Petty stuff...nobody really thinks economists of any stripe can make dead-on accurate forecasts...they indulge in speculation.

Read Krugman's current column for some insight into the way economists cook their arguments. The economist in this instance is Alan Greenspand, who makes the the picture you paint of Krugman look like small potatoes indeed.

And Krugman also looks pretty good compared to the Bush administration which forcast in 2002 forecast that there would be 3.4 million more jobs in 2003 than there were in 2000. And of course it predicted a budget deficit for fiscal 2004 of $14 billion. The economy ended up losing 1.7 million jobs over that period, and the budget deficit for that year was around $521 billion.

Petty, silly...

Frankly, you guys are on a political vendetta against Krugman. The earlier discussion we had about social security, in which you were quite obviously talking out of your rear as regards the merits of Bush's "reform" in the light of what has now been generally shown to be the real dimensions of the problems - with Bush's bullcrap of a "reform" flopping miserably - showed your Krugman carping to be pathetic partisan pap.

Posted by reg at March 4, 2005 05:41 PM

Let me just add, so as to put some more perspective on this and give you guys due respect, if the Prez I luved soooo much had just had the rug pulled out from under him on a pet gambit like Bush's freefall on the Social Security debate - much of which was triggered by the series of great columns Krugman interrupted his sabbatical to write - I'd be going through his garbage to find scraps and snips like "he didn't get interest rates right" to try to discredit himn too. Keep at it...

Posted by reg at March 4, 2005 05:54 PM

Gadzooks I love it when the opposition comes in and attempts to waylay the conversation. Sheesh. Reg, I love ya bud, but you are as wrong as you can be. Vendetta's, oh please!!!

"Petty stuff...nobody really thinks economists of any stripe can make dead-on accurate forecasts...they indulge in speculation."

Really? Then how come Krugman always states his "speculations" as what is GOING to happen as opposed to what "Might" happen. Both are speculation, to claim that the former is NOT what Krugman does is dissembling to the utmost.

As far as your vendetta comment goes, what the gosh awful heck do you think your carping about Bush is? Pattycake?

And this one is "beyond the pale:" "The earlier discussion we had about social security, in which you were quite obviously talking out of your rear as regards the merits of Bush's "reform" in the light of what has now been generally shown to be the real dimensions of the problems - with Bush's bullcrap of a "reform" flopping miserably - showed your Krugman carping to be pathetic partisan pap."

If you want a thourough understanding of the point of view of those of us that think you and Krugman totally wrong, I invite you to read the links I PUT IN THE UPDATE ABOVE. Pleasant reading, and remember the rule of THIS blog is we do not use profanity or needlessly assault the host... my blog, my rules :-)

Posted by GMRoper at March 4, 2005 06:53 PM

Making a judgement of the comparitive credibility of Krugman and Greenspan on the topic of economic projections by relying on their respective professional track records seems perfectly reasonable to me. That it is common in their field to engage in speculative projections does not absolve them from being judged accurate or not as it relates to the likely veracity of their current speculations and recommendations.

There may have been a time when Krugman was first and foremost an economist, but based on his writings of the past few years in the NY Times I think he is more accurately described now as a polemicist who's prime target is President Bush.

Posted by too many steves at March 5, 2005 01:04 PM

"a polemicist who's prime target is President Bush."

And Greenspan is a polemicist who's client is Bush.

The difference is that Krugman, in his role as a political columnist, is honest about it.

I think that if you did a serious survey of professional economists of all persuasions, by the way, you'd find that their predictive accuracy is pretty poor. If it weren't most of them would be millionaires heading up mutual funds that were making significantly more profit than index investors. I would challenge you to go the the American Economics Association meeting and ask for two things: One a show of hands of who, over say a two decade period, was accurate in predicting economic growth in two or three year increments based on their reading of particular government policies. And, two, a show of hands as to how many economists, conservative or liberal, would want the reputations and respect accorded them as economists to rest primarily on that record. Krugman's predictive abilities have been at least as good, if not better, than the guys Bush relies on. And he nailed the phony SS campaign bigtime. Totally outed Bush on the issue and Bush is in freefall - also starting one of those campaigns of backpedaled rhetoric (check out the new "add on" lie about private accounts they just wheeled out. Read Josh Marshall if you don't know what I'm referring to.) You guys hate Krugman because he's been one of the main public commentators putting nails in the coffin of Bush's post-election "political capital" - you can't stand it.

Posted by reg at March 5, 2005 02:15 PM

reg, reg, reg! From your own pen (keyboard?) comes this: "I think that if you did a serious survey of professional economists of all persuasions, by the way, you'd find that their predictive accuracy is pretty poor."

Then why oh why oh why have you been touting Krugman as knowing what is going to happen/will happen/might happen to the economy if SS reform happens? I don't get it!

Posted by GMRoper at March 5, 2005 02:41 PM

I don't hate Paul Krugman, but I do disagree with much of what he writes in the NY Times. My disagreement comes from the fact that his attacks are often focused on Bush's motivations - which have a specious, at best, relationship to the ultimate rightness/wrongness of a proposed policy.

