« It Ain't The Teachers | Main | The Minimum Wage Cometh »
July 24, 2007
More on Brooks
Brendan Nyhan musters an impressive series of graphs and charts to expose the deceptions behind today's Brooks column. Fir instance, take Brooks' claim that "according to the Congressional Budget Office, earnings for the poorest fifth of Americans are also on the increase." Here's what their earnings look like, according to the very CBO report Brooks is citting:
If your income had been falling or stagnating for the last seven years, would you say your income was increasing?
But this is Brooks' main dodge in the article: He repeatedly factors in gains created during the final years of the 90s, averages them out with the losses during the Bush years, and uses the resultant positive number as proof that the economy is doing well. The actual conclusion this data suggests is that the economy was doing well and has been in decline for most of the last decade -- but that doesn't fit the story Brooks is trying to tell, which is that all those worried about the economy and intent on restoring (and possibly even enhancing) the progressivity of the Clinton years are mendacious alarmists. So again, someone explain to me how to read this in good faith.
July 24, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Thanks for pointing out another of Brook's mendacious fables. Of course three years from now, with interest rising steeply and the economy deep into a stall it will be the fault of whomever the Democratic president's policies to Brooks, because after all things were so rosy back in Bush's time.
MSM suck-up's are moral lepers.
Posted by: S Brennan | Jul 24, 2007 11:47:47 AM
Sometimes it feels like trying to empty the ocean, dealing with the constant lies and misrepresentations of the conservatives.
It is to the point where the only way they can make any points at all is to significantly misrepresent the data on issues.
Check out Jane Galt for some of the most clueless examples of this.
Posted by: mickslam | Jul 24, 2007 11:49:40 AM
I couldn't get past the part where David Brooks used the phrase "incredibly simple-minded". Look in the mirror much?
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 24, 2007 11:59:49 AM
Also, Brooks said: "The third complicating fact is that despite years of scare stories, income volatility is probably not trending upward. A study by the C.B.O. has found that incomes are no more unstable now than they were in the 1980s and 1990s."
He doesn't mention family income volatility though, because that would complicate things:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/does_the_cbo_re.html
Posted by: David | Jul 24, 2007 12:08:48 PM
Same comment as in the other thread applies here.
If your income had been falling or stagnating for the last seven years, would you say your income was increasing?
Look at 2003-2005. There's a trend of increase in real earnings for that group. Or look at 1991-2005. It really depends on which period you focus on.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 24, 2007 1:36:40 PM
Brooks needs to get his silly ass to a grocery store and see how much things cost these days, thanks largely to fuel prices, of course, both directly (what it costs to transport the stuff to the shelves) and indirectly (it costs more to operate any business, because all one's expenses have risen, and keeping the doors open means passing the cost on to the consumer).
Unless he's adjusted his figures for the recent and dramatic price hikes? It doesn't appear that way to me.
Posted by: litbrit | Jul 24, 2007 1:43:22 PM
Look at 2003-2005. There's a trend of increase in real earnings for that group. Or look at 1991-2005. It really depends on which period you focus on.
Which is precisely the point Ezra made in his previous post: in order to show real earnings increasing you have to either cherrypick the two best years of the otherwise dismal Bush administration, or include figures from an administration in which real earnings really did increase.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 24, 2007 1:44:23 PM
Let us also note that at its best, these incomes weren't cracking $20,000. I've lived on under $20,000, and I'm a single guy without kids or student loans or health problems. It's nauseatingly difficult. It irritates me to hear a pundit who, by the standards of these folks, is unreachably rich, talking about* how grateful they should be that the economy is working so damn well for them.
*Lying about same, of course, is reprehensible.
Posted by: SDM | Jul 24, 2007 1:45:02 PM
Sampete,
After this comment:
"...depends on which period you focus on."
May I suggest an eye exam. Did you know, vision problems are often associated with neurological disorders?
Judging from your comment, you may have both.
Posted by: S Brennan | Jul 24, 2007 1:48:32 PM
in order to show real earnings increasing you have to either cherrypick the two best years of the otherwise dismal Bush administration, or include figures from an administration in which real earnings really did increase
Either of which makes as much sense as just focussing on the years that show a downturn. That's my point. Each side on this does the same thing.
