That’s what is technically known as an “opinion”
Here’s Paul Krugman criticizing Glenn Hubbard:
I’m late in getting to Glenn Hubbard’s debt column, but it still needs further bashing. Here’s what Hubbard says about the Obama administration:
“Ruling out long-term entitlement spending restraint, Mr Obama has argued that fiscal sustainability can be accomplished by raising marginal tax rates on households earning more than $250,000 per year.”
This is what is technically known as a “lie”.
This caught my attention, as I held the same opinion . . . er, lie in my mind. That got me thinking about the difference between opinions and lies. Krugman points out that there are good arguments against Hubbard’s assertion, but I also see good arguments in favor. And of course there are good arguments against many of Krugman’s assertions.
I’ve got to give Krugman credit, I’d have trouble looking people in the eye after calling them liars.
PS. Here’s a tidbit from the New York magazine profile of Krugman:
One colleague at Princeton, where Krugman has taught since 2000, says the economist will avert his eyes when circumstance places the two of them alone in an elevator, his nose stuck in the corner, so as to avoid conversation.
I’d recommend the entire piece. This is also interesting:
I brought up the work of the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, now with the Obama administration, who has studied the radicalizing effects of ideological isolation””the idea, born from studies of three-judge panels, that if you are not in regular conversation with people who differ from you, you can become far more extreme. It is a very Obama idea, and I asked Krugman if he ever worried that he might succumb to that tendency. “It could happen,” he says. “But I work a lot from data; that’s enough of an anchor. I have a good sense when a claim has gone too far.”
I get frustrated with conservatives who are oblivious to the fact that rumors of QE2 drove up TIPS spreads. Don’t they follow the financial news? Krugman’s focus on the data is part of the reason he is such a formidable debater.
Tags: QE 2
8. July 2011 at 07:33
I disagree. It’s not an opinion. Maybe it’s not technically a “lie,” but it sure isn’t correct to state that “Obama has argued that fiscal sustainability can be accomplished” by raising taxes on the rich. Either Obama has argued this or he hasn’t. And he has, in fact, not argued this. Now, you may not think that his approach to entitlement spending is likely to work (that is an opinion) but it’s simply not true to say that Obama has argued that the problem can be solved simply by raising taxes on the rich. His statements on fiscal sustainability are very well documented, and they contradict Hubbard’s claim.
8. July 2011 at 07:50
Alexander, I understand that argument, but by exactly the same standard I can find “lies” in dozens and dozens of Krugman posts. You don’t think he uses the same hyperbole when discussion the evil Republicans who want to cut taxes for the rich and starve the poor?
Obama is opposed to tax increases on the non-rich–that’s a fact.
Obama submits budgets that don’t call for entitlement cuts, that’s a fact. In fact he favors increasing entitlement spending. Perhaps you could quibble he wants to slightly cut the growth rate, but that’s a very different argument.
Hubbard may not be precisely correct, but it’s certainly within the bounds of normal conversation about politics, which is almost never precisely correct. To call it a lie is silly.
8. July 2011 at 08:11
If the issue is with calling it a “lie,” then sure, I agree it’s a bit silly in political discussion. But if I were rating Hubbard’s statement for accuracy, I’d rate it as false or at least very misleading. That’s not to say Krugman isn’t guilty of the same thing, but Krugman is irrelevant to my concern. My concern is the implication that someone can go around saying things that are verifiably false and get away with saying it’s an “opinion.”
Also, Scott, the facts you’ve stated are perfectly fine and accurate, but notice how those are the things Hubbard could have said, but didn’t. He said that Obama ruled out “long-term entitlement spending restraint.” But then you conceded that Obama “wants to slightly cut the growth rate.” Cutting the growth rate is exactly what Hubbard says Obama has ruled out. And it’s not something that can be quibbled over: Obama has said in no uncertain terms that cutting the growth rate of health-care spending is key to getting the federal government’s finances in order. This is a matter of public record. It is a fact. He’s even done things (however modest) that are consistent with these statements. (Again, you can disagree with how effective they will be, but that’s a separate issue.)
You said: “Obama submits budgets that don’t call for entitlement cuts, that’s a fact.” Sure, it’s a fact. But submitting budgets that don’t call for entitlement cuts is totally different from ruling out those cuts, especially when everyone knows that the president’s budget is simply an opening salvo in a lengthy back-and-forth with a hostile Congress. Now, maybe you could quibble about Obama’s commitment to entitlement restraint. (I’d disagree, but I concede that’s a matter of opinion). But, again, saying that he’s ruled out entitlement spending is, if not outright false, taking great liberties with the phrase “ruled out,” considering that Obama’s public statements repeatedly contradict this statement.
