Well done!

Zambrano’s out for at least a week….

"Full Disclosure: When I am not busy extolling Keynesian claptrap, I provide private entertainment to Paul Krugman.
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 5, 2008 7:28:52 PM"

Talk to Monica about how to keep those knees clean while giving private entertainment to Krugman. P.S., wear a blue outfit so as to preserve evidence in case you need it later.

You should listen, too.

Actually, I have no opinion on baseball. Krugman should have no opinion on politics. You should understand this.

To you maybe, but not to the field. Look, Russ is great, he seems like a great guy, a great teacher, he does really good podcasts and blog posts, but it isn't a stretch to say that Russ and PK and the other people I mentioned are in different leagues. And that's fine. That's not a diss. In the end, publications and citations and prestige aren't the end all be all. As far as I know Russ spends most of his time writing fiction books. It obviously isn't his goal to be considered one of the world's great economists (though he may want to be one of the best economic communicators). But I would hope Russ wouldn't pick some great and prestigious economist and call him unserious. It would look petty and unprofessional.

Mesa, you spend a lot of time telling us who you think is great and important. Neat. It doesn't matter. You might have a favorite pretty good baseball player too. That's fine. You are free to go around extolling why your player is better than Pujols and A-Rod and any other player. And if your player says some other player sucks at baseball, you are free to go defend him. But I'm also free to throw their stats in your face, and most people that know about baseball will think you are being ridiculous.

Charlie

PS -I'm going for most baseball analogies in one post. Feel free to join in.

Free markets work far better than government intervention throughout history.

Relevant contributions are made, but do you really think Thorstein Veblen is a cornerstone? Krugman does. He writes like him.

Do you think P. Diddy is a better producer than George Martin, too?

Charlie

Can I have what you’re smoking? Powerful stuff….

Economists are judged at least in part (maybe mostly) on objective terms: pblications [sic.] in top journals and citations.

Yes, I actually studied under Russ Roberts, an acclaimed economist. That’s nice. Step outside that realm, as Krugman more than has, and regularly commit analytical faux pas as he does, you lose any credibility you may have. News flash to you.

As I mentioned above, I [and many others, most others in the financial industry] don’t care if you’ve won a Nobel Prize or not. In fact, I’m probably less interested if you are an “acclaimed economist,” because you’re probably wrong.

Very weak defense.

Don [and Russ] regularly points out flawed underlying economic and/or logical premises in most of the arguments you read in the popular press, including and especially Krugman, who isn’t very bright. These arguments are continually repeated and believed by people like you.

Interesting that you mention Marty Feldstein. He has lost much credibility predicting the imminent recession which has yet to materialize, and has flip-flopped and backtracked multiple times on CNBC alone. This from the head of the NBER, the arbiter of business cycles. People stopped listening to him, too.

Both Marty and Paul dabble (Paul more than Marty) in political economy. They’re both largely irrelevant.

""Paul Krugman is a perennial all-star and former MVP, while Don and Steven are minor leaguers."

"it is important for people to argue against ad hominem attacks as well as intelligent argument."

Well whaddaya know, a hypocrite to boot…"

It's not a subjective measure. It's not my opinion. Objectively those people are in different leagues. In measures economists use to judge the work of other economists, under criterion in which awards and bonuses are given out, and the all coveted in academia prestige. It's not a slant. And you can totally make counter arguments that the objective measures are bad, just like you could say "batting average doesn't tell you about leadership or fielding." Just like you can say "mainstream rankings underrate heterodox theories like Austrian Economics."

-Mesa

"Given these statements by Krugman, I'm forced to conclude that he's either woefully ignorant, completely lacking any type of logical reasoning ability, or possibly mentally retarded.

I subsequently also question his economic "expertise," as the same confused mind produced this garbage."

Almost all of your points are irrelevant. Economists are judged at least in part (maybe mostly) on objective terms: pblications in top journals and citations. Either papers and models are influential or they aren't. It's just a fact that PK's career as an economist has been incredibly successful. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's extremely relevant to someone calling an unserious economist.

And if credibility matters, then the credibility of the person attacking credibility matters. It matters if the career is someone like Don's or someone like Greg Mankiw or John Taylor or Marty Feldstein. All I've done is bring these relevant facts to the discussion.

Charlie

Yes, you invalidate your so-called expertise when you make indefensible statements like the ones Krugman regularly gets paid to make, and makes here. To wit:

The party can thus avoid reminding voters that the last man they placed in the White House did such a heckuva job that he scored the highest disapproval ratings ever recorded.

