Krugman lays the smackdown on Silly David Brooks

Paul Krugman’s response to David Brooks’ column today — which is itself a response (of sorts) to Krugman’s recent writing — is remarkably restrained, considering Brooks the Dumdum succeeds only in distorting Krugman’s arguments and appealing to that most juvenile of sources: Serious People.  When people say “the center cannot hold,” what they should really say is, “David Brooks, ‘Centrist,’ has nothing to offer.”

It won’t surprise anyone that Brooks once again devoted the most valuable opinion-based real estate in the country to vagaries and platitudes.  That’s just what he does — it comes from giving an opinion despite having no intellectual standing in said field.  And since Brooks has no expertise in any field — and I mean that literally, not disparagingly or hyperbolically — he finds himself in the uncomfortable position of constantly opining on subjects which are simply beyond his grasp.  Imagine someone at a cocktail party who hasn’t seen Citizen Kane, but instead of owning up to it embarrassingly spews forth, “You know, what continues to impress me about the film is its raw power and imagery.  Though I don’t love it as much as some of the Italian films I’ve seen (Which ones? Oh, you know, the classics!) AFI was right to put it near the top of their 100 greatest films.  Really, the imagery is phenomenal!”

That’s what I hear in my head every time I read David Brooks.  It’s infuriating.  And today’s column — which can best be described as an attempt to set a Keynesian strawman ablaze with a damp match — is no different.  After describing that some pundits and policy-makers (which I’ll refer to as “Krugmans” for simplicity) believe the economy is still weak and would benefit greatly from increased stimulus spending, Brooks then simply dismisses that line of argument with a wave of his hand, without bothering to marshal any evidence at all that the Krugmans are wrong.  Brooks writes:

These Demand Siders [who I’ve been calling Krugmans – JK] have very high I.Q.’s, but they seem to be strangers to doubt and modesty. They have total faith in their models. But all schools of economic thought have taken their lumps over the past few years. [emphasis added.]

GAH.  It’s unforgivable that the New York Times editorial board allows this lazy, destructive, sophomoric over-generalization to pass as analysis.  This blunt tool that Brooks is employing — everyone was wrong so let’s just move on — is responsible (at least in part) for the most disgraceful episodes of the past 10 years. Iraq — everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, let’s move on.  Guantanamo Bay and indefinite detention — everyone was behind opening GITMO, and even if we don’t all love it, we have it now and we can’t just close it down.  The Housing Bubble — no one knew we were in a bubble (in fact, it is impossible to know when you’re in a bubble, says Greenspan!) and there was nothing that could’ve been done about it anyway.

The most consistent aspect of how our country operates now is to promote those pundits and policy-makers whose counsel has proven most incorrect in all aspects to the highest levels of power, and to dismiss those who saw the dangers and tried to raise the warning flag as shrill, unserious, and naive extremists.  But in every instance in which Brooks and his Centrist-loving (read: Corporate-loving) cohorts claimed everybody was wrong, there have been those who stood up to the powers that be when it wasn’t popular to do so.  Those on the left who opposed the Iraq war — especially on the grounds that we were staring down the business end of mushroom cloud — have been vindicated.  Those — like Joseph Stiglitz and Brooksley Born — who warned the real estate bubble would pop, with disastrous consequences, have been vindicated.  Those —  like Krugman — who said the stimulus was too small have been vindicated, even if the likes of Brooks are to stubborn or dim to understand it.  So, no, David Brooks, those who have “taken their lumps” over the past years have been the devotes Alan Greenspan and the School of Deregulation.

Brooks goes on to say, falsely, that, “the Demand Siders don’t have a good explanation for the past two years.”  Krugman responds — again, with admirable (coerced?) restraint — by writing, “I have no idea what he’s talking about when he says [that].”  Krugman goes on to note:

Funny, I thought we had a perfectly good explanation: severe downturn in demand from the financial crisis, and a stimulus which we warned from the beginning wasn’t nearly big enough. And as I’ve been trying to point out, events have strongly confirmed a demand-side view of the world.

The thing is, it’s clear that Brooks himself doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Again, I mean this quite literally.  He doesn’t understand the subject about which he has chosen to write a column.  Take for instance this sentence, which sounds like a real sentence, but upon inspection reveals itself as pure nonsense.

Consumers are recovering from a debt-fueled bubble and have a moral aversion to more debt.