8. July 2011 at 09:24
For the record, one will remember that in a WaPo profile of Krugman some years ago PK complained that the editors of the Times had ordered him to stop using the words “liar”, “lie”, “lying” etc., and opined that when people tell lies they aren’t called liar in the press nearly enough.
Krugman also said that unlike other columnists, he makes a point of not getting to know the people he writes about, calling them for their side of the story, etc.
He considered this a strength of his, since when one gets to know people personally it harder to call them “liar” as a journalist responsibly should.
(One might read this as: the less I know the easier it is for me to believe someone is lying, and so get the psychic reward of righteously calling someone a liar.)
8. July 2011 at 10:06
Scott Sumner is venturing into territory now occupied by Yves Smith, who seems to want to say nice things about Brad DeLong but can’t seem to keep from bashing him at the same time. for example….
8. July 2011 at 10:07
There sure a lot of people taking Obama to be saying what Hubbard characterized it as. For instance, this comment at Capital Gains and Games:
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/2301/debt-ceiling-talks-great-hollywood-script
‘Why don’t re really make it real, and surreal, by getting Warren Buffett, Bill Gates’ dad a few corporate jet owners and hedge fund managers onto a highly watched Fox News show, and have them all say why they think increasing their taxes is a very reasonable thing to do, and the current system is unfair and unreasonable…. not to memtion putting us into an even deeper hole by the dsy….’
8. July 2011 at 10:08
But submitting budgets that don’t call for entitlement cuts is totally different from ruling out those cuts, especially when everyone knows that the president’s budget is simply an opening salvo in a lengthy back-and-forth with a hostile Congress.
Ah, so then we can ignore all the various Republican threats about the debt ceiling, not raising taxes, etc., since everyone knows that those are simply salvos in a lengthy back-and-forth with a hostile Senate and President? So Krugman’s claims about how insane the GOP is are “lies?”
8. July 2011 at 10:17
There sure a lot of people taking Obama to be saying what Hubbard characterized it as.
Many smart politicians and op-ed writers, not just President Obama and Paul Krugman, but many on the right of course as well, make statements that give the impression of (political popular) extreme views, but have careful and artful outs. This allows them to throw red meat to the base, while being able to truthfully deny people who attempt to call them on it.
Sometimes they get attacked for these misleading impressions. The general partisan response is to say how horrible those people are on the other side for giving such a misleading impression, perhaps even blaming them for the most extreme reactions of some nutball, like the preemptive blaming for the Giffords shooting. OTOH, when your own people are attacked for fostering misleading impressions, the response is to… say how horrible those people on the other side are for taking things out of context or not understanding the careful qualifications or true implications of the statement, and to say that you’re not responsible for people (on either side) not grokking your true views.
8. July 2011 at 10:31
I’m sure Jim Glass enjoyed this:
‘He was a liberal and a Democrat, but even in 1999, when he was hired by Howell Raines to write his Times column, “I still saw equivalent craziness on both sides.”
‘This evenhandedness began to disappear almost immediately.’
I remember Jim telling me back then that it would be interesting to see whether Krugman would change the culture of the Times Op-ed page, or it would change him. There’s his answer.
8. July 2011 at 10:57
John, I’d love to ignore Republican threats about the debt ceiling. I would sleep better at night. The problem is that they seem to believe it’s no big deal. And they’ve spent a lot of effort convincing themselves that this is the case. Maybe they just have a really good poker face (in fact, I’m sure they do) but unease is justified when it comes to the GOP and the debt ceiling.
And I’ve already stated this, but for clarity I’ll state it again: If the problem is with the usage of the word “lie,” then sure, perhaps that’s a bit silly to throw around in a charged debate where there’s lots of room for disagreement. Calling something a lie implies far more than simply calling something factually incorrect. Perhaps we don’t want to go down the “lie” road. And to be fair to Hubbard, I could easily imagine this being taken out of context. He may have a history of making very smart arguments for why he thinks the president’s entitlement plans are bogus and reflect a less-than-genuine interest in restraining entitlement spending. In which case his statement is far more forgivable and understandable. But presented as it is presented above, I can’t call the statement anything other than false.
8. July 2011 at 12:21
Alexander, As I’m sure you know the long term budget plans always assume things like Medicare savings (screwing doctors) which never actually come to pass. There’s always a “doc fix”. The fact that Obama plays lip service to those goals, does not in any way suggest he is serious. All politicians talk about reducing waste and fraud. I want him to tell me which little old ladies won’t get operations, which doctors will get screwed. Until he does so I have little interest in taking his bland assurances seriously.
I’m not saying Krugman’s criticism wasn’t defensible. One can argue Hubbard exaggerated. I’m claiming there are many ways of looking at these complex issues. It’s not like 1+1=2.
Jim Glass, Interest observation.
engineer27, Please don’t compare me to Yves Smith. I read a recent hit job where she complained DeLong was too right wing (rolls eyes.)