Brennan, you'll have to explain what the hell you're blathering about.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 24, 2007 2:00:06 PM
Brennan, you'll have to explain what the hell you're blathering about.
He's just pointing out that you're doing what you always do: squint as hard as possible to find that one spot where everything's out of focus except the latest heap of conservative bullshit.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 24, 2007 2:05:39 PM
Sanpete, I think what Brennan is saying is that without the numbers (or a magnifying glass) 2003-2005 looks pretty damn flat. Of course, I am sure you would trade what at the most looks to be a +$100-$200 in 2003-2005 for the +$6000 from 1993-2000.
Of course, the liberals are "cherrypicking" the data of the entire period of when a Democrat was in office, while the conservatives are cherrypicking two years in the middle of 8 years of GOP rule (or worse aggregating the last 15 years and claiming a boom, which only occurred under the Democrat). A very equal comparison and pox on both their houses.
Posted by: Ricky | Jul 24, 2007 2:14:18 PM
Sanpete, when someone is being reckless with facts to make an argument and misleads his audience, without which misleading, the speaker/writer would be unable to make that argument to his audience, we call that a lie.
Ever since it was exposed how Bush's WMD claims were in no way based in facts (personal favorite: november of 2002 when bush said that Saddam would attack america with WMD-laden toy airplanes), we've heard so many people come out of the woodwork to explain how, technically, this was not really lying, when, in our day to day lives, we never had any trouble describing these things as lies before.
Brooks is lying. You can call it "BS'ing" if you feel that would be more technically accurate.
And before today, I had no idea that I was "self insured" when it came to dental work. Before today, I would have just said, I "have no dental insurance." Just like when Brooks throws around misleading and wrong figures, I would say, "he's a liar."
Also, it bears repeating that Brooks is not an economist or an economics researcher. He's a pundit. In all likelihood, he was provided with talking points and figures, and he figured they would make for good column material.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 24, 2007 2:14:41 PM
Apologies for mixing up Brooks threads in my reply to Sanpete.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 24, 2007 2:29:33 PM
Either of which makes as much sense as just focussing on the years that show a downturn. That's my point. Each side on this does the same thing.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, what relevance has it to the substantive issue in question? Are we to assume that income is neither declining or increasing?
Critiqueing the structure of an argument is only useful when it enables us to distinguish between the merits of opposing positions. Saying that "both sides do the same thing", as though this dictates an equivilance in their positions, is simply an excuse for taking no position at all. As such, it is a species of self indulgent moralism.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 24, 2007 2:34:55 PM
Pseudo, more fact-free gibberish from you.
Ricky, I hope you don't really need a magnifying glass to see that the trend from 2003-2005 is upward. It's not a huge change, but we're talking about a historical average of between 1 and 2 percent a year, so we shouldn't expect a huge shift. The Clinton years were marked by welfare reform (which many liberals abhor), which alone explains the largest part of the increase.
Sanpete, when someone is being reckless with facts to make an argument and misleads his audience, without which misleading, the speaker/writer would be unable to make that argument to his audience, we call that a lie.
You do this often enough, Tyro. Are you lying?
personal favorite: november of 2002 when bush said that Saddam would attack america with WMD-laden toy airplanes
He didn't actually say that. Are you lying?
Unless you're rich enough to cover unexpected expenses, you aren't self-insured, by the way. The 45-million figure also includes those who don't sign up for plans they're eligible for. I don't have any problem with Ezra's use of the figure, really. I just think people are way too quick to find lies among their enemies and nothing but truth among their friends or in themselves.
Are we to assume that income is neither declining or increasing?
No. The point is plainly about whether Brooks is lying, WBR. The rest of your comment ignores that as well.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 24, 2007 2:51:42 PM
I just think people are way too quick to find lies among their enemies and nothing but truth among their friends or in themselves.
As opposed to Sanpete, who buries his arms deep in manure to search for the pearl he's pretty sure is hidden there. And shame on us for just noticing the manure.
The Sanpete Way is to presume that there must be some truth to be gleaned from a conservative opinion, and we're just too lazy to find it. It's op-ed Kabbalism
(Btw, you can whine as much as you like about being pegged with this, but you really can't refute it. The archives are public. You do this all the damn time.)
