Asymmetrical Information

Krugman's point appears to be that the Bush administration is all empty threats and no reward.

All empty threats and no consequences, actually.

I'm also not sure why bribing NK to shut up is so bad. They'll collapse eventually, and it appears to be the only option until then.

What is it about Krugman that drives so many otherwise smart people to post this way?

A non sequitur? How so?

A non sequitur, as the dictionary defines it, is an inference that does not follow from the premises. I see no such thing in Krugman's column.

In fact this is one of Krugman's best columns, applying economic theory to current affairs.

As Krugman says a basic point of deterrence is that it requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior. The problem is that unless we are willing to declare war we have to be careful of what we say and what incentives we provide to them. Bush decided in his early days that his foreign policy would be ABC (anything but Clinton) and so denounced the NK govt without offering anything else as an option. This policy had the logical consequences we are seeing today, leaving NK with the only option of raising the stakes. The question is why create this situation if you are not willing to back up your words?

This is the same point Josh Marshall makes except without the game theory references.

As Jason points out below bribing them until they collapse may not be a bad idea, particularly given the costs of confrontation. But what you should not do is create a climate of confrontation but then be unwilling, or unable, to back that up in any way.

Bush inherited the situation but managed to make it worse. Clinton also inherited the situation. The nuclear reactor was built during the Reagan and Bush years and they did nothing to stop that. In fact, according to Sec of State Powell, the NKs already had nukes when Clinton assumed power (which directly contradicts your point that NK got nukes because of Clinton's policies). So Clinton inherited a mess and did the best thing possible. It may not have been a perfect solution but, short of war, there wasn't much more to be done.

The question Krugman and Marshall pose is a crucial one. What exactly does Bush want to accomplish? He attacks NK, calling them part of an axis of evil and talks openly about preemptive strikes. He is unwilling to continue helping them out economically and wants to isolate them even further. But he is also unwilling to actually use any force against them. As Krugman correctly says game theory will tell you that leaves the NK with only one option, raise the stakes.

And that's what they've done.

Well, there has already been one consequence: the canceling of the fuel shipments. Without that threat, bribing North Korea to stop their research won't work, because there's no consequence to the negotiation either. They can just continue to increase their bribery demands. Naturally, they'll keep increasing their bribery so that they are able to continually stave off collapse.

They may well eventually collapse. But they won't eventually collapse if we always give in to all their demands, with no consequence if they violate them. They'll just keep asking for just enough to not collapse. At the very least, it will lead to many more years of torment and torture for the people of North Korea.

The threat of not bribing them, which we're currently employing (by canceling fuel shipments, and threatening to cancel other aid), is a very serious consequence for North Korea. That's all part of diplomacy as well. The threat of force is there, but only as a reaction to North Korea launching an attack. That's part of negotiating as well. With North Korea, we can afford to wait and let them collapse. We don't absolutely need to attack them right now; we're seeing if peaceful methods will work. (However, we have enough forces and enough commitments in the area that we could easily defend against any conventional attack, and we promise to retaliate in kind against nuclear.)

But we shouldn't prevent them from collapsing, as the two above seem to advise. That's insane, both to us and to the people of North Korea.

Bush is perfectly willing to use force, if it becomes necessary. I thought that those on the Left were in favor of trying all possible tactics before invasion. Cutting off aid is one incredibly effective form of punishment for the DPRK. Those "empty threats" are Bush's way of convincing the DPRK that their attempts to escalate the problem to open warfare will be met solidly. In fact, as simple game theory will tell you, WITHOUT those threats, the North Koreans would be far more likely to invade. For if they think that we wouldn't retaliate in force, it would make more sense for them to invade or attack. Those threats are made precisely to deter them. But why not give diplomacy and other threats a chance first?

Furthermore, of course, if Bush's threats were even more obvious, and an invasion seemed inevitable, as Krugman and the liberals above seem to want, then North Korea would also have EVEN MORE REASON to invade, since one would be coming elsewhere. Bush is conforming EXACTLY to the recommendations of the game theorists cited, in fact.

The appearance of craziness or uncertainty is a highly recommended strategy for deterrance. Bush is making clear threats of war-- but keeping the prospects of war uncertain-- punishing the DPRK for failing to live up to their earlier bargains by canceling the shipments-- hastening the collapse of that evil state-- and yet still giving them diplomatic outs short of war. It's basic negotation, and it's straight out of the game theory Krugman references.

Churchill's recipe for martini was far weaker than the one Mindles suggests: he actually picked up the bottle of vermouth, and waved it over the glass. Apparently terrifying Roosevelt when he saw this glass of gin was Winston's opener for the evening.

Bush is perfectly willing to use force, if it becomes necessary.

There is no evidence whatsoever of this. Quite the contrary.

And the problem with withholding fuel shipments is that it's painful but hardly decisive. And it creates the incentives for NK to up the ante. Which is what has happened.

The situation is not an easy one. It wasn't an easy one for Clinton, who inherited it. It isn't easy for Bush either.

But Bush made things worse needlessly by attacking NK verbally withour proposing any real alternative.

And Paul Krugman's qualifications to comment on US defense policy are? He knows nothing about the area and, apparently, nothing about game theory as it applies to defense rather than economics (similar constructs can have very different applications to the two). All that crap about game theory is the usual "Wave my credential around before I start my rabidly partisan Bush bashing".

Why does Krugman irritate people? Well, that credential waving, and the fact that he gives the misimpression that his dislike of Bush is somehow connected to his economic policies. Krugman hated Bush even when his policies were, economically, the better proposals on the table (he supported the execrable Gore "targeted tax cuts" as an economist, rather than the honest Larry Summers approach.) He hates Bush now. Interesting, isn't it, that Krugman has never done a column on fast track trade authority, even though international economics is his specialty? After lauding Clinton so extensively for NAFTA, will we hear anything about FTAA? He's also embarassingly self-congratulatory, which makes me cringe when anyone does it -- how many normal journalists or academics give interviews in which they call themselves the lone voice of reason in a dark age? He's a hack, with an angry voice that irritates me as it does in Rush Limbaugh, and he's grown into a cartoon of himself. All this from a man who was a brilliant writer and a pretty good, if not always effective, economist. Sad.

Children, children, there is an historical example for this situation. Ronald--Evil Empire--Reagan, in Margaret Thatcher's famous formulation, won the cold war without firing a shot. GW Bush appears to be using that model against North Korea. It will probably work again, but if it doesn't we could wipe out NK with one Trident submarine if they were so foolish as to launch one of their nukes.

But, I'd like to point out to our lovely hostess, that while she's right about most of the things she has said on this, her Limbaugh-Krugman comparison is off the mark. Limbaugh is not "angry", he is having the time of his life, just as his friend Tom Hazlett recognized during the earlier Clinton years:

http://reason.com/9503/col.RUSH.text.shtml

But they won't eventually collapse if we always give in to all their demands, with no consequence if they violate them.

How so? It would take a *lot* more money than they've dream of demanding to keep them propped up.

The appearance of craziness or uncertainty is a highly recommended strategy for deterrance.

Uh oh. Having just read Ellsberg's Secrets, isn't this what Nixon was trying to do with his bonkers Cambodia invasion & threatened use of nukes on North Vietnam? Ellsberg, the guy who mostly invented the "appearing nuts improves your bargaining position" line of thinking, still didn't think it was a good idea.

he supported the execrable Gore "targeted tax cuts" as an economist, rather than the honest Larry Summers approach.)

Here.

So I'm not happy about Mr. Gore's tax proposals: instead of clearly distancing himself from Mr. Bush's truly bad idea, Mr. Gore has tried to meet it partway.

Still, Mr. Bush's tax plan is grossly irresponsible, while Mr. Gore's is merely uninspiring. And this is a case where less than half a loaf is better than one.

Well, I guess that's technically support.

GW Bush appears to be using that model against North Korea.

Uh, I'm not seeing much in the way of parallels. Care to point them out?

"What is it about Krugman?" - Jane covered it. I would just add that he himself intends to provoke (he said that 'a good column should offend someone', or words to that effect, in an interview I read but can't find to link). He is the Ann Coulter of the left, as I've said before.

non sequitur - "doesn't follow". Krugman's discussion of Bush's North Korea policy has no logical connection to Ellsberg's theory.

"This is one of Krugman's best columns" - I agree, but perhaps in a different spirit than intended.

"Bribe them until they collapse" - bribing them with oil and other resources is what keeps them alive. Is this some sort of "killing with kindness" theory?

"He is unwilling to continue helping them out economically and wants to isolate them even further". Right.

I may agree with the assertion that we have not been forceful enough. Why on earth did we let those scuds go? I know, I know, Yemen. Yuck.

I think we should be as hard as we possibly can on North Korea short of an attack that could result in Seoul or Tokyo being nuked. As discussed above, give 'em the evil empire treatment.

As far as naming the evil we'd like to see vanquished, I still don't understand most concerns about that. The only semi-cogent argument against it is the one presented - we aren't going to back it up soon.

Now, back to martinis with my lovely wife.

Krugman's discussion of Bush's North Korea policy has no logical connection to Ellsberg's theory.

False.

Game Theory has lessons for how nations should interact in situations like this. The Economist in 1985 wrote a masterful summary called The Importance of Being Nice, Retaliatory, Forgiving, and Clear. The title itself tells you most of what you need to know.

Again, where is the non sequitur?

Let’s decompose this logically.

Point 1: Krugman starts by explaining, correctly, that game theory tells you that deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior. This is a fact and not up for discussion.

Point 2: Krugman believes (as I do and others like Josh Marshall) that Bush is unwilling to follow through on NK.

Conclusion: Krugman believes Bush is making things worse and wonders what Bush is up to.