Patrick, Good point.
John, You said;
“The general partisan response is to say how horrible those people are on the other side for giving such a misleading impression, perhaps even blaming them for the most extreme reactions of some nutball, like the preemptive blaming for the Giffords shooting.”
I criticized those knee jerk reactions, and it turned out the guy was not a right wing nut, just a nut. Notice that unlike many unnamed bloggers I didn’t pile on the IMF chief accused of rape. I’ve lived long enough to know that emotional knee-jerk reactions are usually regretted.
Patrick, Yes, I like the 1990s Krugman much better.
8. July 2011 at 16:00
I’m grateful to be able to read your blog as well as Tyler Cowen’s and Krugman’s – twenty years ago I don’t think a non-economist like me could have learned nearly so much from smart commentators who disagree.
That said, I don’t see why you don’t use this post to spell out the “good arguments against many of Krugman’s assertions” or in favor of Hubbard’s, instead of complaining it’s uncivil to say someone lied. Prove Hubbard isn’t a liar instead of objecting to the form of Krugman’s accusation! How many of your readers are remotely interested in who snubs who in the elevator in the Princeton economics department?
8. July 2011 at 16:29
Scott, that’s a fair enough argument, but it applies equally well to every single plan that’s been offered so far. Yes, Paul Ryan’s plan, too. (I’d argue especially his plan, but obviously that’s subject to debate.)
Now, granted, you’ve not exactly been kind to Republicans on fiscal issues, but this isn’t about what you think, it’s about what Hubbard thinks.
Also, if even many doctors aren’t aware of what procedures are effective and ineffective, how can you expect a politician to give specifics about what procedures he thinks should or should not be reimbursed? I just think it’s a little crazy that Obama gets attacked by some people for proposing “top-down government rationing,” and then gets attacked by Hubbard for having “ruled out” restraining entitlement spending. But then, the contradictory attacks on Obama are nothing new.
9. July 2011 at 05:23
Erik, The elevator comment was meant as a joke, read what came right before.
I thought it was obvious that Hubbard’s statement wasn’t a lie, and no explanation was required. In my various responses to Alexander (above) I laid out some reasons why Hubbard might have been roughly correct.
Alexander, I haven’t studied Ryan’s plan closely, but from what I’ve read it’s totally different. People are being told the government will only cover X amount, for the rest they are on their own. Obama’s not saying that. He’s promising greater “efficiencies.” But again it’s not my area of expertise, I was giving you my impression from reading the papers. Part of that came from reading progressives, who claimed Ryan’s plan would deny many people health care, and Obama’s would not. That sounds to me like Ryan’s caps are more rigorous. But perhaps I am wrong.
If Hubbard accused Obama of rationing in such a way that people would be denied health service because of cost, then I’d have to agree he had a double standard. If I’m not mistaken, he is as partisan as Krugman. My take on intellectuals like that is that they try to make points as favorable to their point of view as possible, without crossing the line into lying. They don’t want to lose their reputation among fellow intellectuals, but they want to make partisan points as forcefully as possible. It’s a fine line.
BTW, the main purpose of this post was too amuse my readers.
Someone mentioned that Krugman doesn’t like to get to know the people he criticizes, because it might make him pull his punches. But I find just the opposite. In the workplace people are far more rational when talking with others face to face, than when communicating by email. By email people often say insulting and unfair things they’d never say face to face, as in face to face conversation they’d realize the other person’s motives weren’t as malicious as they thought.
9. July 2011 at 07:53
Scott, I’m not sure your impressions of the two plans are accurate. (I’d wager this is venturing into “opinion” territory, though.) My take on the two plans is that they are fundamentally similar, in that they both say, “Okay, we’re only going to spend X amount on Medicare every year.” Obviously, X is very different between Ryan and Obama. Ryan wants to extract huge savings from Medicare. Obama prefers to keep spending from getting out of control (as it is currently projected to do). Both of their major budget savings come from restraining federal health spending. But the number X isn’t terribly important. What’s important is that they both have some cap on what they want to spend. But the way that X amount of money is spent is where they really differ fundamentally. Obama’s proposal is to greatly empower IPAB. Ryan’s is to turn Medicare into Medicare Advantage. The idea that Ryan’s plan is more “rigorous” is, to me, kind of ridiculous, as he’s no more specific than Obama about what procedures would or would not be reimbursed. And I don’t regard this as a shortcoming of either plan. I think it’s impossible to expect those kinds of specifics when (a) we often don’t know which procedures work and which don’t (hence why comparative effectiveness research is a good idea) and (b) we have no idea what new procedures might be developed in the future. You can’t ration something that doesn’t exist. What you can do, however, is to come up with a process that will ensure better decision-making in the future. This is why I prefer Obama’s IPAB plan: The problem of federal health spending is a Congress problem. Congress has a hard time saying no. The IPAB proposal seeks to take some of the nitty-gritty details out of Congress’ hands. It may not work, but at least it gets at the heart of the problem. Ryan’s plan relies on future Congresses to not mess with his formula. Given the “doc fixes” you bring up, I think it’s highly unlikely that Ryan would net nearly as much in savings as he claims. Yes, this does tend to refute the progressives’ point about Ryan’s plan hurting seniors. But not completely, because even if Congress were to override his plan in future years and increase the value of the vouchers, in the short term there might very well be some pain. (Just not as much as progressives claim.)
