« Insurance Matters | Main | Are Labor Markets Monopsonies? »
July 24, 2007
And One Last on Brooks
Before the day ends. A smart and handsome correspondent e-mails:
Three more points that I think you should make.
1. The modest real wage increase last year wasn't the start of a trend - it was a blip because gas prices fell. When they popped up again this year, real wages fell again, visible in your first chart.
2. Notice that the gains in total income for the bottom fifth were much less than the gains in earnings, mainly because of reduced benefits. Part of the story here is that welfare reform forced a lot of mothers into the work force. That increases earnings, but it means that the earning increase is quite misleading as a measure of how people were doing. It's also true that the Clinton boom allowed some people to get off welfare and into work, but again just looking at earnings is a deliberately misleading way to look at things.
3. The result that very high incomes are predominantly on Wall Street is interesting. But since when is "It's not CEOs paying 35 percent taxes, it's hedge fund managers paying 15 percent - less than secretaries!" an ANTI-populist observation?
Agreed. I want to emphasize, again, that this article is dishonest and misleading, in effect if not intent. I'm perfectly willing to believe some rightwing Heritage type impressed a perfectly well-intentioned David Brooks with these points at a party, but either way, the resulting article served to deceive readers of the New York Times op-ed page as to the state of the economy.
This strikes me as a rather big deal.
July 24, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
It's a big deal that David Brooks wrote a column calculated to decieve?
Methinks you're insufficiently cynical.
Posted by: Kit Stolz | Jul 24, 2007 11:58:10 PM
Yes but look-now that Brooks has been on Meet the Press brought to the carpet by Bob Woodward, and now that many people here and elsewhere have fact checked this bomb of a column today, is it not time to bring up comparisons to Judy Miller and Jayson Blair and ask the NYT to dump this mendacious so-and-so?
Posted by: dlcox1958 | Jul 25, 2007 2:05:33 AM
I'll be more impressed by the rather big deal when the supposed dishonesty is a bigger deal than the ideology of the offender, and when accusations of dishonesty are treated with the care and fairness that a rather big deal, not to mention intellectual honesty itself, would demand. I thought it was a big deal, just in terms of offense to a man's honor, when Krugman trashed Friedman's reputation, shortly after his death, accusing him of dishonesty, in the New York Review of Books, based on what would have been unnacceptably thin evidence even if it hadn't been wrenched out of context to say the opposite of what it clearly meant. But Krugman's popular with liberals while Friedman isn't, and the response was determined accordingly. I think that if we apply the same standards to self, friend and foe, we'll be more cautious with accusations of dishonesty.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 25, 2007 2:18:19 AM
I see- so the basic response by Sanpete is that it's not a big deal because Sanpete has said its not a big deal. Tick tock.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 8:14:58 AM
Just a reminder to everyone that Sanpete's only purpose is to emphasise to us all how much more neutral and holy he is than we are.
Don't bother getting into a long discussion with him about the Krugman article because he's already written into his memory that he's found a way to make himself more holy than Krugman, so he's not going to engage in any discussions about facts or evidence...
Posted by: Meh | Jul 25, 2007 10:12:22 AM
I have come to view Brooks as fundamentally a propagandist-- and a pretty skilled one at that.
I don't even think he believes half of what he writes--he probably couldn't, since he so consistently contradicts himself across collumns.
This article is not atypical of Brooks. But it still should be viewed as "rather a big deal."
Posted by: PaulD | Jul 25, 2007 11:08:23 AM
Akaison, you're making shit up, as you so love to put it. The evidence and discussion are here, by the way, Meh. I see no reason to repeat any of that. It's only an example. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who cares whether the same standards are applied to those we agree with and those we disagree with.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 25, 2007 12:07:32 PM
Sanpete, please go to RedState or LGF or some other rightwing blog and preach your 'a pox on both their houses' crap. Of course, you might have tried that and got instantly banned, but I doubt you have because you wouldn't be here crying about how blindered we are ideologically because Krugman once cherrypicked something negative about Friedman and we didn't say anything about it because we were too busy pointing out that Brooks lies in his columns on a weekly basis.