There is no non sequitur. Even if you disagreed with both points 1 and 2 (and point 1 is a statement of fact but let’s leave that aside) it still wouldn’t be a non sequitur. You could argue the conclusion was wrong because the premises were wrong but not that the conclusion didn’t follow from the premises.

Like I wrote, point 1 is not really up for discussion. Only point 2 is. Maybe you believe Bush will follow through. We’ll see. Currently I see no evidence of that.

Jane,

I was going to respond to some of the points you make on another thread. But since you have posted here I might as well use the opportunity.

You have an interesting site and, as an amateur economist (meaning that you haven’t been trained as an economist nor do you work as one) you provide a different perspective than many other sites. Your post on the racism and names study was very good, I thought.

But for some reason Paul Krugman brings out the worst in you. To be fair it seems to have the same effect on many others. I detail below what I mean by that but most of it can be summarized in you making arguments that don’t pass a laugh test and posting about things you don’t know or don’t understand.

Let’s start with this article, the one about the NK situation.

The ‘defense’ credentials You wonder what Krugman’s qualifications to comment on US defense policy are. This is a pretty silly point. There are 2 answers.

Answer 1: Leaving aside the obvious point that what matters is what he says not his credentials, whatever his credentials are they are certainly no worse than 95% (or more) of those that comment on this issue. Take the blogosphere, for example. Most bloggers consider themselves a valid alternative to print columnists. What qualifications do Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, Glenn Reynolds, or you and your co-blogger for that matter have to opine about this? None of you are international relations experts or former government officials involved in security matters. Or take Krugman’s direct peer group, other newspaper columnists. I heard Krauthammer pontificate in Fox News about how the US couldn’t attack NK and Iraq at the same time. His credentials? He is trained as a psychiatrist. And I could say similar things of practically everybody who has written about this topic. There may be one or two who are former military or with direct national security experience but using your logic you have to ignore practically everything that has been written, including what you and Mindles have posted. It doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Answer 2. You should read carefully what Krugman has actually written, something you fail to do many times. This is a common theme in many criticisms of Paul Krugman. PK is not commenting on how many divisions may be needed to attack NK or what weapons or tactics to use. He’s only talking about how game theory applies to this situation. Contrary to what you imply game theory does not vary according to what it is applied to. Game Theory studies the behavior of decisions makers whose decisions affect each other (from the Palgrave Dictionary of Economics). As an economic superstar (more on that below) Krugman is amply qualified to talk about this. As I posted on this same thread Krugman is saying the same thing others have said, only that he brings to the table a more academic perspective.

By the way your co-blogger also fails to read Krugman clearly as well. Nowhere in this column does Krugman make the tired "attacking Iraq not North Korea" argument" as Mindles says. This is a very simple mistake of not reading the column. In fact, as far as I know Krugman has never talked about whether we should or not attack Iraq. He does mention Iraq in his column but only when trying to explain the situation from NK’s perspective.

I’ll stop here on the NK column. To summarize Krugman does not say what Mindles claims he says on Iraq, Clinton’s policies are NOT the reason NK has nukes today (according to this administration), there is no ‘non-sequitur’, and Krugman is amply qualified to talk about game theory.

Now, moving on to your previous posts on Krugman. You have a habit of posting that Krugman says things he never did. I’ll focus just on 4, but I’m sure there are more.

1. Krugman and Social Security: You claimed in our previous tête-à-tête that Krugman had misrepresented the latest SS report. I asked you for proof and you never came up with any. In fact Krugman’s description of the SS report ( The staff of the Social Security Administration, using conservative assumptions, now says that the system could operate without any changes at all — no cuts in benefits, no additional revenue — until 2041, three years longer than it projected last year) is perfectly true. It was you and not Krugman who misunderstood the report. You claim that SS is imploding, something that is not supported in any way by the official report.

2. Krugman and Gore: You claimed several times that Krugman supported Gore’s economic plan but, again, never provided any backup for that. As Jason points out above PK was quite lukewarm about Gore’s plan, considering it only marginally better than Bush’s. In fact you can check here for a long radio interview where he expands on this point.

3. Krugman and future taxes: You posted several times that Krugman claims future tax cuts produced today’s deficits. I called your bluff and you never responded.

4. Krugman and the California electricity crisis: You say that there was market manipulation but that Krugman was “wrong in claiming (as far as I know) that they constrained supply”. As I explained elsewhere you are wrong. The market manipulation was effected through supply constraints, something the GAO report has since confirmed. Krugman got this right in 2001 and one year later you still didn’t understand it. This was one of Krugman’s finest pieces, articulating long before any other columnists what was going on, based solely on his knowledge of economics. A year later you still didn’t get it. You should recognize when you are so spectacularly wrong.

I’ll leave it at that.

Bottom line: You make a lot of claims against Krugman and upon further inspection they turn out to be made up or simply the result of misunderstandings on your part. You made several serious claims which were wrong and completely misunderstood both the California energy crisis as well as the Social Security report.

Finally, you don’t understand just how much of an economic superstar Krugman is. He is way beyond a ‘pretty good economist’ as you put it. This doesn’t mean you have to accept everything he says but maybe you should be a little more humble when criticizing him on economics, a field which is clearly not your specialty?

Click here for a video introduction to Krugman’s academic standing by the Chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Texas-Austin. Click here for a text analysis of what Krugman has done academically. Or you can run a search and get the 1993 Journal of Economic Perspectives article honoring Krugman on his winning the Clark medal by Avinash Dixit (you do know who he is, right?) which also details his academic accomplishments.

Of course this is your website and you’ll post as you please. But it’s a bit ridiculous that you, with a limited knowledge of economics, no understanding at all of Krugman’s academic achievements, misunderstand basic documents and issues (CA and SS) would so cavalierly call a hack a man who is one of the top intellectuals of this nation and a future Nobel Prize winner. Like I wrote before, it’s like watching a high school basketball player making fun of Michael Jordan.

Whoa -lots of stuff up last night while I was frittering my time away! I don't worry about Jane defending herself.

Let me quote from Ellsberg's "The Reluctant Duelist", published in The American Economic Review in 1956, which criticizes Von Neumann and Morgenstern's formulations:

..any appeal to dynamic consideration opens the door to new reasons for the employment of nonminimax strategues, strategies of a type the authors necessarily failed to consider, e.g., strategies chosen to confuse the opponent as to one's own intentions, rationality, or knowledge of the payoff matrix. Creating doubt by deliberately erratic or 'foolish' choices, one could tempt the opponent to pursue into the regions where the big killings were possible. There would also be strategies to "find out" the opponent's future intentions or pattern of play. THe fact is that there is not, in any real sense, a dynamic theory of games.

My (admittedly) limited understanding of Ellsberg is that he found the "simple" formulation used by strict game theorists and in this article by Krugman quite incomplete. After all, Ellsberg's reputation comes from his exposure of a nuclear war plan that went from no action to global thermonuclear war with no intermediate steps in between. The abstract Donald Luskin links also suggests a different approach from Krugman's.

He seems a bad choice as a cite for Krugman's analysis, so I'm gonna stick with my non sequitur guns.

As to your assertion that is "not under discussion" - but "credible" is certainly a quality that cannot easily be measured. There is room for debate about the credibility of threats/punishments in brinksmanship, as there was in the Cuban Missile crisis. And certainly removing aid, acting to prevent others from providing aid, refusing to pay for old rope, these are all punishments to North Korea as well.

I had a disturbing thought this morning. Krugman points out that we haven't moved troops to North Korea. You can look at that two ways:

1) It doesn't put enough muscle behind our threats (as Krugman says)
2)we will purposely leave ourselves with a conventional weapone deficit, thus making earlier use of nuclear weapons more likely.

Number 2, while speculative, is a more uncomfortabe form of brinksmanship than Krugman, you or I contemplated in this discussion.

GT, says a lot (with little evidence in support), but this is particularly poorly timed:

>> Krugman and the California electricity crisis: You say that there was market manipulation but that Krugman was “wrong in claiming (as far as I know) that they constrained supply”. As I explained elsewhere you are wrong. The market manipulation was effected through supply constraints....

Thanks to "Robert Musil", we have the evidence in Susan L. Pope's paper that Krugman was wrong:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hepg/Papers/Pope_CA.price.spike.update_12-9-02.pdf

Pope has compiled evidence that:

Electricity prices were high in the West during 2000 and 2001 at least in
part because of a
shift in the demand/supply balance, leading to a situation more extreme than
in any year
in recent history, including the drought year of 1994. Demand for energy in
the West was
generally higher in 2000 and the first half of 2001 than it was in previous
years. At the
same time, supply was lower due to a number of factors; the most important
was a
reduction in hydroelectric generation in the Pacific Northwest and Canada
beginning in
the May/June 2000 time frame. The reduction in hydro generation was
compounded at
times by reduced output from nuclear generating plants in California,
maintenance
outages at coal plants and reductions in the electricity supplied by QFs,
which occurred
because of a failure to pay adequately for their output. Moreover,
environmental
restrictions on gas-fired units in California limited their ability to meet
the increased
demand (or substantially increased their supply cost).

The extraordinarily tight demand/supply balance led to increased demand for
gas-fired
electricity generation during the second half of 2000 and the first half of
2001. This
increased electricity prices for a number of reasons. The increased reliance
on gas-fired
generation occurred during a period of very high overall demand for gas in
California,
when gas prices were peaking far above their usual levels. High demand also
pushed up
the cost of the emission allowances needed for some gas-fired generation.
Finally, to
make matters worse, the impact of increasing gas and emission allowance
prices was
magnified by the need to operate less efficient and high emission gas-fired
generating
units during the supply shortage, which further raised electricity supply
costs. Thus,
contrary to some early accounts, the data show a clear economic explanation
for most, if
not all, of the run-up in electricity prices in California and the West in
2000-2001.

