Why the Left Should Not Forgive the American Voter

I’m sorry, was re-electing George Bush an option that I somehow missed this time around? I’m assuming Krugman couldn’t have been talking about the other branch of government as it has been in the hands of the opposite party’s monsters for a couple of years. And “the people” seem pleased as punch about all those fine folks, if opinion polls are any guide.

Krugman? Right? Right…

He’s only right when he sticks to econ 101. Otherwise he’s an idiot.

I think we can all safely say that the median voter is both a fool and a monster.

“If he’s right, though, what does that say about the rationality of the American people?

What’s more, we know humans don’t display infallible rationality, they display bounded rationality. Understanding their constraints (i.e. asymmetrical information) is important in assessing the constraints guiding their decisions.

Decent but frightened people may seek protection from a monster.

Uninformed? Yes. I imagine most smart people think that the majority of voters are uninformed. Monsters, no.

Krugman was once a good economist. His re-analysis of international trade and pointing out some details about comparative advantage are very interesting.

BUT the man used the broken window fallacy in his idiotic NYT’s column.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/91401.html

Then there’s his treatment of Milton Friedman after Friedman died. What courage Krugman has.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857

Here’s another column he wrote in favor of MERCANTILISM. No comment necessary, hopefully.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/opinion/27krugman.html?ex=1277524800&en=9303b9197426525d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

And then there’s this lovely idiotic piece:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Which is thoroughly destroyed by the economists at http://www.cafehayek.com:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/07/krugman_raises_.html

Krugman is certainly a smart man, but if his NYT columns are any indication of his current economic reasoning ability, he has become a poor economist.

> Why the Left Should Not Forgive the American Voter

It would be peculiar timing for the Left to resent the American Voter, now.

Oh, I get it. It’s Backwards Day!

Thank you Nate.

“And give up their political rights so easily?”

Probably they don’t. Those who support ‘privacy’ have a point against the administrations wire-tapping, but I am not aware of anyone willingly giving up their ‘political’ rights. Red state voters who were willing and able got to the polls with no problems by-in-large, much the same as blue-staters.

Funny… I thought it wasn’t about ‘blue sate-red state’ anymore…

And Bryan isn’t ‘kicking Krugman’. He’s mearly taking Krugman’s concept to it’s logical end, and asking him and those who would drink the kool aid for him to acknowledge it.

I wouldn’t call them irrational, just with a very different set of values. If you believe in the literal interpretation of scripture and that all life, including government, should be focused on defending, maintaining, and propagating those beliefs, life becomes a crusade and reason takes on a different meaning.

So are you saying that you think the median voter makes an informed decision for the good of the overall country? Didn’t we dispose of that idea all the way back to DeToqueville (I believe), who at least was optimistic enough to think that everyone’s biases canceled out? I suppose it’s not very flattering to say the median voter is pretty poor, but it’s true – on both sides.

I believe you’re also implying that the use of the word monster is outrageous. I think it’s a poor choice of words, but let’s consider the track record. In the last eight years in particular, we’ve killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq based either on mistaken and poorly analyzed evidence or based on attempts to mislead the public, depending on your point of view. We’ve supported coercive regimes like Pakistan. We’ve pretty widely used techniques that are arguably torture while claiming the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to us. We’ve apparently fired federal attorneys for not making politically-motivated cases. We’ve introduced high levels of unaccountable domestic surveillance. We’ve run enormous deficits, thus presumably hurting economic growth. While Bush has done some highly admirable things like increasing AIDS funding, is it too far-fetched to say that this administration can be considered morally bad… from a Burkean conservative point of view? Are you sure that you’re not making excuses because the administration in question is Republican and ostensibly conservative?

So b-dog, it is your belief that there is a “propaganda machine” for the relativley withdrawn Repubican party, but none whatsoever for the outspoken liberal platform???

“assume that krugman is acting rationally. then, when you read his column, ask yourself, “what is he trying to accomplish”?”

If his goal was to generate snark on message boards of websites populated by neoconservative armchair economists, he appears to have succeeded.

“Big-government policies in the late 1960s and 1970s brought us stagflation.”

That’s an interesting theory. Another is that we suffered two major supply shocks caused by the oil embargoes.