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 25, 2007 1:26:06 PM
I think what Sanpete is trying to get at is this:
Aren't any of you bothered that you eargerly accept (almost) anything Krugman writes as the gospel truth and basically reject everything Brooks writes as conservative propoganda?
Brooks is probably not an intellectual equal to Krugman and does tend to present certain things in a manner which confirms certain pre-disposed notions. Dr. Krugman, however, does his fair share of spinning facts to cover his (your) ideology. Some of us fail to recognize this and need to be reminded, occassionally, to maintain a proper level of skepticism of all sources of information (according to Meh, even suggesting such a thing makes me an elitist of some sort).
And I know, Ricky, you don't have to tell me. I'm going back to whatever non-liberal place I came from. You must forgive me, I temporarily forgot diversity of opinion isn't welcomed on highly partisan blogs. I'll try not to forget again, lest I desire to be scolded.
Posted by: Craving Coherence | Jul 25, 2007 2:51:14 PM
And I know, Ricky, you don't have to tell me. I'm going back to whatever non-liberal place I came from. You must forgive me, I temporarily forgot diversity of opinion isn't welcomed on highly partisan blogs. I'll try not to forget again, lest I desire to be scolded.
You'd have done better to have left this out. It belies your open minded pose since it clearly indicates that you've decided in advance what the response will be. Hardly critically minded to operate on the basis of prejudice.
Aren't any of you bothered that you eargerly accept (almost) anything Krugman writes as the gospel truth and basically reject everything Brooks writes as conservative propoganda?
I'd be bothered by it if your discription even remotely reflected reality. I'd invite you to back it up with something other than rhetoric except that you've already availed yourself of an escape hatch from all responsibility for your comment. Your tender sensibilities can't abide vigorous disputation.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Jul 25, 2007 3:29:03 PM
"It belies your open minded pose since it clearly indicates that you've decided in advance what the response will be."
I hadn't decided in advance. I was trying to make a point about an earlier comment encouraging an individual to abandon this thread because they have a different opinion. There is a difference.
Since I started commenting in reference to Sanpete, I will use his example. Krugman wrote of Friedman a few months after his death:
"And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857
What evidence did he have to back that claim up? That his interpretations of the data caused him to come to different conclusions. Come on, Paul.
"I'd be bothered by it if your discription even remotely reflected reality."
Can you honestly say to yourself that you hold Mr. Brooks and Mr. Krugman to the same standard? Really? And "even remotely"? Not even the faintest hint of favoritism for Krugman? Please.
Posted by: Craving Coherence | Jul 25, 2007 5:27:41 PM
Here's my problem with this little game. Let's assume argumendo (sp?) that you are correct- how does that change or anyway lesson Brooks is doing. It's a red herring to even discuss Krugman, even assuming you were right, because it has nothing do with the accuracy of Brooks. One lie doesn't negate another. Again, assuming that you are right. In other words, your point- whatever your mean by it or intend to mean or whatever is being discussed here- is irrelevant. It's extraneous information meant to obscure Brooks actions. I am just not willing to pay that game. Maybe others are willing tplay with you, but I understand you to be illogical for even trying to make such an argument. That's the best case scenario for why bring it up. The worse case is that you are full of shit, and know exactly what you are doing. And as someone else said- only the left at this point even allows such bullshit artists in their midst. Try any of this shit on red state and you would be gone fast than you read this comment.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 25, 2007 8:19:31 PM
Ricky, obviously my point isn't based only on what you say it is. If you disagree, you might start by explaining why instead of just complaining about me even saying such terrible things.
I'd be bothered by it if your discription even remotely reflected reality.
What CC said may not be true of you or some others here, including Ezra, but it's surprisingly accurate in regard to a surprising number of posters at liberal blogs. There are some at Thoma's blog who are practically Krugman worshippers (and Thoma himself is quite deferential). And you can see in the threads here about Brooks that some don't even have to read what he says to know it's wrong.
Krugman's just an example, akaison. The point, as I've said several times, is that we don't apply the same standards to both sides. If we did, I don't think anyone would be calling Brooks a liar over that column.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 26, 2007 2:07:54 AM
"Ricky, obviously my point isn't based only on what you say it is. If you disagree, you might start by explaining why instead of just complaining about me even saying such terrible things."