The data also challenge the conclusion that the output and availability of
NUG [non utility generating] units was
reduced in order to raise prices during the period of high electricity
prices in the West.
During the second half of 2000 and first half of 2001 both the electricity
output and hours
on-line of NUG facilities were much higher than in any year in recent
history.
----------endquote------------>>

And this is hardly the only time Krugman has fallen flat on his face. Energy expert Lynne Kiesling, has his number in this post on her blog:

http://knowledgeproblem.blogspot.com/2002_12_29_knowledgeproblem_archive.html#90127806

In "Peddling Prosperity" he has an entire chapter entitled "The Economics of QWERTY", which he has had to disavow (in an interview with Lee Gomes in the WSJ).

Not to mention the humiliating admission in the NY Times recently, that he had libeled Thomas White. More examples will be provided on request.

Mindles,

I’ll give it one last try and leave it at that.

As I wrote there is no non sequitur here. Even if I agree with your latest post and it turns out that Krugman misrepresented what game theory says it STILL isn’t a non sequitur. In that case the conclusion could be wrong because the premises are wrong but not because the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.

To make an exaggerated point: If Krugman had said that

a) game theory says you need to be tough and

b) Bush is not being tough therefore

c) the tax cuts are a bad idea

then THIS would clearly be a non sequitur. Obviously most non sequiturs are more subtle than that. I found this example on the web: I think I would make a good diplomat to China. I have a very good record in dealing with minorities.

THAT is an non sequitur.

What Krugman said could be summarized as

a) game theory says you need to be tough and

b) Bush is not being tough therefore

c) One wonders what Bush is up to and whether he’s making things worse

In THIS case c) follows from a) and b).

Point b) is clearly a question of opinion. I happen to agree with it and maybe you don’t.

Point a) is much less a question of opinion. I think that although one can argue on some details the basic point Krugman made is correct. On top of that I personally trust much more an academic superstar like Krugman than some hedge fund manager whose academic days are probably a couple of decades away (not talking about you!).

I think you read too much on that one paper Although Krugman quotes Ellsberg this aspect of game theory has been explored by many others and the summary that “deterrence requires being tough” is simple (as can be expected in any newspaper opinion column) but accurate. Brzezinski and Nye (both academics specialized in this area) were quoted over the weekend saying similar things to Krugman.

Patrick,

Maybe if you had bothered to read pg 18 of the report you quote, where we find out that the author is an electricity industry consultant and that this study was paid for by an energy company you would have thought twice before posting.

Why don’t you start by reading the the GAO report on the crisis and then come back to us?

Here’s what they have to say:

Our analysis and other studies found evidence that wholesale electricity
suppliers exercised market power by raising prices above competitive
levels during the summer of 2000 and at other times after restructuring.

Oh, and while you are at it Patrick why don't you check out what the FERC has found out about this.

You do know who controls the FERC, right?

Could I point out that game theory is a complicated field, in which little is settled and there are often decent arguments to be made in support of directly opposed points? Or to put it another way, that both Mindles and Krugman can claim good support from different strands of the literature? I tend to side with Mindles on the question of substance, in that it is silly to attempt to "do diplomacy on a blackboard", by pretending that we know what the Bush administration and the Koreans have been saying to one another, but there are decent arguments the other way, so I side with GT on the question of whether Krugman was talking out of his arse; he wasn't.

The substance of Krugman's reply to the Ellsberg critique would no doubt be that the "argument from brinkmanship" only makes sense in the context of plentiful "cheap talk" in order to create doubt in the mind of the enemy about the use of nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence that we are doing this with the Koreans. Certainly, the only previous instance of this strategy being used was in Cold War deterrence, during which period a lot of work was done domestically to sell the idea of using nuclear weapons; no such domestic politics has been carried out this time round. But as I say, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors.

Krugman has done hard time on game theory in the context of tit-for-tat sanctions and industrial policy; you may take that as evidence that he is within his bailiwick, or that he is mistakenly extrapolating. GT is wrong, btw, to cast ad hominem aspersions on "some hedge fund manager whose academic days are probably a couple of decades away", btw, Sushil Wadwhani is only the first example that comes to my mind of someone who would fit into this category but who remains an absolutely excellent economist.

On the question of the California regulation, Patrick's citation is a pretty notorious study. By analogy, it is akin to a coroner's report which outlines in painstaking detail the circumstances which lead to John Doe taking a cruise, the salinity of the Caribbean Ocean, the El Nino patterns which led to there being sharks in the region, the underequipment of the cruise-liner with lifebuoys, etc, etc, but neglects to mention that it was actually Richard Roe who pushed him over the railing.

Would someone please explain how brilliant academic credentials gives one license to print untruths about political foes, either intentionally or through ideologically-driven carelessness, and thereby avoid an accurate characterization as a hack? One could win Nobel Prizes in multiple fields while still engaging in hackery. The attributes are not mutually exclusive.

It doesn't give you that license.

But I guess it would be too much to ask for you to back up your statements? There's a tendency on the part of PK bashers to shy away when asked to put up.

Well, just off the top of my head, and just in the past year , there is the assertions regarding Thomas White, in which Krugman repeated accusations from a reporter, while not mentioning the interesting fact that that the Dow Jones Company had previously been forced to retract the reporter's work on the same topic, Enron. 30 seconds spent on the internet would have revealed this salient fact, and a writer not engaging in hackery would have mentioned it when repeating assertions of criminal activity. Then there is this paragraph from Pugnacious Paul's July 16th NYT piece, in which he says of his obsession, Bush:

"who put up 1.8 percent of the Rangers syndicate's original capital, was entitled to about $2.3 million from that sale. But his partners voluntarily gave up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds — $14.9 million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn't that have raised a few eyebrows?"

This statement is either intentionally deceitful, or unacceptably careless, regarding the timing of the sale of the baseball club, and the implication of how such a partnership structure is unusual. It is the statement of a hack, who is nearly always compelled to gin up the facts, all the better to tar the opponent. The irony lies in the fact that the indisputable facts of Bush's wealth acquisition, via the utlization of eminent domain against private property owners, are damning enough. Pugnacious Paul can't be satisfied with the facts, though; his hackery demands something more. Like I have mentioned previously, I don't recall Milton Friedman adopting the tactics of Limbaugh or Dowd when he was writing popular journalism. Call me nuts, but I hold those who trade on their deserved academic reputations to a higher standard than five-time fired disc jockeys.

Having read Krugman's quote in Der Spigel, that Jane linked to via Sullivan, the characterization of hack can be changed to self-absorbed, pompous, hack.....

Now this is funny:

a) game theory says you need to be tough and

b) Bush is not being tough therefore

c) One wonders what Bush is up to and whether he’s making things worse

In THIS case c) follows from a) and b).
-------------------------->>

Which is a knee slapper of a NON-SEQUITUR, as the conclusion in no way follows in logic.

Then we move on to GT's inability to make a substantive comment on the Susan L Pope paper. Instead he offers first, an ad hominem attack; "the author is an electricity industry consultant and that this study was paid for by an energy company".

Followed by two Appeals to Authority; GAO and FERC (which both have political incentives facing them, btw). And of course, D Squared can't resist his own fact free slur of Ms. Pope.

So, I'll give you a tit for tat; real energy expert Lynne Kiesling agrees with me.

Then there is the total absence of any comment on the numerous (I'll be polite) errors of Krugman that I brought to your attention. And thanks to Will Allen for bringing up the Texas Rangers howlers.

Here's Paul Krugman, on his website, praising Frank Wolack's explanation of the electricity crisis:

>> Wolak's explanation of the onset of the crisis, then, is that the necessary margin of excess capacity was lost - partly because of demand growth, partly because a drought cut off the supplies of hydro that California normally counts on.

>> Why, then, did the crisis end? Three reasons. First, the gap between capacity and demand increased - a few new plants came on line, but more important, consumers engaged in a lot of conservation.

Which mirrors part of what Susan L. Pope found. But she found more, that Krugman was unaware of.

He is the Ann Coulter of the left, as I've said before.

Yeah, he's accused his political opponents of treason and suggested some be killed as a warning, hasn't he?

I think we should be as hard as we possibly can on North Korea short of an attack that could result in Seoul or Tokyo being nuked. As discussed above, give 'em the evil empire treatment.

What is the evil empire treatment, exactly?

"Bribe them until they collapse" - bribing them with oil and other resources is what keeps them alive. Is this some sort of "killing with kindness" theory?

NK has an annual GNI of 15.8 billion or so. We were shipping them, at peak, about 250 million in oil annualy; so that's about 1.5% or so of their GNI annually. I have difficulty imagining that this will have a noticable effect on anything. It apparently stopped them from producing any more bombs for those years, however.

I'm not sure this is the best solution, but I've seen no alternative suggested other than the new Bush policy. The new Bush policy, so far, appears to be brinksmanship with a country (unlike the USSR) that has nothing to lose.

This statement is either intentionally deceitful, or unacceptably careless, regarding the timing of the sale of the baseball club, and the implication of how such a partnership structure is unusual.

That's right, he wasn't the sitting governor at the time; but the basic point is still right, isn't it: Bush was paid in an entirely common, above-board procedure for an entirely shady endeavor (shaking down the government).

If Bush's threats are empty and North Korea knows this, they would seem to be equivalent to no threats at all. So Krugman and his defenders here may very well be right when they say the trash talk isn't doing any good. But they have yet to explain why they think it's doing harm. Have game theorists discovered that name-calling does have the same effect as sticks and stones after all? Or is the assumption that if only the Bushies would shut up, North Korea would trust the US never to attack and would unilaterally disarm?