The distinction that has to be made here is a clear one, but one a casual reader may not be aware of.  See, the bubble was fuel by private debt, due to a lack of regulation that caused prices to inflate until the bubble popped.  The “more debt” that Brooks (again, falsely) claims Americans are averse to is government debt, used to jump start the economy to avoid extended stagnation.

There are two ways to interpret this sentence.  1) Brooks is speaking for the uneducated American who thinks that governments should operate like families — ie, tight one’s belt when times are tough; or 2) Brooks believes this sentence himself, thus betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of macroeconomic principles.  If we proceed with version (1), Brooks is simply incorrect about what it is Americans want.  In fact, 60% of the country wants increased government spending until the economy recovers.  Brooks loves to speak for Americans, but he hates to cite polls —  that’s not unique to him, it’s a common sickness among celebrity pundits.

If we go with option (2), then that means that Brooks doesn’t understand how counter-cyclical spending works, which is really impossible.  He must know the basics of Keynesian thought.  So, then, he’s either being purposefully deceptive or just plain lazy.  Either way, way to go, NY Times.

What really ticks Krugman off more than anything else, though, is Brooks unsurprising appeal to authority.  Brooks writes:

Moreover, the Demand Siders write as if everybody who disagrees with them is immoral or a moron. But, in fact, many prize-festooned economists do not support another stimulus. Most European leaders and central bankers think it’s time to begin reducing debt, not increasing it — as do many economists at the international economic institutions. Are you sure your theorists are right and theirs are wrong?

To which Krugman brilliantly responds;

Yes, I am. It’s called looking at the evidence. I’ve looked hard at the arguments the Pain Caucus is making, the evidence that supposedly supports their case — and there’s no there there.

And you just have to wonder how it’s possible to have lived through the last ten years and still imagine that because a lot of Serious People believe something, you should believe it too.

You also have to wonder how it’s possible that anybody would ever read David Brooks and think to themselves, “this guy is good.”  He is so bad.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics, State of the Media, Wall Street and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Krugman lays the smackdown on Silly David Brooks

  1. kahihicolo says:

    I like David Brooks. I enjoy reading the Op-Ed Section of the New York Times first thing when I wake up with my morning coffee. If there is a David Brooks piece, I read it.

    I even enjoy his presence on T.V. punditry channels. He is suprisingly full of levity. However, when I see an Op-Ed on the economy and recovery -or anything economy in the tag-line written by David Brooks, or Paul Krugman, I will read Mr. Krugmans’ first.

    Mr. Krugman challenges the readers to understand the scope of the subject -and then more than likely borrows from history, and other nations -and sometimes the combination of both under-which circumstances he can combine -to offer the why’s to his hypothesis.

    I think -more than not, Mr. Brooks just offers talking points, some form his own, and some from other talking heads -which in itself is a form. (Sorry I can’t back that up with example right now. And hey, this is just a comment.)

    Now, I think this whole episode is the endemic Style of Mr. Brooks as it was exposed most recently when Mr. Brooks didn’t take to Michael Hastings’ Rolling Stones article that cast General McCrystal into a rougue General that didn’t respect the President, or Civilian Command of the Federal Government.

    Mr. Brooks style wrapped Mr. Hastings article as “A Culture of Exposure.”

    Further, Mr. Brooks offered this: “General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise. ”

    Ok. I’ll bite. Who told you that? Ok, you don’t have to tell me… Does it rhyme with…

    He went on to rant, “The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important.”

    If you don’t believe me, here’s the link.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks

    In other words, Michael Hastings cast his article for Rolling Stones on the trivial or the “culture of exposure” rather than the important.

    To some extent, I think that’s the responsibility of the Fourth Estate.

    Was Neal Sheehan guilty of the “Culture of Exposure” when he wrote about the Pentagon Papers in 1971 -about Vietnam? Uh, yep. Hey they New York Times didn’t make any qualms.

    Were Berstein and Woodward guilty of the “Culture of Exposure” when reporting the Watergate Scandal? Yeppers.

    So when you take all this in, and then mentally digest this -you can kinda see where Mr. Brooks’ styles and opinions are derived: Just like my comment, not backed up by history, theory, or other germane facts.

    It’s the “Culture of Access.” The access of one to a syndicated opinion piece. Damn the truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s