9. July 2011 at 08:03
Sorry, I should have used paragraphs in the previous post.
Re: Hubbard. I think there’s a difference between saying something false and lying. I think Hubbard’s statement crossed the line into false. I don’t necessarily think it crossed the line into lying (and frankly, I don’t really care).
Hubbard’s statement is a claim about Obama’s statements, words, and rhetoric on the issue. The key words/phrases here are “ruling out” and “argued.” This is a statement about what Obama has *said*, which happens to be a matter of public record. It’s easily verifiable. It’s either true or false. In this case it’s false.
Hubbard *could* have made an argument about the seriousness of Obama’s proposals, or the sincerity of his stated positions, but he didn’t. He *could* have made your arguments, Scott, but he didn’t. He just said something that was wrong.
BTW, regarding Krugman and his refusal to get to know the people he criticizes, I agree with you 100 percent. Even when people make false statements, it’s often not out of malice. Krugman tends to think the worst of people even when it’s not warranted. If anything, he would be well served by having weekly drinks with the people he criticizes.
10. July 2011 at 06:48
Alexander, I just don’t see things the way you do. Suppose a family has budget problems. Two options:
1. Dad cuts everyone’s spending budget by 20%.
2. Dad tells everyone to try to be more efficient, use more coupons.
Which action is more binding?
Regarding your second point; sure one could argue that it’s “false,” but something can be both an opinion and false. Just as something can be both a lie and false.
Because I’m not an expert on health care, I’m more than willing to concede your point that Hubbard’s comment may have been false (or more false than I thought), and that similar comments could apply to Ryan’s plan. In any case, I think we agree on the main issue, which is that the term ‘lie’ probably should be reserved for bald-faced lies, like Eisenhower denying it was our U2 pilot, or Clinton saying he didn’t have sex with Lewinsky. The term should be used infrequently.
12. July 2011 at 21:57
I suppose I have a slightly narrower definition of “opinion.” I typically think of an opinion as something that can’t really be proven wrong, something that’s inherently subjective. Perhaps that is too narrow a definition. But yes, I agree the term “lie” implies something far stronger than was perhaps warranted.
I don’t imagine we’d see Medicare the same way. Nevertheless, I’ll attempt to push back.
The problem with the example you give is that it’s not a fair characterization. Both plans cut Medicare relative to its current projection. Ryan’s cuts more. It does this by indexing Medicare spending at a rate that most consider to be unrealistic (including people who worked on other versions of the plan). Obama’s plan indexes Medicare spending at a higher rate. A better analogy would be this:
1. Dad cuts everyone’s spending budget by 20%. He gives each of them a certain amount of money to spend on stuff, within some broadly defined limits.
2. Dad cuts everyone’s spending budget by 10%. He refuses to spend money on stupid things like video games that have been scientifically proven to not cure hunger or provide shelter. Yes, he clips a few coupons, too.
And no, 1 is not more binding than 2, not when “Dad” is elected by the rest of the family whose budget is being cut. Ryan’s attempt to cut deeper is not more binding when it doesn’t include a mechanism for forcing future Congresses to accept those cuts. After all, if it’s enough to just say, “We’re going to slash Medicare spending by X amount,” then why do those scheduled cuts to physician payments keep getting postponed?
13. July 2011 at 14:13
Alexander, You said;
“I suppose I have a slightly narrower definition of “opinion.” I typically think of an opinion as something that can’t really be proven wrong, something that’s inherently subjective.”
Lots of people have that view, but on closer inspection it doesn’t hold up. What is proof? If Hubbard and Krugman disagree, who proves which one is right? Shall we have another conservative Nobel prize winner referee the dispute? Do you think Krugman would agree?
All you do is back things up one step, and you end up arguing about what constitutes proof.
Here’s where I agree with you. If everyone agrees on a point, it’s generally no longer called an opinion. But that’s obviously not true in this case.
Regarding Dad, I don’t see where you get the 10%. It’s all hypothetical, there are no definite cuts that I can see. But I guess we just see things differently. Two points: The government is horrible at identifying waste. And second, the Dems claim no one will suffer under Obama’s plan. No one will be denied needed medicine. Put those together and I see no cuts, but that’s just my opinion. 🙂