In other words,it was the deceitful comment of a hack. There was no "gift"; such compensation to general partners iscommon. Bush was not a "sitting Governor". Krugman makes untrue statements about political opponents he wishes to damage. Krugman is a brilliant academic who also happens to be a hack. Jason, why do you go to such lengths to defend a hack?

Will,

That's it?

Yes, he made a mistake on the gift thing. And yes, it was probably because of his ideological views. So? All columnists make errors at some point or other. If that's all you got...

I guess you dislike his views. So be it. But one error out of hundreds of columns? Must be among the lowest in the business.

Your other point, the one about Thomas White, shows how silly this 'gotcha' approach is. Guess what? According to your definition YOU are the hack. You say 30 seconds spent on the Internet would have clarified it all? Funny, you could have used those 30 seconds yourself. No, it wasn't Dow Jones. It was Salon. And no, when Krugman published his column (9-17-02) it wasn't known that the email was fake. That was only known TWO WEEKS later. So Krugman made no mistake other than to rely on a source that turned out to be wrong? (which as Confessore says: If columnists re-reported every article they ever cited from reputable magazines, we wouldn't have op-ed pages).

All Krugman bashers seem to share the same traits. They seem to only find minor points and don't consider all the major coups (like the CA crisis reporting). And much of what they say turns out to be wrong or misinterpreted upon further scrutiny, like your explanation about what happened with the White email.

Patrick,

You make little sense. Let's leave aside that you can't seem to follow the Krugman's logic.

But now you actually refer to a post on Krugman's webpage (which I had not read) that directly supports what Krugman said. Did you bother to read it?

As for the Pope report there's not much there. It goes on and on about how supply fell and demand increased. But that's hardly news. Krugman explicitly said that. And so did the GAO report. What the Pope report leaves out, as d squared so eloquently put it, is how that situation turned into the incredible price increases. The GAO report is clear that there was market manipulation. And the FERC, by agreeing to impose price controls (which was what Krugman, months ahead of all the other commentators, had proposed) also agreed.

So what is your point? And where in the world do you get that Wolak's explanation mirrors Pope's? It directly contradicts it. Pope says there was no market manipulation. Wolak (and GAO for that matter) say there was.

And as for the FERC having political incentives, if anything they have incentives to find in favor of a market solution, not government intervention.

Finally, this is the second time that I ask Jane to explain all her accusations against Krugman which are false or made up. I list just 4 but I'm sure there are more.

And the second time she doesn't answer.

You mis-read me GT, on the White matter. I didn't say that Krugman got his information from Dow Jones. I said a minimum amount of effort would have shown that the writer from whom Krugman got his information had suffered a major retraction of his work that had been published by Dow Jones. In other words, Krugman's source had shown himself to be without credibility, and Krugman either chose not to disclose it, or was too ideologically driven to do even the most basic amount of source-checking, pior to making an accusation of criminal wrongdoing. These two "errors" took place within a few weeks of each other; believe it or not I am not going to take the time to fact check Krugman further. The assertion stands; Krugman prints false items in his work in order to damage his political opponents, therefore Krugman is a hack. Furthermore, if you are truly unable to discern the difference between an amateur posting in a forum such as this, and a renowned academic who is paid to have his thoughts appear in the most famous newspaper in the world, and the differing standards involved, your connection to reality has become so tenuous as to make dialogue nearly pointless.

I said a minimum amount of effort would have shown that the writer from whom Krugman got his information had suffered a major retraction of his work that had been published by Dow Jones.

Really? Krugman would have found that Leopold had stories retracted "in 30 seconds," when Salon didn't find out about it for a long time? I can't find the date when the news of Leopold's troubles (I've never heard them described too accurately, actually) at the WSJ wire became well-known enough that Krugman could reasonably have been expected to find them; perhaps you can? Until then, maybe you should call off the hyperbolic dogs.

I mostly agree with you, GC; I can't find the right analogy, but conservative opinions on Krugman confuse the hell out of me. Take those German newspaper quotes: for chrissake's, can't you see jokes when you look at them?

Speaking of poor game theorists, GT is very bad at bluffing:

>>You make little sense. Let's leave aside that you can't seem to follow the Krugman's logic.

YOU, GT, offered a syllogism that is not valid:

a) game theory says you need to be tough and

b) Bush is not being tough therefore

c) One wonders what Bush is up to and whether he’s making things worse

In THIS case c) follows from a) and b).
-------------------------->>

As I said, that is a knee slapper. Here's a valid syllogism from the above material:

Major Premise: All game theorists are tough.
Minor Premise: Bush is not tough.
Conclusion: Bush is not a game theorist.

NOT: Bush is making things worse. NOT: One wonders what Bush is up to.

And that's putting aside that your premises are actually false.

Patrick,

Maybe I wasn’t clear. So I’ll try again.

Here’s what Krugman said:

The premises:

a) Game theory is a valid tool to analyze what is happening in NK (this premise is a bit more implicit than the others but it is there. Obviously if Krugman didn’t feel that game theory had anything to tell us the rest would be useless).

b) Game theory tells us that deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.

c) Bush has not shown that commitment with respect to NK.

The conclusion is simple:

d) Bush is mishandling the situation in NK. To be fair to Krugman he couches this a bit and rather than say outright that Bush is completely wrong he declares himself baffled by the administration’s actions (What game does the Bush administration think it's playing?).

As you can see the conclusion follows directly from the premises. If you believe that game theory tells you something about how to act in this case and that Bush is acting in a way contrary to what game theory says then the logical conclusion is that Bush is mishandling things. There is no non sequitur.

Of course you may argue with the validity of the premises. I’ll leave that up to you. Many people have said what Krugman has said. Just read this from an international relations expert who coincides with Krugman in most of the points. Nye also echoed what Krugman said about the US being deterred.

BTW, where did you get this from?

Major Premise: All game theorists are tough.

Game theorists are tough? Who said anything about game theorists?

Using your approach we should amend it to say:

Major premise: Game theory tells us that deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.

Minor Premise: Bush has not shown that commitment in the case of NK.

Conclusion: Deterrence will fail in the case of NK.

Gee, I dunno, Jason, howza'bout this for a stunning breakthrough in journalism, prior to printing an allegation of criminal wrongdoing? Maybe ask the source what his background was, and after learning that he was formerly employed at Dow Jones, calling them to learn if there were any problems with the credibility of the source's output? You are correct, however; it might have taken 15 minutes instead of 30 seconds, and goodness knows Krugman the Crusader can't be bothered with such details, prior to making an allegation of criminal wrongdoing in one of the most widely read newspapers in the world. What a hack, and the only reason you find such behavior defensible is that he attacks people you also have an animus for. To make his hackery worse, when his deceit is exposed, he sometimes refuses to run a retraction in the same spot as the deceitful allegations, as was the case regarding the Texas Rangers partnership, where he instead only ran a half-assed retraction on his website. Finally, regarding the Der Spiegel quotes; attempts at humor can filled with self-absorbed pomposity, as was the case here.

He certainly could have found out that the story on which he based his accusations had been pulled for factual error and plagiarism, and at the very least, informed his readers of the dubious nature of his source rather than making him sound like a latter-day Woodward.

And not running retractions in the huge forum in which the accusation was made, but instead tucking them away on a web site only frequented by your dearest fans, is not quite good form.

>>He certainly could have found out that the story on which he based his accusations had been pulled for factual error and plagiarism,

Make that "pulled because of Salon's unprofessionalism and gutlessness". The alleged "plagiarism" was a cock-up over attribution of quotes which could and should have been caught by an attentive sub-editor and which it is blindingly unreasonable to pull a story over. The alleged "factual errors" are even more nebulous; Leopold had a source who was a good deal less anonymous than Woodward's "Deep Throat". This was a good story which should have been followed up on, but has instead been squelched, rather like Gary Webb's story about the cocaine trade.

Furthermore ...

>>And not running retractions in the huge forum in which the accusation was made, but instead tucking them away on a web site only frequented by your dearest fans, is not quite good form.

A lesson for us all to remember, I'm sure. Quite what it has to do with Paul Krugman, who (albeit under pressure from the equally gutless and unprofessional editors at the NYT) retracted the Leopold item in his column dated 10/4/02 ( http://www.pkarchive.org/column/100402.html ) , I dunno.

He directly cribbed seven paragraphs from a Financial Times article. That's not a "cock up over the misattribution of quotes"; check Salon's retraction yourself.

>>He directly cribbed seven paragraphs from a Financial Times article. That's not a "cock up over the misattribution of quotes"; check Salon's retraction yourself.

I don't trust Salon at all on this, given their behaviour with respect to Leopold's sources. The facts which are not in dispute are:

Leopold copied 480 words from the Financial Times story.

Leopold mentioned the Financial Times story in his piece.

The facts which are in dispute are:

Whose fault it was that the attribution to the FT story is unclear

The extent to which the FT story drew on a wire service piece that Leopold had previously written.

Looks to me like the sort of wires-crossed episode that happens every day. It's not a reason to pull an entire story.

Again, let it be noted that Dow Jones was forced to publish two major retractions regarding a March 18th article on Enron matters by Leopold. Leopold had damaged his credibility regarding Enron (he has admitted the errors were "huge") prior to Krugman's column, and Krugman made no mention of it. Krugman maintains that he checked out Leopold prior to printing his allegation, and that nothing negative, like a "huge" retraction, regarding the very subject at hand, was made known. Gee, what a suprise.

There's always a different view, isn't there?

Here's Leopold's side of it.