So Bush, the symbolic figurehead of "government," didn't do enough around Katrina. So he, and government, need to do more this time. Fine.

Assuming that the ["classified"] folder contained something other than scrap paper, is the planned response to a hurricane a state secret? Are we worried that tropical storm systems will discover our weak points? Are we fighting a Global War on Weather?

So now Krugman is worried that state secretiveness, caused by FEMA – a.k.a "government" – response to things like hurricanes, which Krugman fully endorses, will make the problem worse?

This is nonsensical.

He continues,

Some observers have pointed out that daily briefings on preparations for Gustav, which should be coming from the Federal Emergency Management Agency — which is, you know, supposed to manage emergencies — have been coming, instead, from the U.S. military’s Northern Command.

There’s a whiff of paranoia of Bush’s “moustache-twirling villainy" (h/t Jonah Goldberg) there, and he’s insinuating that the military is behind this, possibly even the hurricane. Again, ridiculous.

And by "some observers," read "Daily Kos bloggers," or some other such waste of space.

Simply put, when the government is run by a political party committed to the belief that government is always the problem, never the solution, that belief tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Key priorities are neglected; key functions are privatized; and key people, the competent public servants who make government work, either leave or are driven out.

This is conjecture, and needs to be backed with hard evidence, like total costs of hurricanes under various administrations, response times, etc. As an award-winning, “acclaimed” economist, Krugman should know this, and fails to provide any support whatsoever to bolster his assertions. Weak.

Nice shameless political nod to government peons, too, most of whom do very little to make government work.

[The reality is, as mentioned above, bureaucratic lethargy regardless of which party is “in charge,” tho this could be quantified as well.]

More:

The problem with the Bush administration’s response to Katrina wasn’t the president’s failure to show up promptly for his photo op. It was the failure of FEMA and other degraded agencies to show up promptly with food, water and first aid.

Um, that isn't what happened, Paul. They did show up with all the above, and couldn't get in, then get stuff distributed, mostly due to the crushing incompetence and corruption of local Louisiana government (Ray Nagin), which would make a Chicago south-sider blush.

Given these statements by Krugman, I'm forced to conclude that he's either woefully ignorant, completely lacking any type of logical reasoning ability, or possibly mentally retarded.

I subsequently also question his economic "expertise," as the same confused mind produced this garbage.

"it is important for people to argue against ad hominem attacks as well as intelligent argument."

Well whaddaya know, a hypocrite to boot…

Charlie says:
"Krugman won a Clark medal which is the second most coveted prize in economics next to the nobel. He's legitimately in the running for nobel."

As Vidyohs stated so magnificently in an earlier post: "Krugman is broken."

Paul Krugman lacks the most important trait necessary to be an great economist.

The article is all about incentives. PK is arguing that if you believe government is always the problem, then you have an incentive to run government poorly if in charge to prove yourself correct. The response is arguing about market based incentives. They are both about economics.

"In this free and open forum what contrary evidence have you shown that PK is not a pundit more often than an economist and in this particular case he was not writing as a socialist shill?

Answer: none."

You have such a funny idea that people have economist hats and pundit hats, and when you are one you can't be the other. Does a baker stop being a baker when he writes a newspaper article? Or a policeman stop being a policeman? Or a doctor stop being a doctor? PK doesn't stop being a great economist when he gives political opinions, just as Don Boudreaux does not give up his Ph.D. when he shills for less government. Regardless of what you might believe, economics does not take sides in political disputes just as philosophy does not take sides in moral disputes.

Charlie

"You could make this argument if it was just an ad hom attack – "PK is a fat head" – but if it is attack on credibility "PK is a pundit not an economist" it certainly warrants reproach."
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 5, 2008 1:35:50 PM

As PK's article contained no economic information and was a political hit job, just how was his creditbility as an economist denigrated? He wrote as a pundit and was criticized as a pundit by an economist pointing out that PK is using his supposed economist creds to give his pundit efforts creditibility; an "attack" that is totally justified with the facts on hand. Which just hi-lights further the fact that PK is a socialist shill.
—-

"But he went after PK at the beginning and end with credibility attacks, as I said before, I think in a free and open forum, it's important for those attacks to be met with contrary evidence."
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 5, 2008 1:35:50 PM

In this free and open forum what contrary evidence have you shown that PK is not a pundit more often than an economist and in this particular case he was not writing as a socialist shill?