I think I have stated my opinion pretty well and others seem to get the point. I didn't say anything terrible. I want to understand why you come here and present these tangential, 'but so-and-so did it, too' arguments when the blog has nothing to do with creating a pecking order of which side is a bigger liar? Do you do this at right-wing blogs (if so, please share)? If you don't then I don't understand why we have to suffer your arrogance without protest.
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 26, 2007 10:11:42 AM
Ricky, if I posted at a right-wing blog I would do the same as I do here (I did so plenty at a conservative religious discussion board--no I won't link to it--I'm here anonymously), and here I have done the same with some right-wing posters. Even if that weren't true, my point about the abuse of attacks on honesty would stand. You would have to explain how anything I've said is arrogant, if that means anything more than that it offends your own pride. Keep in mind your own comments about conservatives as you explain.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 26, 2007 1:44:27 PM
I hadn't decided in advance. I was trying to make a point about an earlier comment encouraging an individual to abandon this thread because they have a different opinion. There is a difference.
If that was your intended meaning it's a fair point.
Can you honestly say to yourself that you hold Mr. Brooks and Mr. Krugman to the same standard? Really? And "even remotely"? Not even the faintest hint of favoritism for Krugman? Please.
Having insisted that you don't judge in advance, you proceed to judge in advance. Your question is clearly
rhetorical. You've already decided what you wish to believe.
For the record, I don't read either Krugman or Brooks regularly. I have disagreed profoundly with Krugman
in the past. If anything, I expect more of Krugman than I do of Brooks for the simple reason that Krugman's
level of expertise is far greater than Brooks'. So no, I don't judge them by the same standard. I expect
Brooks to behave as a hack since, in my opinion, that is what he is. I expect far better from Krugman.
So if Krugman wrote the sort of tripe that Brooks regularly engages in, I would be even more critical of him than I am of Brooks.
But what's telling to me is the comparison used to try and draw an equivilance between Krugman and
Brooks. Brooks writes an Op-ed column which, at best, is an uncritical regurgitation of massaged statistical
analysis stating that the economy is in good shape. Krugman writes an essay in which he
opines that there are questions about Milton Friedman's intellectual honesty in his public utterances.
I had intended to present a lengthy explanation of why this comparison was fallacious but I see that
Akaison has already addressed the fundamental point that Krugman’s purported mishandling of the facts
has no bearing whatever on the legitimacy of Brooks’ column or his overall veracity. Much as you or
Sanpete might like to divert the discussion into a generalized meditation on partisan subjectivity, that really isn’t the topic Ezra is addressing. It’s the functional equivilant of the school yard taunts of “So’s your old man.” and “You’re another one.”
I am greatful that you’ve made the attempt though, since it led me to read the Krugman’s essay.
Having done so, I have to say that I found Sanpete’s initial criticism laughable. After attacking Krugman for providing insufficient evidence for his thesis, Sanpete commits the same “crime” himself by citing a single ambiguous sentence by Friedman as definitive evidence that Krugman was playing fast and loose with the record.
The sentence in question, “The elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement. It was not produced by the failure of private enterprise, it was produced by the failure of government to perform a function which had been assigned to it. supposedly refutes Krugman’s characterization that Friedman was blaming activist government for the Great Depression. Of course the validity of Sanpete’s charge turns on what Friedman meant by “a function assigned to it.”
As Krugman cogently argues, Friedman’s notion of this function was the Monetarist theory that the government should have increased the money supply rather than pursuing overt economic interventions of the Keynesian type. He points to data showing that the money supply did in fact increase during the period, with no discernable ameliorative effect on the economic crisis. Obviously, Friedman did not equate his Monetarism with Keynesian style Government economic activism since his championing of that theory was an attempt at refuting Keynes. The suggestion that Friedman, in this single sentence, was repudiating the fundamental premises of his life’s work is, as I said above, laughable.
Since the sentence does not mean what Sanpete seems to think it means, ie, a general condemnation of government inaction and an implicit endorsement of government intervention beyond Monetarism, it really has no significance to the thrust of Krugman’s thesis. Or, more precisely, since Krugman has demonstrated that the data shows that the money supply did increase and Friedman’s contention was that the government should have increased the money supply, including the sentence in context would have buttressed Krugman’s argument rather than undermining it.
