Yesterday on ABC's This Week, both Will and Matalin took turns attacking Krugman for: you guessed it, not being fair to conservatives. I have to say that Will's complaint about Krugman is very familiar as we're hearing it all the time lately:
"After Krugman called House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget a "fake document" and the columnist said he was "amazed that people haven't gotten that," Will unsheathed his verbal sword and went at Krugman."
"I have yet to encounter someone who disagrees with you who you don't think is a knave, or corrupt, or a corrupt knave," Will said, borrowing a phrase founding father Alexander Hamilton used to rail against those unwilling to respect the good faith of their political opponents
"No, I've got some people," Krugman said, suggesting that some conservatives are indeed intellectually honest.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/12/paul-krugman-riles-fellow-pundits-151471.html?hp=r11
See I think there Krugman got tricked into even saying there are some that he respects. Why should the burden of proof be on him? Why does he have to have conservatives that he respects? Whether he does or not is besides the point. Does have to to first tell us the names of conservatives he likes and respects before he's allowed to criticize them? I don't get it.
How does this change anything about one's judgment of Paul Ryan''s budget? Either it is or isn't a fake document-I think it is. But, the question won't be solved by having Krugman first give us the names of conservatives he respects. This whining about how Krugman never says anything good about conservatives is a very common them over at Scott Sumner's Money Illusion.
Sumner said this in the comments section:
" I think he’s brilliant, an extremely talented blogger, and of course I read him. But I’m not a fan. I don’t like his style at all, especially the way he uses statistics, or out of context quotations. Nor do I like the way he assumes the worst about those with whom he disagrees."
"And I particularly detest the zombie-like nature of his fans, the way they keep insisting he’s right no matter how ridiculous the statement turns out to be. Some of the Krugman defenses that have been constructed in my comment sections over the years have been mind-bogglingly preposterous."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=18055&cpage=2#comment-212639
Also in the comments section Bob Murphy qualifies why conservatives like him and Sumner spend so much time playing "gotcha."
"Mike Sax, people aren’t mad at Krugman for changing his mind. The reason we pounce on his “inconsistencies” is that he is such a flaming hypocrite. Lately he’s been saying anybody who isn’t for fiscal stimulus right now is ignorant of Macro 101, and then you see him in 1998/99 saying the idea of a fiscal stimulus rescuing a depressed economy is dubious theoretically and has not a single well-documented historical example, not even the Great Depression."
"So yeah, you’re allowed to change your mind about liking John Lennon more than Paul McCartney. But it’s weird if you say, “Anyone who likes Lennon more is a freaking idiot with no taste in music,” if it turns out you started the John Lennon fan club 14 years ago."
So the problem isn't that Krugman supports fiscal stimulus but once was less excited about it but that he's insulting towards those who don't believe in it today? Even if this were true it's a pretty minor point for men of science like Sumner and Murphy. Why repay Krugman's uncharitableness with your own? For all that I don't really agree he's uncharitable. I just gave Murphy this answer:
"So Bob you're problem is not that he supports fiscal stimulus now and was a lot more skeptical about it in the past but that he insults those who are against it today?"
"I'm noticing a pattern. Yesterday on This Week both George Will and Mary Matalin tag teamed in going after Krugman. It seems that conservatives want him to preface any critical remarks by assuring them he has a high regard for many conservatives out there."
"That's how Rush Limbaugh prefaces his attacks on liberals. 'First dittoheads across this fruited plain I assure you Democrats are mostly good people who love their families and countries."
"For the record I respect some conservative economists like you and Sumner who I have learned a lot from. I would be hard pressed to come up with anything good about Mary Matalin, Karl Rove, or Rush Limbaugh though. I can't see much worthy of respect on Fox News."
" If memory serves me Krugman has even praised Scott in the past-referring to him as today's Milton Friedman. And he just recently praised Milton Friedman:
"That’s why Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s monetary history wasn’t just about correlations; it relied on a narrative method to attempt to show that the monetary movements it stressed were more or less exogenous. (You can quarrel with some of their judgements, but the method was sound)."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/evidence-in-macroeconomics/
So that's pretty heady praise for their Monetary History.
Sumner has two more Krugman bashing posts.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=18071
This one is called "It's stupid to assume stupidity, er, it's unwise to assume stupidity."
Here's another one.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=17906
No comments:
Post a Comment