“Since Reagan, there’s been a push towards smaller– or at least, less invasive and fast-growing– government and freer markets, and that has brought faster economic growth, benefiting everyone.”

It has generated more wealth, but has not benefited everyone. Another ideological bubble bursts…

“Or at least, if you don’t buy that story, it’s silly to pretend it isn’t a plausible one that Kansans etc. might buy into without being irrational or perverse.”

The red states are net importers of taxes and rely more heavily on social spending than the blue states. Hence, they are voting against their best interests.

“Not that there’s anything irrational about voting your values instead of your narrow economic interests, anyway. If you care more about banning gay marriage than getting a few more handouts from the government, who’s to second-guess your preferences, and on what grounds?”

Thanks for acknowledging that so many red staters rely on handouts. But you are correct that some people are happy to trade away their political rights and money for a greater perception of security and social issues like banning gay marriage. I’m just wondering if it’s rational.

“Probably they don’t. Those who support ‘privacy’ have a point against the administrations wire-tapping, but I am not aware of anyone willingly giving up their ‘political’ rights.”

Basically, the government, right now, can declare you as an American citizen an enemy combatant, throw you in jail without counsel, torture you, and try you by a military court, with capital punishment. All they have to do is say you’re a terrorist. This is called giving up your political rights.

“Red state voters who were willing and able got to the polls with no problems by-in-large, much the same as blue-staters.”

I say political rights, you assume I’m talking only about voting rights. Please stop assuming.

“Funny… I thought it wasn’t about ‘blue sate-red state’ anymore…”

Oh, the right wingers are going to shut up for five minutes?

“And Bryan isn’t ‘kicking Krugman’. He’s merely taking Krugman’s concept to its logical end, and asking him and those who would drink the kool aid for him to acknowledge it.”

Still trying to figure out why Krugman is so hated on this site and the only thing I can think of is reality upset the neoconservative apple cart recently and the neocon armchair economists want to shoot the messenger instead of acknowledging their mistake.

Bad dog;

If you think this is a neocon website, you didn’t get it at all.

Just read a little of what is written on this site before letting your prejudices jump to their conclusions. You’ll see, among other things, many critics of Republican policy. You’ll also see the right merit being given to Krugman when it is fit, i.e., appreciation of the work that gave him the Nobel prize.

Now if you want, check Krugman’s own writings. You’ll see that although he includes as ‘monsters’ of the last 14 years someone who had a despicable comment about victims of Columbine, he strangely forgets someone who said about Waco ‘a bunch of fanatics incinerated themselves’ and, indeed, those who perpetrated Waco. He ‘forgets’ also some rapist who got away with it. And etc., etc.

So, if you want to accuse someone of being partisan: start with Krugman himself.

Francis:

“If you think this is a neocon website, you didn’t get it at all.”

Once again, for the last time, please read what I write and please don’t fill in the rest from imagination and your own prejudices. I never said it’s a neocon site. I like the site. I’ve read only a few days’ worth of posts from its authors and hope to make a habit of visiting unless I’m banned first for making people cry. What I did say is there seems to be plenty of neocon armchair economists visiting these message boards.

“Just read a little of what is written on this site before letting your prejudices jump to their conclusions.”

I’m only reacting to the posters in his message board. I keep asking over and over why the hostility about Krugman and it was like yelling fire in a movie.

“You’ll see, among other things, many critics of Republican policy. You’ll also see the right merit being given to Krugman when it is fit, i.e., appreciation of the work that gave him the Nobel prize.”

That’s fine.

“Now if you want, check Krugman’s own writings. You’ll see that although he includes as ‘monsters’ of the last 14 years someone who had a despicable comment about victims of Columbine, he strangely forgets someone who said about Waco ‘a bunch of fanatics incinerated themselves’ and, indeed, those who perpetrated Waco. He ‘forgets’ also some rapist who got away with it. And etc., etc. So, if you want to accuse someone of being partisan: start with Krugman himself.”

Okay, that’s fine. I didn’t get the rapist reference or the “etc. etc.” references but okay I get it. Is it worth all the hostility? Seriously, what economic policies does he advocate that people here hate that much? Or is that he simply is extremely outspoken and you don’t like some of his opinions? I’m still not really getting much in the way of answers, and so I’m falling back on my own prejudices, which is an understanding that Krugman is a lightning rod for the Right and the Right tends to blindly attack whatever it is told is evil.