Make sure to read Salon's response to Leopold's piece. Salon is far more detailed regarding Leopold's behavior in response to requests for phone records, and other items that might establish his veracity. Let's see, Leopold is now on record as saying those bastions of the right wing conspiracy, Salon and the NYT, are guilty of hatchet jobs on him, and Leopold admits to previously making "huge" (his words) errors regarding reporting on Enron.

>>Leopold is now on record as saying those bastions of the right wing conspiracy, Salon and the NYT, are guilty of hatchet jobs on him

Wouldn't be the first time; again, I recommend a quick look on the web for the words "Gary Webb cocaine mercury news article"

Will,

If you dislike Krugman there is little I can say. But to base it on him not checking 100% one of his columns would lead you to vet every other columnist out there. They all make mistakes and most of those mistakes could be easily avoided if they spent a little more time and, yes, most of those mistakes are explained to some extent by the personal biases. But that’s human nature. I find that silly nit-picking but it’s your choice.

I pick the columnists I read by what they offer me and don’t expect (and will never get) 100% factual accuracy. For example, somebody I try to read regularly is Robert Novak. I think he’s made many mistakes in the past, and has been wrong in his predictions many more times, but he has a good inside ear on what happens in Washington in general and conservative politics in particular. He also has a distinct viewpoint.

In the case of Krugman I think he could probably be a bit more effective if he toned down his articles. But that’s how he chose to express himself.

He is one of the premier economists of our time and has an almost uncanny ability to explain and apply economic ideas to the real world. His 1994 article on Asia is a great example. His analysis of the CA crisis, ahead of everyone else and where he not only got the causes right he also offered the solution that was ultimately applied.

It doesn’t mean, of course, that I agree with all that he says or that his predictions are not wrong many times (after all the only way to never be wrong is to never offer an opinion). But he has a viewpoint and an analytical ability unmatched among newspaper commentators. His recent column on the dangers of deflation is another great example.

(Notice how our blogger host STILL is unwilling to address all the mistakes and misrepresentations she has made of Krugman)

Sorry, nobody, and I mean nobody, gets a pass for making sloppy, dishonest, allegations of criminal wrongdoing. The irony of having pepole who rightly decried such behavior in regards to the last administration defend such behavior from Krugman is remarkable, as is the fact Krugman constantly derides dishonesty from Bush, while dishonestly insinuating that crimes have been committed by Krugman's political opponents. His behavior is execrable, and it is not mitigated by his academic accomplishments. If anything, those who have such reputations should be held to a higher standard; after all, such people benefit from the reputations that precede them. Krugman is a hack.

GT, you still haven't made any concrete allegations of misrepresentations on my part -- just vague accusations. Cut out the name calling, or I will again delete your post. I really mean it when I said there will be no flame wars in these comments.

You're also dead wrong. He accused White of felonious conduct, which are not charges one should hurl lightly, particularly on the basis of a single email one has not oneself seen. Krugman the brilliant economist was not even smart enough to hedge.

Jane says:

GT, you still haven't made any concrete allegations of misrepresentations on my part

And here’s what I posted yesterday (and had posted on another thread some time ago):

You have a habit of posting that Krugman says things he never did. I’ll focus just on 4, but I’m sure there are more.

1. Krugman and Social Security: You claimed in our previous tête-à-tête that Krugman had misrepresented the latest SS report. I asked you for proof and you never came up with any. In fact Krugman’s description of the SS report ( The staff of the Social Security Administration, using conservative assumptions, now says that the system could operate without any changes at all — no cuts in benefits, no additional revenue — until 2041, three years longer than it projected last year) is perfectly true. It was you and not Krugman who misunderstood the report. You claim that SS is imploding, something that is not supported in any way by the official report.

2. Krugman and Gore: You claimed several times that Krugman supported Gore’s economic plan but, again, never provided any backup for that. As Jason points out above PK was quite lukewarm about Gore’s plan, considering it only marginally better than Bush’s. In fact you can check here for a long radio interview where he expands on this point.

3. Krugman and future taxes: You posted several times that Krugman claims future tax cuts produced today’s deficits. I called your bluff and you never responded.

4. Krugman and the California electricity crisis: You say that there was market manipulation but that Krugman was “wrong in claiming (as far as I know) that they constrained supply”. As I explained elsewhere you are wrong. The market manipulation was effected through supply constraints, something the GAO report (and several peer-reviewed academic papers) has since confirmed. Krugman got this right in 2001 and one year later you still didn’t understand it. This was one of Krugman’s finest pieces, articulating long before any other columnists what was going on, based solely on his knowledge of economics.

There you have it Jane. Four concrete allegations of misrepresentations on your part. I can’t get more specific than that. Those are four examples of accusations you hurled against Krugman that were wrong or based on misunderstandings.

Care to respond?

I’ll leave it at that.

Will,

I'm sure you were outraged by all the conservative columnists that made accusations against Clinton that turned out to be false, right?

Glad we are on the same page.

They were hacks, the same as Krugman, but at least they were hacks that didn't trade on their academic reputation. Why is it that you find hackery trained on those with whom you have political disagreements to be acceptable?

I didn't say I found it acceptable. Krugman relied on a source that turned out to be wrong (although the source claims otherwise but I don't really want to judge that). Once that source was shown to be wrong Krugman explained and apologized on his column. You call that a hack. I call that human nature.

I've yet to read a columnist, ANY columnist, that hasn't made factual mistakes driven by his personal preferences.

Why do you keep ignoring the dishonest insinuations regarding the Texas Rangers, and even worse, the way in which Hack Krugman responded when his dishonesty was exposed, with a half-assed retraction on his web site, instead of one in the forum in which the dishonesty originally appeared, on the editorial pages of one of the most widely read newspapers in the world? Is ideological camraderie so important? What makes Krugman a hack in the White matter was not that he made a mistake, but that he failed to disclose Leopold's recent hsitory regarding Enron reporting while at Dow Jones, when passing along an allegation of criminal wrongdoing. If you wish to maintain that is not reasonable for someone who is paid by the NYT to produce columns to discover that his source of an allegation of criminality has within the past 4 months had major retractions published by one of the major newspapers in the world, regarding the same general subject, go ahead and make that case. If Krugman wishes to renounce compensation for the dreck he produces, I will withdraw the charge of hackery. Until that time, and as long as Hack Krugman benefits from a deserved reputation for academic brilliance, he should be held to a much higher standard. The very fact that you drew a comparison of Krugman's work to those GOP hacks who used to foam at the mouth regarding thinly drawn allegations of Bill Clinton's lawbreaking says all that needs to be said. Krugman is Limbaugh with a doctorate.

Well, I was talking about the White email, not about the Rangers thing. You are right, of course, about the Rangers comment. He should have apologized for it in the NYT, not on his web page.

But like I wrote if I used those standards I would have to stop reading every columnist out there. I'd rather not do that.

Krugman made a mistake but his brilliance elsewhere more than makes up, in my opinion, for not double checking the Rangers comment or apologizing afterwards.

You're also dead wrong. He accused White of felonious conduct, which are not charges one should hurl lightly, particularly on the basis of a single email one has not oneself seen. Krugman the brilliant economist was not even smart enough to hedge.

Paul Krugman has said that he confirmed the veracity of the email with Jason Leopold's source, a former Enron employee. It doesn't even *matter* whether Leopold is wrong or not; his original source directly confirmed the email to Krugman!

As Leopold posted here, the name of the source (no reason to hide it after the NYT put it out) is Jeff Forbis. Don't believe him, and want to confirm it yourself? Here's his contact info:

Jeff A Forbis, (713) 838-0975, 3707 Durness Way, Houston, TX 77025

Now, for the Rangers thing. Paul corrected his reference to Bush as a "sitting governor" on his website; he should have done so in a column, and he deserves a chastizing for that. However, the rest of the column was perfectly accurate:

The deal, say Bush's partners, was "standard". Um, how standard is it for a businessman with a track record of losing other peoples' money to get a 10 percent share of a $100 million business venture for free?

The rest of the Texas Rangers story remains unchanged. The partners were able to sell out at a large profit because they had acquired a brand-new stadium - paid for with taxpayers' money - and some prime real estate - seized for them at low prices using eminent domain. Those privileges actually become a bit more comprehensible if, as the partners assert, it was already true at the time the syndicate received such amazing favors from Texas officials that the president's son was entitled to 12 cents on every dollar of its profits.

Was any of this illegal? Probably not. Was it crony capitalism? Of course.

As far as I know, he didn't confirm it until afterwards, White still denies it, and no one's seen the emails except him and Leopold.

I will say this to all involved. It is an intellectual pleasure to have a forum with this qualioty of debate. Having participated briefly on some politcal websites I almost feel in an academic environment by comparison.

But Jane, I'm still waiting...

Jason, why do you continue to defend the indefensible? Repeating Krugman's half-assed retraction simply highlights his hackery. In fact, it is quite common, and certainly not "free" for the general partner of a venture to receive a windfall after delivering the political goods, which, in this case, meant getting the stadium built. Hell, this is how most people in D.C. earn a living. Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio once famously made $400,000 for a five minute phone call. I hate all of it, but it sure as hell isn't a "gift" to a "sitting Governor", nor "unusual" or "free", and Krugman's slimy, half-assed retraction is insufficiently apologetic regarding the following verbiage, which clearly insinuates criminal wrongdoing:
"But his partners voluntarily gave up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds — $14.9 million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn't that have raised a few eyebrows?"

Slandering Bush is one thing; he chose to be President, and being slandered comes with the territory. Slandering the private citizens who were in the partnership with Bush is really slimy. This wasn't an honest mistake; the slightest amount of care would have avoided the slander, but Krugman the Crusader can't be inhibited when he has an axe to grind, so slandering a private citizen with an insinuation of criminality becomes a small matter. What. A. Hack. What is also ironic is that Krugman fundamentally has no objection to citizens using state power to obtain other citizens' property for purely personal benefit, he just becomes greatly offended when Republicans, and Bush in particular, do it.

