Reprinted from neweconomicperspectives.org by William Black
William K. Black
February 21, 2006 Bloomington, MN
Paul Krugman is plumbing new depths of moral obtuseness, arrogance, and intellectual dishonesty in what is now his third smear of the well-respected economist Gerald Friedman in two days. My prior column discussed Krugman's two columns on February 17, 2016. Here is Krugman's lead in his column dated February 19.
On Wednesday four former Democratic chairmen and chairwomen of the president's Council of Economic Advisers -- three who served under Barack Obama, one who served under Bill Clinton -- released a stinging open letter to Bernie Sanders and Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts professor who has been a major source of the Sanders campaign's numbers. The economists called out the campaign for citing "extreme claims" by Mr. Friedman that "exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans" and could "undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda."
That's harsh. But it's harsh for a reason.
But why did they send a "harsh" and "stinging" letter in a manner calculated to try to destroy the career of an economist? If they found a grievous error in Friedman's work, why didn't they email him and point it out? Why did they personalize the attack and suggest that he must be doing it for Bernie? Why did they personalize their attack on Bernie, who did not commission Friedman's study? Why has Krugman tripled-down on the personal attacks on Friedman and Bernie?
Here are a few things that a reader would want to know, but would never learn from the Gang of 4 or any of Krugman's three efforts to smear Friedman. First, Friedman is a political supporter of Hillary Clinton. He did not gin up an economic study to benefit his favored candidate. He looked at the economic impact of Bernie's proposals because that is what macroeconomists do. It is not clear whether the Gang of 4 did the minimal due diligence to discover this fact before they decided to smear Friedman by implying that he was a political hack shilling for Bernie. It is certain that they know now and should immediately correct their open letter, formally withdraw it, and apologize to everyone they smeared.
It is certain that Paul Krugman has known since, at the latest, his second post smearing Friedman and Bernie that Friedman, like Krugman, is a Hillary support. Krugman has not bothered to tell his readers that critical fact, and continues to smear Friedman in a manner designed to convey the opposite to his readers. This is unworthy of him.
It is clear that Krugman realized almost immediately after his morning post on February 17, 2016 that the Gang of 4 and he had been caught red-handed in a smear of Friedman and Sanders. His second post, two hours later, admitted that the Gang of 4's smear was devoid of any logical criticism of Friedman. As Krugman phrased it, the open letter "didn't get into specifics." Yes, that's part of what makes it a smear. You call an economist's work garbage ginned up to support his favorite candidate -- and you never provide a logical explanation with a single specific of what the economist supposedly did so wrong that he should be, not corrected, but publicly humiliated. And no, they did not leave the specifics out of their open letter in order to avoid humiliating Friedman while sending him a detailed private email detailing his grievous specific errors.
The truth is that the Gang of 4 and Krugman launched their smear of Friedman without pointing out a single error in his work. Indeed, that only begins to reveal the truth, for Krugman plainly did not evaluate the accuracy of Friedman's modelling before he chose to smear Friedman. Two of the economists, Austan Goolsbee,and Laura D'Andrea Tyson do not do macro modelling and Alan Krueger is overwhelmingly a labor economist. Christina Romer is the only true macroeconomist. Goolsbee and Tyson would not have been able to critique Friedman's modeling and even with Alan Krueger's econometric skills he would have had to invest a great deal of time to be able to do so. I would love to take the deposition of each member of the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Journalists need to ask just how long each spent reading Friedman's studies and obtain the contemporaneous notes they made during their reading an analysis of the studies before they wrote the letter. I guarantee that the answers will shock readers.
Did even one of you consider the ethics of trying to destroy Friedman's career as a cynical means to your desired end of harming Bernie's election prospects? What you have done is an unethical abuse of power and status for the most unseemly of goals -- political advantage.
One of the reasons we can be so confident that any deposition and document discovery request revealing the Gang of 4 and Krugman's contemporaneous notes would be so shocking is that a journalist has gotten into the fray and tried to bail out the Gang of 4 and Krugman. She did not understand that she was actually damning both by checking with the Gang of 4 on what work they actually did before launching their public smear campaign. She reported on the sole basis for the Gang of 4's smear: "This was not because they reran the numbers, to be fair, but because they seem far-fetched."
I will take this slowly for the benefits of journalists who wish to write about this subject. That sentence condemns the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Note that her effort at "fair[ness]" lasted exactly one clause. You can condemn a study without having rerun the numbers if (a) the researcher gimmicked the inputs or (b) used a bogus model. As I noted in my first column on this subject many of us would agree that the standard macro models are grossly unreliable. But that is not what the Gang of 4 and Krugman are asserting, for Friedman used the same models that the five smearers embrace.
That leaves us with two sources of criticism. Data entry and computational errors are one source, but there is no suggestion that the Gang of 4 and Krugman have done the analysis necessary to discover such errors. They do not assert any such error.
The remaining source of criticism would be that Friedman gamed his inputs. He could, for example, have put in a fiscal multiplier vastly larger than economists such as the Gang of 4 and Krugman believe exists. That is not, however, their criticism. It isn't for two reasons. First, several of the economists involved are not expert in the debate about proper multipliers. Second, the economists involved that are most expert on multipliers have been arguing for years that the multipliers are substantial, and arguably larger than those that Friedman used in his study.
What an economist cannot do is what the Gang of 4 and Krugman have done: I have no problem with your inputs, your model, or your math -- but I hate your results so I'm going to abuse my status to smear and try to destroy you and the candidate I oppose. Reread the journalist's sentence that unintentionally condemns the Gang of 4 and Krugman: "This was not because they reran the numbers, to be fair, but because they seem far-fetched." Focus on the second (vague) misuse of the word "they." You can complain about inputs on the basis that they "are" (not "seem") "far-fetched" -- i.e., contrary to the known facts about multipliers. There is a critical difference between inputs to and outputs from a model. You cannot dismiss a study just because the outputs "seem far-fetched" -- and you certainly can't smear the economist on the basis of your "priors" about what those outputs would be. Your contrary priors, after all, have just been falsified by the model. The phrase "seems far-fetched" is a statement of the Gang of 4 and Krugman's "priors" -- priors that were implicitly falsified by Friedman's study.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).