Bad dog:

“don’t fill in the rest from imagination and your own prejudices. I never said it’s a neocon site.”

But earlier:

“Still trying to figure out why Krugman is so hated on this site and the only thing I can think of is reality upset the neoconservative apple cart recently and the neocon armchair economists want to shoot the messenger instead of acknowledging their mistake.”

You’re crazy, man. I don’t argue with you any longer.

Dick:

Also, for the case of that oft-quoted pacifist Albert Einstein, see:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-03/einstein.html

Dick:

I know, and some time ago some people expressed the same wish (about his coming back to economic insights) on this site.

But to me, he followed the typical path of the scientist-that-becomes-popular:

1) Starts by saying smart things;
2) Gets popular because of that;
3) Gets somewhat intoxicated with popularity;
4) Starts saying things that makes him more popular, but less and less of (1);
5) Then gets completely intoxicated and just says what his audience wants to hear.

I don’t know if Krugman has hit step (5) or not. For example, I don’t know if he is the great defender of free-trade he once was. Tell me: has he said anything about the anti-free-trade stance of Obama? That could be a good test.

“The guy has the below bio and is a Nobel Prize winner”

Just goes to show that economics is not a science.

Thanks for reminding me of my original question, Jacob:

“Why do so many red state Americans vote against their wallets? And give up their political rights so easily? And solicit media like Fox News that lies to them?”

Anybody got any ideas other than Krugman’s evil and I’m a commie?

Dick King writes:

…because Paul Krugman received the Nobel Prize for proving that free trade enhances the well-being of all trading partners even when there is initially no comparative advantage.

By way of clarification: That’s not at all what Krugman received the Nobel Prize for. He didn’t prove that, and he’d be pretty embarrassed if the only reason he was awarded a Nobel Prize was to take credit for something that’s been known for hundreds of years before he was born. It’s been understood and proven for over 200 years that free trade enhances the well-being of all trading partners regardless of their initial conditions, advantages, or disadvantages–comparative or absolute.

Krugman’s Nobel Prize was for his work on trade patterns and location of economic activity. See http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/announcement.html

By the way, with regard to the meaning of the term “comparative advantage”: What David Ricardo showed over a hundred years ago was that everyone–and every country–has a comparative advantage. People might initially have no absolute advantage, but they always have a comparative advantage; and that’s exactly why even in some cases when it looks like there might be no gains from trade for some participants even though they still are observed to trade and benefit, there still are underlying reasons that explain why we as outside economic observers see them trading and benefiting. Krugman’s work can be viewed as showing a mechanism by which comparative advantage evolves. Sadly, the Nobel Prize didn’t exist in Ricardo’s day. (One might argue that equally sadly, it exists today. But I digress.)

For Krugman’s contribution in context, see International Trade in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

This guy looked up the blue/red state divide on tax net:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/1/13/25325/6923

“Of the 31 states that GAIN wealth from the federal government, 25 (81%) voted for Bush. Of the remaining 17 states that LOSE wealth to the federal government, 12 (71%) voted for Kerry. ”

Answer, in the election four years ago, vote for the opposition if government is stealing.

The answer is more complicated and much is determined by the geography of the state.

bad dog,

I haven’t read all the comments, so excuse me if someone pointed this out already.

Paul Krugman thinks that George Bush is a proponent of the free market and it’s his free market policies that have caused the current crisis. I think that speaks for itself, don’t you? I mean if Bush=free market, then the Pope=Satan worship.

Krugman needs to take a hike.

Neal,

Bush certainly did a lot of talking about free markets, and a lot of free-markets believers voted for him twice. I’m not entirely sure what that means in the end, but I think it’s a bit disingenuous of conservatives to simply disavow Bush and his actions because things didn’t turn out as they would have liked.

[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address and for rudeness. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring your comment privileges. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.–Econlib Ed.]

I’ve tried to read most of the comments but you all seem to be missing the point.

The point Bryan was trying to make is that Democrats seem to think that the election somehow vindicates their ideology. Somehow, the last eight years were just an aberration that has been corrected by rational and smart voting.