First, we've all learned that GT does not have a clue as to how to properly construct a syllogism. Second, to this question:

I got it from your claim:

>

Even after I produced a valid syllogism for you, GT, you still couldn't construct one of your own. Here's another hint of what your problem is, this would be an invalid syllogism:

Maj P: SOME game theorists are tough

Min P: Bush is not tough

Concl: Bush is not a game theorist.

I suggest a guy who can't even construct an elementary syllogism, after being led by the hand to the starting gate, would be wise not to claim any expertise in logic.

Further, I happen to be the guy who correctly predicted that the Thomas White column would blow up in Krugman's face.

>> Kudos to Patrick Sullivan

>> In Army Secretary Tom White: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal, Patrick Sullivan wrote: "So Krugman is back on the Sec'y White trail. Up to this point virtually everything he's said about the guy has turned out to be either wrong or grossly distorted. I'm betting that when the context of these e-mails comes out this will also be so. "

>> Looks like Patrick wins his bet...

I was able to do so, BECAUSE OF Krugman's past performances.

And anyone who wants to acquaint themselves with the facts (they're being misrepresented here by a number of people, including d squared who is the one who lost the bet) can go to:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000947.html#000947

Patrick my friend, I can only hope you are joking.

Otherwise...

Gmae theorists are tough?

As you would say, a knee-slapper!

You're right, Jane; Leopold says that Paul only independently confirmed Leopold's sources after the brouaha with Salon started.

So yes, he should have done more work to confirm it. Maybe the reason I can't get all too upset is that he turned out to be right: Leopold's sources says the email is real. Unless you think Krugman is flat-out lying about confirming the sources, but no one's even made that accusation, have they? I'm leaning towards DD's Webb-style explanation, as the actions of Salon & the NYT are pretty strange.

I hate all of it, but it sure as hell isn't a "gift" to a "sitting Governor", nor "unusual" or "free", and Krugman's slimy, half-assed retraction is insufficiently apologetic regarding the following verbiage, which clearly insinuates criminal wrongdoing:

There's a difference between something being criminal, and something being really unseemly, and kind of wrong. Krugman doesn't say what he did is criminal; he's just clearly implying that it was, oh, sleazy. And it *is* remarkably unusual for businessman *who don't have political connections* to have a business history of repeatedly failing upwards that Bush did, culminating in the deal we're discussing.

"Everyone does it" isn't a defense, either, is it?

Slandering the private citizens who were in the partnership with Bush is really slimy

Oh, give me a friggin' break. As if you'd think it was slimey to "slander" the associates of McAuliffe if he engaged in exactly the same sort of limited partnership; or even, dare say, Bob Rubin's call to Citibank, although Rubin's act was small change by comparision.

Yes, Krugman should have printed "I made a mistake, Bush was not governor at the time, but my basic point was that he was engaged in crony capitalism is still correct" in a follow up column. Arguing that there's nothing wrong with using your political connections for profit at the expense of the public however, is just bizarre.

'Splain me please, then, why Mr. White is not under indictment with the other officers of Enron, none of whom had anywhere near this level of smoking gun?

And check again -- it wasn't after the brouhaha with Salon started; it was after Krugman's article had already run.

Reading through most of these comments on Krugman, it's pretty impressive how much time and energy people on the right spend on such monumental issues as the Thomas White business, and whether game theory is an appropriate topic to bring up when talking about policy toward N Korea.

I wonder if the right can make an honest effort to try to deal with the SUBSTANCE of Krugman's comments about Bush's policy toward N Korea.

Game theory aside, the basic point Krugman made was simply that Bush's policy toward the N Koreans has had the effect of enticing them to build up their own deterrents further, and become MORE belligerent.

How so? Because Bush was clearly NOT going after N Korea first because it was ALREADY too much of a threat militarily. The conclusion that N Korea drew was that, the greater its military capabilities -- the further away it got from Iraq's weak deterrence -- the LESS likely it was to be attacked by Bush.

In short, Bush's identification of N Korea as a member of the axis of evil, and his clear intention to go to war with WEAK members of that axis, made it only sensible for N Korea to build up its nuclear arsenal, and loudly proclaim its own intention to go to war at the drop of a hat.

Can anyone on the right deal with the argument, without immediately diverting into Thomas White or some other stupid thing? Please explain to us how Bush has not acted like a total "morally clear" blowhard simpleton in his dealings with N Korea.

And please lose the syllogisms! If game theory is not real helpful here, syllogisms with their trivial logic ain't gonna do squat.

To continue a bit along the lines of my last post, let's examine an alternative strategy Bush might have followed.

1. Make it clear that the US has no intention of attacking N Korea pre-emptively.

2. Offer N Korea economic incentives to give up its nuclear program. Again, since the US has no intention of attacking pre-emptively, N Korea will NOT become in consequence vulnerable to an attack.

What is the problem with this approach from Bush's point of view? The fact that it was Clinton's. Faced with any policy matter, Bush seems to ask himself, What would Clinton not do?

As it turned out, however, Clinton's approach had AT LEAST the important positive consequence that N Korea produced at most a couple of nuclear weapons, and apparently did not intend to go into large scale production of such weapons, if only to maintain the economic incentives Clinton offered.

What has been the consequence of Bush's policy? The worst possible result: a decisive move by the N Koreans to a virtual assembly line production of nuclear weapons -- weapons that might be sold by an impoverished nation (and thanks to Bush, getting more desperately so) to the worst people on earth.

Bush's actions represent a remarkable display of foreign policy incompetence. And this is supposed to be his strong suit?

It's so long ago that I can't even remember who said this but:

>>White still denies it

He doesn't. The only statement he's made is that "he does not recall" writing the email.

Come to think of it, we are oddly obsessed with such trivial subjects as Thomas White and the applicability of game theory to North Korea. It's only a matter of time before one of us gets completely carried away and writes a New York Times op-ed about them.

Frankly, that leaves us only with the question of how North Korea knew that Bush was going to first, get elected, and second, put them in the Axis of Evil, since they started building up their nukes in the late 90's. Nor was the opening of the reactor a reaction to the Axis of Evil speech, but to our announcement that we knew they had nuclear weapons. The substance of Krugman's article is partisan wish-fulfillment. There is no there, there.

Frankly, here's another perspective on it: Clinton used that strategy and it didn't [expletive deleted] work. Why on earth would we use the one strategy that we know leads to NK possessing nukes?

The rest of this -- oh, snore. I'm sorry it hurts you that not everyone takes Krugman's degree as a guarantor of his veracity or accuracy, but he doesn't seem to have any interest in any truth that makes the Bush administration look good. I'll bet anyone $50 that if Bush gets FTAA, Krugman either doesn't write about it, or manages to use it to criticize the administration. In my book, that makes him a partisan hack, because his beliefs seem to be non-falsifiable -- there is nothing Bush could do, short of declaring himself a liberal Democrat, to make Krugman praise any of his policies. And I suspect that his defenders feel the same way. Hence the "Clinton's Korea policy -- good call facing some tough choices. Bush's Korea policy -- TOTAL UNMITIGATED DISASTER THAT'S ALL HIS FAULT AND DON'T YOU DARE SAY CLINTON SHOULDN'T HAVE BELIEVED NK JUST BECAUSE THEY'D VIOLATED EVERY OTHER AGREEMENT THEY'D EVER MADE AND THEY STARTED BUILDING NUKES DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT HIS FAULT BECAUSE BUSH IS EVIL!!!!!!!" There's no point in arguing religion. So why don't we agree to disagree and leave it at that?

Jason: Name your favorite five politicians. Bet I can find deals that either they, or an immediate relative, did, are just as bad. If I do so, will you concede that they are every bit as bad, and take it as the same sort of condemnation of them personally and politically, as you seem to be doing for Bush?

Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- in politics uses their connections for themselves or their relatives. The only exception might be Fred Thompson, because he has a day job. The rest of them -- that's how they earn their money and keep their children alive and wealthy. If you've spent any significant time in politics, you don't bother being shocked by it, because it's just the way things are. I've seen much worse, notably a large number of non-profits that are allegedly to provide services but are really full employment agencies for various political families (Democratic, obviously), on the public dime. You also have to remember that the political influence didn't come from being the president's son; it came from being the son of a prominent local Republican. Chelsea Clinton could not get herself the same deal, not because she isn't a Democrat, but because she isn't Texas. (She could probably get a decent deal, but she'd be working off her father's name by proxy, rather than dealing with people she'd grown up knowing, which lessens the value of the connections.

I'm flabbergasted that the Democrats are under the impression that public projects somehow get built without strings being pulled, since the folks who pull those strings are the heart of the Democratic party's urban machine, and the money from doing so is most Democrat politician's retirement fund.

There's a reasin no one but Krugman picked this up. The smart partisan reporters know that if they start slinging mud, a lot of it's going to stick on their guys, especially certain prominent Democratic families that form the heart of the fundraising machine. But don't take my word for it -- poke around yourself. Find out what your favorite politicians and their kids and brothers and sisters have been doing to earn their money. I think you'll find the answer is largely "influence peddling". Politically, that's the way of the world.

Jane,

Why that sounds positively cynical of you!

On NK, according to the Bush administration the nukes were built before Clinton became president. Certainly the nuclear reactors were.

Clinton inherited a bad situation and tried to make the best of it. Short of declaring war, it’s not clear what else he could have done.

