Krugman Manages Expectations vs. Joe Scarborough

     As I had said in a comment to Nanute, it sounded like Krugman may have not done so well last night. However, the source for this was Krugman himself who called it his "Denver moment."

     "Well, we’ll see how it comes out after editing, but I feel that I just had my Denver debate moment: I was tired, cranky, and unready for the blizzard of misleading factoids and diversionary stuff (In 1997 you said that the aging population was a big problem! When Social Security was founded life expectancy was only 62!) Oh, and I wasn’t prepared for Joe Scarborough’s slipperiness about what he actually advocates (he’s for more spending in the near term? Who knew?)"

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/urk-charlie-rose-edition/

        As he said it's possible to come back strong from a Denver moment. However, in actually watching the exchange, he didn't look so bad. 

         http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/05/paul-krugman-takes-on-joe-scarborough-in-all-out-testy-war-of-words-video/

          I had tended to believe him only because it's my perception that he's not a "natural debater"-the format isn't necessarily his. In his debate with Ron Paul, while he was right on the substance he looked a little ill at ease and off balance. The trouble with these  tv debates is that they're also theatrical performances. It's not just about being right you also have to look right which is different. 

          Politico too says he held his own. 

           Krugman set low expectations even before the program aired: "I was tired, cranky, and unready for the blizzard of misleading factoids and diversionary stuff," he wrote in a blog post late this afternoon, shortly after the segment was taped.

Scarborough, always confident on camera, certainly was the dominant voice: straight out the gate, he was contrasting Krugman's current arguments with those he had made in the 1990s. Such offensives, which Krugman referred to as "gotcha" questions, left the New York Times economist on the defensive.

"This is so disappointing," Krugman said at one point, after Scarborough cited comments he'd made nearly two decades ago. "All you can do is ad hominen, and say, 'Oh, you said this [twenty years ago]." (Scarborough insisted he never made ad hominent attacks, ever.)

Scarborough likewise criticised Krugman for heaving and sighing, a la Al Gore during the 2000 presidential debates, when Scarborough said something Krugman didn't agree with: "You know what, if  you could just stop from saying, 'Wow,' and let me just finish a point, Paul," Scarborough said at one point. "You and Al Gore really need to talk about it. This is a real problem, if people don't agree with you 100 percent of the time -- you talk about ad hominem attacks..."

But Krugman's performance was hardly a "Denver debate moment," as he wrote in his post in reference to President Obama's poor showing at the first presidential debate in October. Krugman held his own -- albeit in a less succinct, after-dinner manner than Scarborough.

     http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/03/krugman-scarborough-spar-on-charlie-rose-158451.html?hp=f3

     That "after-dinner manner" is very effective in a tv debate format. Again, the key is not just to be right but to sound right; the reason for this is you have to keep the median viewer in mind. You must never presume that this person knows  Tvery much about the subject. In a debate like this there are two types of viewers: other economists but also the average viewer who doesn't know much about the subject coming in or maybe just a little. Who sounds right to them? This is where the "after dinner" manner helps. 

      Having said this, Krugman didn't do too bad-I think he may have learnt from his previous tv performances, he seems to be improving as he has done a lot of tv lately. In any case, one might presume that a Charlie Rose audience is a little more educated on these issues. 

       Scarborough has a lot riding on the line in this debate. In many ways he's about as reasonable a Republican as you'll find-of course, as Jeb Bush's reversal yesterday shows, even "reasonable Republicans" aren't so reasonable. 

        http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/jeb-bush-immigration-flip-flop.php

        ""I think a lot of us, other than Paul and the three people he was talking about, believe that we can do two things at once," Scarborough said during his closing remarks. "We can grow the economy in the short run, we can also do what's responsible for our children and for our grandchildren, which is be concerned about the long-term debt. That seems pretty damn rational to me."

         See as Scarborough's own patron saint would say-Ronald Reagan-there you go again. He keeps making this a matter of "Me and everyone else except Paul and a few other oddballs" thinks we are headed for a debt bomb.' Apparently we can't do two things at once as we've heard little about growing the economy. What has Scarborough ever recommended we do about the economy?

         Again, while Scarborough is a "reasonable Republican" this is the issue he can't let go as it's basically been what his career in Congress and on his morning show has been about. The idea of "fiscal restraint" is his calling card. If this is debunked what does he have left? His public posture and his own image of himself are called into question.

         If I were on the stage with Scarborough-or in the chair as it were-I'd ask him if  he knows what a fiscal deficit is and has he ever even heard of countercylical policy. Then I'd ask him if he's aware that interest rates are at all time lows and that inflation is very low? Does any of this give him pause that maybe the bond vigilantes aren't coming. 

        The reason I'd do this is I really wonder what these deficit scolds really know. Is he aware how ignorant it sounds to compare Greece to the U.S.? In the end, beyond personalities, what we hope is that the illusions of the deficit scolds may have been in some way undermined just a little bit more. That's what's needed. We;ve come a long way in two years, though still not far enough as we are now in our own era of austerity now until the sequester is reversed.