In short, Sanpete’s "evidence" of Krugman’s “dishonesty” is no evidence at all.
This brings me to your own charge:
What evidence did he have to back that claim up? That his interpretations of the data caused him to come to different conclusions. Come on, Paul.
As indicated above, Krugman's argument isn't that Friedman misinterpreted the data in his popular, as opposed to scholarly, pronouncements. Rather, he argues that in the former instances Friedman ignored the data. He marshals evidence to support this conclusion. You may not find the evidence conclusive but that is a far cry from claiming that he is basing his argument on differences in interpretation.
The diversion of charging equivilant "dishonesty" between Krugman and Brooks in this instance is not only spurious, it is wholly fictitious.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Jul 26, 2007 1:48:40 PM
Krugman writes an essay in which he opines that there are questions about Milton Friedman's intellectual honesty in his public utterances.
This doesn't adequately sum up what he did, but even that would have been unwarranted given the paltry evidence he gave. Again, Krugman didn't merely opine that there were questions of ignoring facts or some other thing that's typically alleged of intellectuals with a strong point of view by those with a different view. He accused Friedman of believing one thing and intentionally seeming to say something else that was more convenient to Friedman's purpose of popularizing his ideas. And to show this, Krugman took a quote and gave it a meaning that is contradicted by the truncated portion of the sentence and even more explicity by the rest of the context.
You are also flat wrong about the salient particulars of Krugman's article and what I said about it.
The suggestion that Friedman, in this single sentence, was repudiating the fundamental premises of his life’s work is, as I said above, laughable.
Indeed. I imply no such thing. It isn't that terribly hard to follow. Here's what Krugman said (my emphasis):
From the beginning, the Friedman-Schwartz position seemed a bit slippery. And over time Friedman's presentation of the story grew cruder, not subtler, and eventually began to seem—there's no other way to say this—intellectually dishonest. ....
Yet many economists, and even more lay readers, have taken Friedman and Schwartz's account to mean that the Federal Reserve actually caused the Great Depression—that the Depression is in some sense a demonstration of the evils of an excessively interventionist government. And in later years, as I've said, Friedman's assertions grew cruder, as if to feed this misperception.
Krugman gives two bits of evidence for what is ("there's no other way to say this") an unjustifiable smear, both of which I dealt with, but this is the most outrageous one:
By 1976 Friedman was telling readers of Newsweek that "the elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement," a statement that his readers surely took to mean that the Depression wouldn't have happened if only the government had kept out of the way—when in fact what Friedman and Schwartz claimed was that the government should have been more active, not less.
Simple question: did Friedman in fact lead his readers to the false impression that he thought the government should have just "kept out of the way"?
Absolutely not, as the quote in its omitted context clearly shows. The truncated sentence from Friedman actually continued, "it was produced by the failure of government to perform a function which had been assigned to it." Then Friedman explained exactly what Krugman says Friedman really believed, that the government should have been more active, not less, through "controlling the monetary system." Friedman explained this in some detail, summed up by this snippet:
According to its charter and its objective, the Federal Reserve System was supposed to step in and enable banks to meet demands of their customers by buying bonds on the open market or by providing currency through discounting assets of its member banks. It failed to perform this function.
There's no hint of misleading anyone or obscuring his previously established belief; quite the opposite: he explicitly reaffirms in general and in detail the very point Krugman says he's obscuring for popular consumption.
It’s the functional equivilant of the school yard taunts of “So’s your old man.” and “You’re another one.”
This, and most of what you attribute to me here, is way off, despite clear explanations. It isn't that Krugman's behavior excuses Brooks, or even that the two are equivalent in any overall way. The point is and has been all along that there is a clear double standard here the abolishment of which would lead to fewer attacks on the honesty of others. You may not like that point, but all you hand-waving distortion about whatever else you take me to be doing doesn't in any way undermine it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 26, 2007 5:00:20 PM
sanpete, just go away, your lies impress no one here, you shill
Posted by: asdsadf | Jul 30, 2007 8:46:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