Where I think Bush made a mess is by raising the ante (calling off negotiations once he became prez, putting them in the axis of evil, talking of preemptive strikes, saying he ‘loathed’ the Dear Leader). Now, don’t get me wrong the NKs are a crazy bunch and I agree with most, if not all, of what Bush has said. The problem is that you have to back your words with deeds or you simply make things worse.

This is what Krugman said. Given the reactions he provokes maybe we should leave his comments aside. After all it’s hardly Krugman the only one. Josh Marshall has said much the same things without reference to game theory. So has Fareed Zakarias.

btw, Since Colin Powell directly contradicted your and Mindles’ point (that the nukes are a result of Clinton’s appeasement) shouldn’t you acknowledge your mistake?

I know how hard it is for you to recognize when you have been wrong on Krugman but on this as well?

Game Theorists--tough and not so tough--here's what UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER looks like:

Patrick my friend, I can only hope you are joking.

Otherwise...

Gmae theorists are tough?

As you would say, a knee-slapper!
--------------------------------->>

I remind everyone that syllogisms were introduced into this thread by the same guy who just wrote the above. Introduced ostensibly to instruct Mindles in proper logic.

Now that he's fallen flat on his face, he's reduced to criticizing A PREMISE, not the logic in which that premise is used. And, as I showed him when he professed not to recognize it, that it was actually derived from HIS PREMISE (albeit improperly phrased by him).

Further, I've already told him the premise is false.

So, if we didn't already know it, it's clear GT has never even cracked a book on logic. But he feels he's qualified to lecture others on the subject.

As I wrote above I think the general level of debate is pretty high here, particularly in comparison with most political sites. In fact the only site I’ve seen with, in my opiion, a better level, would be Brad DeLong’s.

Of course this requires a certain intellectual honesty on the part of all. And you Patrick don’t have it. I’ve noticed your modus operandi both here and at Brad’s and the reaction you have provoked from many posters.

As I made clear if you believe that game theory can help you understand the NK crisis (as Krugman does) and that game theory tells you that in a situation like we have in NK you have to be willing to back up your words or otherwise shut up (as Krugman claims) and that Bush talked tough but not backed that with anything (as Krugman-and others- believe) then the conclusion is obvious.

You can debate the validity of each on of the premises. You may think that game theory provides no analytical benefits, or you may disagree with Krugman’s characterizations of what game theory says, or you may think that Bush has actually been tougher than Krugman says. All these are perfectly valid counterpoints.

But you can’t say that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Krugman has made a logically consistent argument. Is it factually correct? We can debate that.

The smart thing for me is to debate with those that follow simple rules of intellectual honesty.

Well golly gee, Jason, I stand corrected: printing insinuations of criminality against people, wrapped in false assertions, is really a minor matter, particularly when it is done by people with whom we are ideologically congruent. Jane's point about influence peddling as a career in Democratic circles as well as Republican is spot-on, and you, and no doubt Krugman, know it. What makes Krugman a hack is that he dishonestly insinuates criminality while lying about it's unusual nature, while adopting a selectively outraged attitude; Bush is Evil Incarnate, but pay no attention to the behavior of my ideological pals. When his dreck is exposed for what it is, he slimily runs a half-assed retraction in a forum that has an microscopic following, compared to the gigantic forum in which his dreck was printed. As stated above, he is Limbaugh with a doctorate. A complete and utter hack. Go ahead, defend the indefensible; ideology is eveything, after all, and our Gods must be paid tribute.

GT: quote, please, where Colin Powell has directly contradicted my point? I don't think that Korea was inspired to want nukes by Clinton; I think they want nukes because they want nukes. But I think that Clinton's attempt at a solution to this quandary has obviously failed.

I am not trying to slam Clinton. But regardless of how well thought out his policy was, it failed. It did not deter Korea from getting nukes, which was its stated aim. It did not keep North Koreans from unimaginable suffering. He made a tough call in a tough situation, and I don't know that I would have done better.

But to advocate, in the face of that failure, that we should just repeat the same policy, is ludicrous. As is the implication that we would be better off not knowing that NK had them.

Jane,

On “Meet the Press” (12/29/02) Colin Powell was shown a videotape of President Clinton from November 1993 where Clinton says that NK should not be allowed to have nukes and Powell comments that they probably already had nukes at that time. Here’s the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: In 1993, nine years ago on this program, I talked to President Clinton about North Korea. Let’s watch that exchange:

(Videotape, November 7, 1993):
MR. RUSSERT: Will you allow North Korea to build a nuclear bomb?
PRES. BILL CLINTON: North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb. We have to be very firm about it.
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: In fact, they did develop a nuclear bomb, as you just said it.
SEC’Y POWELL: In fact, they probably had it at the time President Clinton was saying that. And President Clinton—and I give President Clinton and his administration credit, for having developed the agreed framework with the help of a number of people. And that agreed framework kept anymore bombs from being developed as a result of what was at Pyongyang. But the fact of the matter is that while everybody was keeping their eyes on the agreed framework at Pyongyang, the North Koreans were going after nuclear weapons through another means, and that is through developing an enriched uranium capability at a site we haven’t determined yet.

Of course since building a nuke takes years if they had one in November 1993 that means it was mainly built under GOP administrations. In other words Clinton could not stop NK from having at least some weapons because, as Sec of State Powell tells us, they probably already had them by the time Clinton became president. That’s the situation Clinton inherited.

Clinton was confronted with a dangerous situation and managed to get the NKs to at least stop producing plutonium from the Yongbyon facility.

It’s true that the NKs decided to start a new and different nuclear program but all available information indicates that that is still years away from producing fissile material. On the other hand the Yongbyon will create nuclear material in months.

I don’t think Clinton’s policy was perfect. But given the alternatives I don’t see many more options.

What I (and many others, including our favorite columnist Krugman) have criticized Bush for is not for confronting NK but doing it without a plan and without having thought out the consequences.

The latest indicates that Bush will end up doing the same Clinton did, negotiating a resolution.

Let's suppose that:

1. the consequence of Clinton's policy was that NK developed two nukes (of course, this may very well be false -- it may be that, as Powell asserts, the nukes likely were already built by the time Clinton addressed the NK issue.

2. the consequence of Bush's policy is that NK is now on course to develop large numbers of nukes, which can be sold to terrorists throughout the world, and which may also be more usable in missiles that could directly threaten the U.S.

Of the two, which policy has the more dangerous result?

Only a Bush apologist would fail to acknowledge that 2, Bush's policy, has created a far more perilous situtation.

Jane makes the claim that it was not Bush's general policy toward NK that caused NK to turn to the large scale production of nukes, but rather our announcement to NK that we knew they had nukes. She never explains why this is a relevant distinction. While it is probable that this announcement did play a part, it was surely the announcement IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREATENING ATMOSPHERE CREATED BY BUSH that brought about NK's decision to proceed at full blast with its nuclear program. That is, NK realized that it was at a decision point, that it could no longer simply proceed as before. It could either back down or become more aggressive.

Why did NK choose agression? Almost certainly because the Bush administration itself was behaving aggressively, hinting broadly at the prospect of a pre-emptive war, and NK, realizing that Bush was very unlikely to fight against a foe with considerable military might and will, determined that its best chance of survival was to act belligerent itself, and to increase its military capabilities. This is, again, precisely the point that Krugman was making, and that I re-expressed. You have said NOTHING to cast into question the soundness of this point.

And, again, let us suppose that NK did indeed build its first two nukes under the Clinton policy. Does that make it a bad policy? ONLY IF ANOTHER POLICY WAS BETTER. The question is, suppose Bush had been President in the early nineties, and had been as confrontational with NK as it has been in 2001 and 2002. Would the result have been different?

The reality is that a war with NK back in the early nineties would have been disastrous then as it would be now, based entirely on the vast array of CONVENTIONAL weapons that NK has at its disposal. Then, as now, hundreds of thousands of people would almost certainly have been killed in such a war. There is precisely NO reason to believe that Bush's policy back then would have had any different effect from what it has had now -- namely, setting NK on a clear course of building up its nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible, rather than secretly and slowly.

If you have answer to any of this, I would be interested and surprised.

So if N. Korea's conventional arsenal was already an adequate deterrent to a US attack in the early 1990's, and nothing has changed since then, how does the THREATENING ATMOSPHERE (whatever that may equate to in game-theoretic terms) CREATED BY BUSH induce Kim to scramble to pile a second deterrent on top of his already-sufficient first deterrent?

Why would NK seek MORE of a deterrent in the wake of Bush's threats?

Because NK would have concluded that the MORE DETERRENT POWER NK possesses, the LESS LIKELY a Bush pre-emptive strike would be.

It is NOT enough simply to say that NK ALREADY possessed sufficient deterrent, because NK could not be 100% certain that Bush would NOT attack, given the radical nature of his threats. It is a question of likelihoods -- NK must calculate, does it become MORE or LESS likely that Bush would strike if NK becomes stronger militarily? How about if NK becomes weaker militarily? The decision of which direction to go became particularly urgent precisely because Bush chose to confront NK on its nuclear program -- stasis was not real option.

Given Bush's clear intention to target WEAKER members of the axis of evil, as witnessed by Iraq, the OBVIOUS answer for NK is to become STRONGER militarily, not WEAKER (which would put it closer to the category of Iraq).

No doubt NK realizes that now it is in a particularly risky phase, since it does not yet have the greater number of nukes that it seeks, and it must rely on its current deterrent power. Yet it surely calculates that, again because of Iraq, it has a window of some number of months in which it can expect the US to be ill-prepared to attack -- and that will suffice to build up its arsenal to a greater level of deterrence.

Let's face it, Bush and his stupid gut instincts told him that bluster and confrontation was always right, and now the entire region must pay for his mindless bravado.