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 24, 2007 3:00:07 PM
Sanpete,
cut the shit, already.
Are you *really* going to say with a straight face that the mendacious right-wing talking point about armed drones from Iraq was irrelevant, because it didn't actually come out of Bush's mouth?
Posted by: Captain Goto | Jul 24, 2007 3:02:45 PM
No. The point is plainly about whether Brooks is lying, WBR. The rest of your comment ignores that as well.
No. The question of whether or not Brooks is consciously lying is fundamentally irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what he writes. It is the latter that is Ezra's primary point. The former is, at best, a side issue. It achieves pre-eminence only where a hollow self righteousness substitutes for substance.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 24, 2007 3:09:31 PM
Pseudo, I do just what I'm doing in this thread, and I do it often because the inability of people like you to see good faith anywhere but among those they agree with manifests itself often. Take a bow.
Are you *really* going to say with a straight face that the mendacious right-wing talking point about armed drones from Iraq was irrelevant, because it didn't actually come out of Bush's mouth?
Speaking of shit, Cap'n, where did I say anything like that? Read what I actually said, put it in the context of this discussion, and see if you can figure out the point.
WBR, in your typical inability to see yourself as you see others, you've said zero about what you claim is the primary point, whereas I have addressed it. I'm mostly interested in about what you call a side issue, which I think is important, and you're talking about a side-issue to that. Apply your words to yourself.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 24, 2007 3:20:23 PM
I stopped being impressed with Ezra's intelligence, honesty, or integrity after he made this incompetent attack on George Will, ignored the valid criticisms (as in, he did not even know what or when the Gilded Age was), made no corrections, no apology to G. Will or to his own readers.
Of course, those of you who just think Ezra is all about honest and all conservatives are all about hackery will surely have a defense, no?
I'll say in charity that Ezra may have been lazy or too embarrassed to come clean, and that his mistake shouldn't automatically be called an outright lie or deception. But that level of charity is never applied to conservatives here.
Here's the link: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/if_a_then_a_gol.html
Posted by: Bill | Jul 24, 2007 3:35:08 PM
WBR, in your typical inability to see yourself as you see others, you've said zero about what you claim is the primary point, whereas I have addressed it. I'm mostly interested in about what you call a side issue, which I think is important, and you're talking about a side-issue to that. Apply your words to yourself.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly Sanpete, your subjective perceptions, interests, fixations, etc., are not the standard by which reality is assessed. You may attempt, if you desire, to divert the discussion into one of metaphysics. No one is obliged to enable you in doing so.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 24, 2007 3:37:01 PM
I stopped being impressed with Ezra's intelligence, honesty, or integrity after he made this incompetent attack on George Will, ignored the valid criticisms (as in, he did not even know what or when the Gilded Age was), made no corrections, no apology to G. Will or to his own readers.
Having gone back and examined the link you provided, I'd have to say that it is your attack on Ezra which is, to put charitably, incompetent. No where did Ezra claim that the chart in question represented the "Gilded Age". On the contrary, he identified it as illustrating the economics of the "current era". You attacked a figment of your own imagination.
Perhaps that's why he didn't respond to you.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 24, 2007 3:50:12 PM
Bill, one instance of a slip-up isn't much to go on. Ezra's got a pretty good record, relative to the inherent dangers of getting things wrong in punditry. I wouldn't assume he's even read all of the thread you link to, and I think most bloggers shy away from admitting errors (even if they agree they made them, which he may not) for somewhat the same reasons politicians do--the downsides to your credibility appear to outweigh the upsides.
I obviously agree if your point is that Ezra should be judged by the same standard applied to conservatives.
WBR, I renew my promise not to force you to agree with me or even talk with me.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 24, 2007 3:51:50 PM
How then did the chart demonstrate the current era's similarity to the Gilded Age, his purported purpose?
I read this paragraph to claim that the chart demonstrates said similarity:
And as the graph below decisively proves, the current era in no way resembles the Gilded Age's concentrations of cash. In no way. Not even a little bit. Just ignore the red line.
How does the red line demonstrate that, unless Ezra thinks that the red line also covers the Gilded Age on the same chart?
Posted by: Bill | Jul 24, 2007 3:54:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
