alternative Energy Subsidies' bill. Seems as if stealing from people is ok depending on who is subsidized. Do we need to get into a discussion about the distortions caused by subsidizing corn based ethanol?
"Had everyone voted his way 30,000+ soldiers and their families would still be intact."
says muirgeo
If troop withdrawal is so important to him why declare a position on the 'Iraq Withdrawal Amendment'? To that point, why did he vote "No" to the 'Troop Redeployment Amendment'?
There's a better term than "Vacuous" to fit the man and it is "Tabula rasa".
Rich Berger,
The world economy is not a complex system? The "measurements" (such as CPI) are not based on (very) sophisticated sampling techniques? The assumptions are not at all subjective? The transactions of the economy are not based on subjective preferences?
Russ was in particular referring to gun control studies and Walmart studies. The total economy is far more complex and difficult to measure than either of those issues.
"If troop withdrawal is so important to him why declare a position on the 'Iraq Withdrawal Amendment'?"
I meant to say: "If troop withdrawal is so important to him why not declare a position on the 'Iraq Withdrawal Amendment'?"
"Vacuous? Fortunately he has a track record."
For example, Senator Obama cast his lot with the Global Warming Deniers when he voted against repealing the tarriff on ethanol from Brazil.
Muigeo's posts make me feel like I need some valium. Perhaps he/she can prescribe some, the recommended dosage of course being a pinch or a dash.
I meant to say: "If troop withdrawal is so important to him why not declare a position on the 'Iraq Withdrawal Amendment'?"
Posted by: babinich
Starting a war in the first place and how to end it once quagmired deeply into it are 2 different things don't you think?
Bret-
Russ also referred to Friedman and Schwartz's Monetary History of the United States as a good example of statistical analysis. In it, Friedman and Schwartz make use of various measures of the money supply and price level changes. If you read the post again, maybe it will be clear that Russ' complaint was made against very complicated analyses which torture the data to produce wanted results.
Complaints are often made about the measurement of CPI and GDP, but those measures are more like higher level data than conclusions reached after convoluted analysis.
"I'd permit none of these people to set foot in my house."
You actually think you own your house?
Most candidates "economic" plans are akin to someone running for high school class president promising free soda. Their plans are not going to affect the economy, or the things they are intended to affect. The federal reserve has a bigger affect on the economy.
Oddly enough my favorite ticket would be Paul/Kucinich. Not that I totally agree with both, but they seem to be two people of decent moral character. I would also be enthusiastic for a candidate that promises to cut government spending by 30%, and hold budget growth to inflation -1% for the next 4 years. That would be a plan.
Rich Berger wrote: "Russ also referred to Friedman and Schwartz's Monetary History of the United States as a good example of statistical analysis. In it, Friedman and Schwartz make use of various measures of the money supply and price level changes."
Hillary is not arguing against all statistical analyses either. Just in the particular case of a recession that "[i]t's what you feel, what you feel deep down." And if everybody feels that they are doing poorly in an economic sense, whether or not the government statistics say we actually are doesn't much matter anyway. If it wasn't wrapped in politics, there would've been nothing wrong with her point.
Rich Berger also wrote: "If you read the post again, maybe it will be clear that Russ' complaint was made against very complicated analyses which torture the data to produce wanted results."
The CPI and PCE deflator are nothing if not "very complicated analyses which torture the data." In my opinion much more complicated as the Walmart study that Russ dismisses.
Paul Krugman is also impressed by Hillary’s cattle futures trading prowess, too.
He should be equally impressed by her ability to steal from the taxpayer (Madison Guaranty, Whitewater).
"Had everyone voted his way" says muirgeo
How did he vote? In what legislative body, in which he was a part of, did he vote against going to war?
When Obama was running for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he filled out a questionnaire for the Chicago Sun-Times and answered "no" to the question of whether he would have voted for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once elected to the Senate, Obama voted for a series of war funding measures.
It seems as if he's conflicted.
"Starting a war in the first place and how to end it once quagmired deeply into it are 2 different things don't you think?"
says muirgeo
If one wants the troops out, and Obama has stated that he does, then stand by your word and vote to cut funding for the war.
Yes! More, more, more! Keep 'em coming Don!
I cannot begin to tell you how much I like these concise letters of intellectual superiority which you send to the media. Especially the ones that keep shrill fools like Krugman in check.
It's very 'Friedmanesque'! Talk about the element of surprise. Just when they are feeling comfortable with some weak and biased argument, they get slammed with some badass stuff!
Yeah….
The good thing about your information is that it is explicit enough for students to grasp. Thanks for your efforts in spreading academic knowledge.