Bush's stupidity made NK's choice to become MORE belligerent at this moment entirely rational.

(In the Coase formulation) GT says I'm wrong, he's right (even though he has completely failed to demonstrate it by the syllogism he chose), and then he froths at the mouth. About "intellectual honesty".

Since GT claims to have monitored my posts on DeLong's site, he should know that numerous of his claims about Krugman's statements about such as the Texas Rangers and Thomas White are flatly untrue. For instance, GT says, regarding the Thomas White fiasco:

>

Here is what Krugman actually wrote, and there is NO APOLOGY anywhere in it:

>

Nor is there any admission by Krugman in the above that he actually has ZERO EVIDENCE for his charge that White was aware of or participated in, "deliberately and improperly concealing large financial losses".

So, GT has just been exposed as misrepresenting what Krugman did. He also did the same when he claimed:

>

Once again, GT is misrepresenting what Krugman did. Not only did he not apologize for the Texas Rangers column, after being told he was wrong in a letter to the NY Times by Bush's actual partners, he made his accusations even stronger. Here it is:

POWER AND THE RANGERS

A few people have asked me about that letter from Bush's former business associates, regarding the nature of his deal with the Texas Rangers syndicate. They assert something I didn't know: that he was granted a 12 percent share of the profits despite having put up only 2 percent of the money back in 1989, when the deal was initialized, rather than in 1998, when the franchise was sold. Assuming this is true - it would be nice to see the contract - does this make everything clean and above-board?

Actually, if anything it makes things worse. In fact, I suspect that the peculiarity of that contract, if it exists, is why we're only hearing about it now: had it been public knowledge at the time it would have raised a lot of questions.
-----------endquote------------>>

And, in that last sentence, Krugman makes three errors of fact (and possibly four):

1. There is nothing "peculiar" about the contract. There are probably tens of thousands of such LPs in this country.

2. It most certainly exists, as several newspaper articles about it demonstrate.

3. We were not "only hearing about it now". There had been an extensive piece in the now defunct The American Spectator, by Byron York prior to the 2000 primary elections, and Krugman himself referenced, in his column on this, a 1998 Houston Chronicle article!

4. It was undoubtedly public knowledge at the time, as the stadium was built after the public voted for it in an election. It is hard for me to believe that opponents of the stadium wouldn't have raised questions about it. But, since I don't have specific information, I can't say for sure that Krugman is guilty of the fourth error.

It is NOT enough simply to say that NK ALREADY possessed sufficient deterrent, because NK could not be 100% certain that Bush would NOT attack, given the radical nature of his threats.

So North Korea was 100% certain, back in the golden age of the Clinton administration, that the US would never attack it-- despite reports that Clinton was contemplating doing exactly that?

'Splain me please, then, why Mr. White is not under indictment with the other officers of Enron, none of whom had anywhere near this level of smoking gun?

Appealing to "why hasn't he been indicted then if he's so guilty" isn't very convincing; we don't have Minority Report yet.

Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- in politics uses their connections for themselves or their relatives.

Two words: Paul Wellstone.

I fail to see how the "everyone does it" response, however, makes it *ok*, and not only that, it makes it *wrong*, and not just wrong but "slanderous", as Will put it, to friggin' point it out? Using this logic, its "slanderous" to people who have abortions to criticize people who have 3rd-trimester abortions strictly for birth control, because hey, it's legal and everybody does it!

Politically, that's the way of the world.

So is "catching your opponents at it and exposing it for partisan political gain."

Go ahead, defend the indefensible.

So I have this right:

1) It's bad.
2) However, everyone does it.
3) Therefore, criticizing people for doing it is bad.

You want a non-sequitir? There you go.

But to advocate, in the face of that failure, that we should just repeat the same policy, is ludicrous. As is the implication that we would be better off not knowing that NK had them.

Which brings up back to the point: what's the alternative, then? Bush doesn't appear to have one, so why'd he junk the old policy?

Nor is there any admission by Krugman in the above that he actually has ZERO EVIDENCE for his charge that White was aware of or participated in, "deliberately and improperly concealing large financial losses".

You're leaving out the "Paul Krugman called Jim Forbis and confirmed the existence of the email" evidence.

Once again, GT is misrepresenting what Krugman did.

Krugman apologized for referring to him as a sitting governor, when he wasn't, on his webpage. The rest, that Bush got a disproportion share for shaking down the city, is accurate.

Responding to your 4 errors:

1) LPs are common. LPs where a partner is paid disproportionality strictly for his government connections, however, aren't common, and are viewed in quite a poor light by the public when brought to their attention, regardless of legality.
2) No idea what you're talking about.
3) For whatever reason, the story never got major exposure. No one read the Spectator, and the Houston Chronicle isn't exactly the big leagues.
4) I rather doubt the LLC structure was public knowledge at the time, but as you say, who knows.

Oh yes, on "Krugman is sleazy for suggesting Bush was being a very bad man by his LLC involvement in the Rangers": Christopher Caldwell, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, says the same goddamn thing as Krugman here.

Weeks after his father was elected president, Bush got involved in the purchase of the Texas Rangers. He would eventually sell his Harken shares to cover the loan that allowed him to help buy the team. He put up under 2 percent of the purchase price ($606,000 out of $46 million), but the deal called for him to be given almost 12 percent of the stock, once the other partners cleared their initial investments. Generous of them! In 1998 Bush sold his stake in the team–pumped up by a $135-million publicly-financed-but-privately- owned stadium, bestowed as a gift from the taxpayers of Arlington, TX–for $15 million.

For decades now, the "small government" Republican Party has been slamming the corrupt conduct of, say, trial lawyers who just suck money out of the economy and put it in their pockets in the name of the ideal of "representing the little guy." When they talk this way, I’m all ears. But, Jesus, this is what they have to offer in its place?

I must have missed the outraged condemnations of Chris, who if anything is a lot meaner.

Jason, read very, very, carefully. Krugman did not merely say it was bad. He clearly insinuated illegality, and dishonestly described the practice as unusual. It is not unusual in the least for people with large political connections to receive large compensation for the utility of those political connections, compensation that has no relationship to other, more normal, economic contributions. Krugman is not an idiot, and no doubt knows how common the practice is, even among Democrats. Krugman is a liar. He is also a liar who retracts his lies in a slimy manner, while yammering about the dishonesty of his political enemies. He is an utter, complete, and total hack, and your near-psychotic avoidance or misrepresentation of what Krugman actually did is bizarre beyond description.

In case you missed it Jason, Caldwell never insinuates illegality, and never describes the practice as unusual. Caldwell doesn't do so because he knows that such insinuations and assertions would be dishonest. Caldwell sticks to the undisputed facts, and describes his disgust at the way business is often done in this country. I agree with him. If Krugman had done the same, I would not have made my comments. Krugman did not do the same. He made stuff up, and when he was exposed, retracted some of it, while making more stuff up (describing the profit-making from delivering political goods as "unusual"), in a particularly slimy manner. Why do you defend this?

In fact this is one of Krugman's best columns, applying economic theory to current affairs.

Surely you are confused...Krugman does not apply economics to anything in any of his columns.

Jason, you're wrong. Just off the top of my head, where do you think the Kennedys, the Cuomos, the Gores, and the Clintons (pre-presidency) made their money? Have you noticed that no one in these families has had a day job since the first one got elected? Every single one of them makes their living peddling influence in some way, or lives off the money of someone who did. That is how Hillary Clinton got a 10m advance for a book she hasn't written, and how they made all the money they made in Arkansas. That is how the Kennedys have managed to keep from working for seventy years.

Of course I'm against it. But I'm a libertarian; I get to be. If you are in favor of public works, you are in favor of these kinds of partnerships, because it is only in a never-never-land of kindergarten kindness that the deals will not be done on the basis of who you know. And if you want to call out Bush, you have to be prepared to say that your politicians are every bit as bad when they do it, which is why no one who knows anything about politics is chewing on this. They know that their guys have already done the same thing. Again, off the top of my head, just in New York: the Olympics bid, the proposed West Side stadium, all the existing stadiums, the reconstruction of the Apollo, the New York Times' new building -- all favors to someone prominent in local political circles, or their child, from their friends in government. I don't have time in my life to froth about every such deal, because they happen every day.

I truly hope, for his sake, that Jason McCullough is a young, young man. For if he's gotten beyond the age of 25 with such poor reading comprehension, then his life will be a tough row to hoe. Consider his:

>

Now how difficult was it for him to connect my:

>

To Krugman's: "if it exists"?

Further, Bush did not get his payoff for his political connections. He only got it because he delivered a big profit to the partnership. He was the Managing General Partner, made a cellar dwelling ballclub into one of playoff caliber, and put the team in an attractive, to paying fans, ballpark.

Several cities around Dallas competed actively for the privilege of building said ballpark. All of which should be known to Jason, BECAUSE I'VE TOLD HIM THIS BEFORE.

This is what is so sleazy about Krugman. The method of financing the ballpark was open for anyone to see; it was up for a vote, afterall.

If Krugman the economist wanted to write a piece about the wastefulness of using taxpayer funds to build ballparks, using the Texas Rangers, Seattle Mariners, Colorado Rockies and on and on, as examples, fine. I'd applaud him.

But just as in his columns on the California electricity fiasco, he well knows that what happened was merely a matter of business people responding to the incentives that were put in place by politicians, but chooses to single out GWB as somehow evil for playing the game according to the rules. Here's a WaPo story that Krugman (and Jason) could have read (in addition to the Houston Chronicle one Krugman DID read) before shooting off his mouth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushs
ide073199.htm

Bush Earned Profit, Rangers Deal Insiders Say
By Lois Romano and George Lardn