If I recall correctly, I am on record with you as opposing the SS privatization plan - perhaps for different reasons than yours, but against it none the less. Which puts me squarely in opposition to Greenspan's point of view.

I'm no Greenspan ass kisser but have to say, based on his career performance at the Fed, and elsewhere, he has enormous credibility with me.

What I learn from reading Krugman's NY Times writings is that he has what seems to be a deep rooted distrust, dislike, and, maybe, hatred for the President. In my judgement this prevents him from rendering a dispassionate analysis of the President's proposed policies. That I agree with Krugman from time to time, such as on SS reform (the conclusion, not necessarily the details of why) is just happenstance.

Posted by too many steves at March 5, 2005 03:26 PM

"touting Krugman as knowing what is going to happen/will happen/might happen to the economy if SS reform happens? I don't get it!"

You said it...

Frankly, you're putting words in my mouth and blatantly twisting meanings...Krugman's writings on social security are empirical, not predictive - except insofar as the whole thing is predictive. I gave you some figures a while back that were an attempt to bring future predictions more in line with past empirical outcomes, and frankly they support Krugman's position. But he's using the numbers generated by the SSA and CBO for his arguments, as is everyone else. The question is, do those standard predictions support Bush or Krugman. Of course, the answer to that is obvious.

My sense of outrage or whatever on this is catching you guys bascially not being able to deal with the SS argument (I know this is a fact, because you clearly didn't know much about what was at issue when I engaged you on this a while back and you didn't come up with any coherent counterargument...just "we need to think about it" while acknowledging that there was more to the data than the BushCo snowjob) - so because Krugman has made serious headway with solid (and frankly on the empirical face of it regarding Bush's policy inevitably worsening the forty-year shortfall, irrefutable, arguments - evidenced by the administration having pulled back from the brink a bit in the face of a public education process that has moved the mainstream away from them on the issue rather dramatically, just as they've been forced to acknowledge many of the issues being brought forward by opponents - and of course have come up with the disingenuous solution of being deliberately vague about any actual bill and "re-framing" the same old song quite shamelessly) - but to get out of this digression, and leaving proper grammar to my betters, my point was that you guys are attempting to attack Krugman's reputation with a trivia contest because you've got nothing except some rancid Catoesque ideology standing between you and the full recognition of what a sorry little fraud you're stuck with for "fearless leader". Krugman's been out front on this one. Needs to be slapped around, no matter how tangential the slapping and slappers.

Check out Krugman's longish piece on SS at the New York Review of Books (I think it's the issue before the last and archived) and tell me what a fool he is. Frankly, if I practiced the "science" of psychology I would tread lightly in lampooning gentlemen from the other "social" sciences. Dangerous waters, because some of us are inclined to think most of you folks can be counted on for something bordering on "bull" as often as you offer any insight or accurate information.

too many: I guess for some of us, after Ashcroft, Gonzales, the "anti-gay marriage" amendment nonsense, the WMD scam, the miserable energy policy, the tax cut scam, and the SS scam, it's pretty hard not to read something more sinister than rank stupidity into Bush. I think the simplicity gambit is an act and that he knows what he's doing. Which is why I find him far less than admirable.

Posted by reg at March 5, 2005 05:27 PM

Reg, if you want the SS reality, go see dennis the peasant's blog linked to in the update. Unless you can refute that info, you are talking through your hat. Nuff said?

Posted by GMRoper at March 5, 2005 07:08 PM

I read it...I'm still scratching my head as to what his point is. Doesn't deal at all with any of the underlying issues...other than to take issue with Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall over whether W could be considering a default. He may be right on that quibble or that Drum doesn't fully know the details of T Bons. Actually that unpleasant looking fellow undercuts the arguments on the Right that the Trust Fund is a fiction. Also, I think that "The Peasant" comes across as a snarky, unoriginal gotcha guy who is a tedious read. Really can't figure out what the H you're talking about here. Am I missing some post or what ?

What are you talking about ? You don't really think that that narrowly focused screed refutes what Krugman and others have put on the table.

The main point is that you are, because of partisan blinders I would assume because you're not stupid, disposed to defend a guy - W - who's approach to the long-term problems of Social Security liguidity was to promote an agenda (which has been simmering in far-right think tanks like Cato for decades) of partial "privatization" as a solution, when in fact any third grader looking at the facts can see that it makes the actual problem (not a "crisis" incidentally, but a long-term concern) WORSE - in fact, far worse. And he denied that the Trust Fund (which I like to call the Reagan-Greenspan Trust Fund) actually exists...

How can you even begin to buy into that end of the argument ? It's a joke...and it's genesis is a pro-corporate agenda, like so many of Bush's policies are, literally on their face. I'm shocked by you guys...really. Unless YOU can refute Krugman's arguments against the W plan - which are readily available at NYRB among other places - I'd cease the ad hominem.

Debate the issues, not whether Krugman was stupid in refinancing his house because he thought interest rates would go higher.

Posted by reg at March 5, 2005 07:20 PM