But an electoral majority does not imply rational outcomes, or it would have meant 2000 and 2004 were rational outcomes as well.

So, take the election with a grain of salt, y’all!

Wow, the discussion has gotten really good while I was gone today.

Ruy Diaz:

Tsk, tsk!

John Fast:

Thanks for an interesting post. But regarding your comment about low-income voters, the choice is not often a case of lower taxes versus more social spending. The choice when voting Republican is often a little more difficult: Let us lower taxes on the richest of us, you give up social spending (or accept a higher debt), and trust that down the road you’ll get more money in your pocket due to the trickle-down effect.

Do the people visiting this message board still believe trickle-down economics works? In my view it’s been thoroughly discredited. And yet 48% of the American public voted for its continuation less than a week ago. That’s what puzzles me. Can so many people believe a myth that it becomes accepted as fact even though it’s not true–such as the belief Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks?

You also noted: “Voters in general are not motivated by self-interest but rather by what they perceive as the public good.”

This is a topic covered in an interesting way by the authors of Freakonomics on their website a few years ago. If my memory serves me correctly (I read the article years ago), the conclusion was so few people vote because they are motivated by self interest and voting gets them nothing personally. That’s an opposite argument of yours. It’s my personal opinion that, respectfully, you are both incorrect. I believe people vote out of self interest but some of their needs and wants from the political system are irrational–e.g., I want my potholes paved but I want to pay no taxes.

Maybe my vote is even irrational, who knows. My household income is high enough that I would have paid lower taxes under McCain and will now pay higher taxes under Obama, and yet I voted Obama. In this case I voted against my immediate economic interests and for my broader economic interests–i.e., I believe Democratic policies will result in a healthier economy and a stronger middle class, which will help my business continue to growth. (I also can’t vote for a party that believes people are inherently evil and require lots of regulation but corporations are inherently good and require no regulation.)

Another interesting statement you made:

“The Democrats haven’t offered a *real* alternative: they didn’t demand a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, nor overturn (or even set a limit on the duration of) the Patriot Act, nor demand the President abide by the Fourth Amendment (even as loosely as FISA required).”

I think you’re totally right about this. When Obama voted for the new FISA bill and essentially helped to give away my political rights for no gain to me, my jaw hit the floor. The Republicans have gotten so good at framing the debate with the hysterical rhetoric that the Democrats have shied away from advancing a true progressive agenda, which in some ways is a shame. But what enrages me most about the Dems–and the Republicans even more–is this idea that deficits don’t really matter. That our grandchildren will have to deal with them but not us, so whoopee. The truth is the average voter works over a month a year to pay taxes that go to cover interest on the debt (more if you don’t count the stealing of our Social Security funds). They don’t get guns, they don’t get butter, they get nothing. And something like 40% of that goes to banks in foreign countries.

(Funny how a red stater voting Republican because of abortion will, because of Republican overspending most of Bush’s term, have to work hard however many days or weeks a year to pay taxes that go directly to China, a country that forces, or used to force, abortions. Or pay taxes that go directly to Saudi Arabia for that matter, the country from most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Interesting notions about compromised sovereignty come to mind.)

All of this raises an interesting question:

So what do you all think? Do deficits matter? and if so should I care, or are they only for my grandkids to worry about?

Interesting, Jacob …

What is public choice theory?

I admire some of Krugman’s work on economics. If he would stick to economics, he’d be a worth reading on a regular basis, though that’s not to say he’s always and invariably right. Alas, he lets his detestation of Bush color his journalism (and I say this as someone pretty unhappy with Bush). His columns are frequently Noam Chomsky-ish in their repetitiveness and their unyielding, partisan hostility. Never has he given Bush or anyone in the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt. And the NYT knows it, since their own ombudsman has said so:

“Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults” (Daniel Okrent, “13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did,” The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

THAT is most likely why so many readers here have grave doubts about Krugman; consider that he has left economic thought behind and has moved into the domain of cheapshot punditry; and that he’s frequently not worth reading. But if Bad Dog can’t see that Krugman’s extremely biased, and that this colors his work — something one should notice after reading approx. three columns — then there’s probably a lot else he hasn’t noticed.

[Comment edited for rudeness. Please email the webmaster@econlib.org.–Econlib Ed.]