June 13, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Krugmanwatch never sleeps: Thomas Maguire
Krugmanwatch never sleeps: Thomas Maguire points out something I should have noticed, which is that Krugman cites Brad DeLong on the subject of government initiatives he worked on while he was at Treasury without mentioning that fact.
Maguire also points out that DeLong testified on statistical questions of whether some ballots should be thrown out in Florida.
Which reminds me of a story. I don't know if it was the same trial; there were so many of them! But Kevin Murphy, who is a frighteningly brilliant man whose class I desired to take while I was at Chicaago, but was unable to attend because of a conflict with a class I had to take in order to graduate, testified at one of these trials. Yes, he testified for Bush. But I find it hard to believe accusations of bias against him. When you go to Chicago, one of the neat things is that you get to speculate about which of your professors will be the next Chicago economist to get a Nobel; it happens with some regularity. Well, the next guy isn't going to be Murphy; it's probably going to be a chap named Eugene Fama, who is also brilliant and also teaches classes which are sparsely attended because MBA's are in deep fear of the power of his mind. But Murphy is expected to be the guy after Fama. He's already got the John Bates Clark medal, which is actually more prestigious than the Nobel; it's awarded only every two years, to an economist under the age of 40. Of course, so does Paul krugman, so it's not a guarantee against partisanship.
Nonetheless. Paul Krugman doesn't allow partisanship to affect the main body of his work on international trade and monetary policy; he confines his misstatements to areas he doesn't know much about, like energy economics. Nor would Murphy; it's inconceivable that an economist of that stature would allow partisanship to tamper with his work. So generally, when he testifies, as in the Microsoft trials, you can take it to the bank.
Anyway, so Murphy was testifying for the Bush team on statistical analysis of the ballots. I have no idea who the other side's hired gun was, whether it was Brad DeLong or not, though it certainly might have been; the point is, Murphy had the goods. It's a long, boring explanation, so I'll skip it, but while the Gore guy was putting forth speculative statistical theories, the Bush side had done some legwork and had actual counts of the ballots in dispute, as well as statistical evidence, that was going to blow the Gore guy's theory that the ballots in dispute might have put him over the top, out of the water.
So the Gore guy was up on cross, and getting hammered by the very well prepped Bush lawyer, who led him step by step through all the holes in his theory. And then the lawyer asked him, "So do you still believe your theory?"
Allegedly, the Gore guy looked at Murphy sitting in the courtroom. And Murphy, his arms folded across his chest, slowly shook his head. The Gore guy lost it.
"No," he said. It was all over.
There's no point to this story. I just like it, that's all. That's the power of being the best. Power, I might add, that I will never feel.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 13, 2002 6:28 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>