Answer: none.

PK is a socialist shill, foremost, and well before being a serious economist.

You could make this argument if it was just an ad hom attack – "PK is a fat head" – but if it is attack on credibility "PK is a pundit not an economist" it certainly warrants reproach. Imagine two people are debating surgical procedures, and one says "well, I'm a nurse I've assisted in lots of surgeries and you're just a journalist." It definetely matters if the journalist is also a world-class surgeon. I don't know much about surgery; I would take that into account when evaluating their arguments. It doesn't mean the nurse is wrong, but the info is important. Why would people attack credibility if it didn't matter, just to be mean?

"what you perceive as superior economists is"

One of the things I just wanted to make clear is that we have objective measures of economic accomplishments. That doesn't mean they are perfect. Batting average and homeruns may not tell you who the best baseball player is, but they are also not my opinion. You could still argue X is better than Y, but expect to have to counter the argument that Y has much better stats.

"but…slightly obnoxious."

I actually agree. I would never have brought it up if Don hadn't attacked PK. If he had said, "here is an excellent passage by Horwitz that points out errors in PK's logic" then I would never bring it up. But he went after PK at the beginning and end with credibility attacks, as I said before, I think in a free and open forum, it's important for those attacks to be met with contrary evidence. And I also think many people, even people interested in economics, don't necessarily know who top economists are, so it has informational value. I would probably not feel the need to respond to "bill parcels is just a tv host" in a discussion of people interested in football.

Charlie

An ad hominem really only warrants reproach when it accompanies or constitutes an argument that fails to produce any relevant evidence or substance, which is clearly not the case here – Krugman's claims were addressed.

Your point, that Bourdreaux should play nice when in the presence of what you perceive as superior economists, is technically valid, but totally inconsequential and slightly obnoxious.

"The early days after Katrina was a good example of how the free market would respond to a crisis in the absence of government."

An event so recent and well documented makes poor fodder for ideological allegory. The early days after Katrina demonstrated the exact events and conditions that produced them, and the presence of government, specifically bad government, was undeniably influential.

"No person for the duration of a declaration of emergency by the Governor of this state or by the President of the United States and for thirty (30) days thereafter shall sell, rent, or lease, or offer to sell, rent, or lease, for delivery in the emergency area, any goods, services, dwelling units, or storage space in the emergency area at a rate or price which is more than ten percent (10%) above the rate or price charged by the person for the same or similar goods, services, dwelling units, or storage spaces immediately prior to the declaration of emergency unless the increase in the rate or price is attributable only to factors unrelated to the emergency and does not include any increase in profit to the seller or owner."

Amazing how nonsensical that is, isn't it? When nobody else is selling that good, the lone seller is the market and the price at which he's selling defines the market price."

Yes, though in the law's defense this isn't a legal definition (I think it's from free dictionary.com). I can't decide if it says price gouging is impossible as you pointed out. Or if I interpret "market price" as the "normal market price" (which is a concept probably beyond definition, but what the definition means to say), then it happens all the time: popcorn at a movie, movies in a hotel room, beer at a baseball game…

It's of course also possible the laws are different in different states. You should check out John Dewey's links to some price gouging cases that actually went to trial and got convictions.

It's hard for me to imagine collusion is necessary or it'd be very very hard to ever convict anyone.

It's next to impossible to convict someone of price gouging. I'm not aware that anyone has been convicted for price gouging in recent decades (and my lack of awareness doesn't mean it hasn't happened – just that I'm too lazy to look it up properly). However, in reading some random articles about price gouging investigations, the main reason for unsuccessful prosecution has been a lack of evidence of collusion. This is probably because there's usually more than one seller of the same good and all sellers take their price up. If there's more than one seller and all sellers increase their price, the only way to prove gouging is to prove collusion. Collusion is very difficult to prove (usually, because there isn't any).

However, successful prosecution of "gougers" is not necessary. It's so easy to get into court and so expensive for the accused to fight the battle – even if they ultimately win – that it's not worth taking the risk that an overzealous politician will try to further his career on your hide.

I think the law as written will probably capture all kinds of behavior.

Convenient, eh? Proving any of it is impossible, but capturing some of that Eliot Spitzer as prosecutor magic political spotlight is a certainty. How's that for gouging?

"pricing above the market price when no alternative retailer is available."

Amazing how nonsensical that is, isn't it? When nobody else is selling that good, the lone seller is the market and the price at which he's selling defines the market price.