Science or just opinion?

In a recent column, Paul Krugman repeated the usual canard that Republicans are "anti-science," which is another way of saying that Only Stupid People Believe in God or Disagree with Krugman. Given that the Republicans are known as the Stupid Party, perhaps there is some truth to Krugman's view that Republicans (or at least a lot of Republicans) really are stupid.

Whether or not some Republicans are stupid, I contend that Krugman still did not make the case, and that is because he confuses science with opinion. Thus, if someone disagrees with him -- and everyone knows that Krugman claims to base his opinions solely on science -- then that person is an ignorant know-nothing.

I will go further. Krugman is not speaking so much of science here, but rather opinions from people who are employed as scientists. What he is claiming is a non sequitur: if one disagrees with his views, then one rejects the ENTIRETY of the Scientific Method.

The two subjects he identifies are the Theory of Evolution and whether or not humans are destroying the planet by causing global warming. It is Krugman's belief that if one does not hold to exactly the same viewpoints he holds, then one is beyond reproach and is utterly ignorant and should be banished from polite or at least intelligent company. He writes:

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

Now, I don't want to get into the deeper arguments on evolution or climate change, but want to point out that when Krugman speaks of evolution, he is saying that all present and complex life forms all evolved from a simple form of life, the amoebae. (Krugman does not tell us how the amoebae found its way to existence, and since there can't possibly be a God -- such thoughts are not permissible at places like Princeton -- well, the cell just must have appeared on its own.)

There is plenty of scientific debate on the evolution of cells, but what Krugman is saying is that one must accept EVERYTHING on one side, proven or not, or one is an ignorant know-nothing. And God help any scientist who might use something like probabilities in the discussion, as the use of the scientific method is acceptable ONLY if one first accepts the view that all things complex evolved out of things simple.

As for global warming, Krugman is saying that unless one believes that a trace gas (carbon dioxide occupies about 0.037 percent of the atmosphere) is responsible for all changes in climage, one is an ignorant know-nothing. Furthermore, Krugman does not argue the science, but rather says that because the National Academy of Sciences is on the CO2 bandwagon, we should be, too.

You will have to excuse my skepticism here, as I wrote part of my doctoral dissertation on acid rain, including the predictions and what actually happened. Yes, the National Academy of Science in the early 1980s made a wild prediction (there would be a ten-fold increase in the number of acidified lakes in the USA because of acid rain) which did not come true, not even close.

In fact, it turned out that as the scientific theories of lake acidification evolved, so-called acid rain played no role at all. The composition of the watersheds and land-use patterns turned out to be the key predictor, something the Environmental Protection Agency tried to suppress by threatening scientists who came up with conclusions the EPA didn't like.

However, the politically-correct viewpoint (one that I am sure Krugman would defend to the death) was that acid rain was doing a number of terrible things, and if a scientist, after engaging in legitimate research, found out things that veered from the politically-acceptable view, then that person was not engaging in real science. Like it or not, with most scientific research on climate and the environment funded by governments, the political pressures are going to be there for people to reach conclusions of the Krugmans of this world.

Keep in mind that climate change has occurred for millenia. Interestingly, the so-called hockey stick managed to eliminate both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age through mathematical manipulation. (But, if one's manipulations fit the politically-correct zeitgeist, then that is OK.) Of course, any view that the sun might play a role cannot be accepted because not even Paul Krugman is going to advocate that Congress pass laws to deal with the sun.

A world-class soil scientist once told me that the heart of the scientific method is "skepticism." Unfortunately, skepticism no longer is allowed once politics becomes the norm, and anyone who might employ the scientific method and reach conclusions that disagree with viewpoints that Krugman holds is "anti-science."

Bob Murphy on the Keynesians and Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy"

Bob Murphy has written an article dealing with how Keynesians are pushing back against the accusations that they are engaging in economic fallacies, or, to be specific, engaging Bastiat's famous fallacy. As usual, it is worth reading.

Now, Bob is fair to Krugman in that he does not say that Krugman wants war, alien invasions, or even the entire East Coast to be devastated by earthquakes and storms. Nonetheless, Murphy writes:

As I said earlier, the Keynesians lately have been launching a counterattack on the charge that they are committing the broken-window fallacy. One of their responses is to claim that the conservative/libertarian critics are ignoring the distinction between wealth and employment, and that they are unwittingly assuming that there is full employment (i.e., that there are no "idle resources").

Sympathetic onlookers have jumped into the debate, claiming that Bastiat could have been wrong. After all, suppose a hurricane came along and struck a community that initially had a large number of unemployed construction workers. Who would deny that the hurricane might (under the right circumstances) actually lead to more employment and a higher "gross domestic product" as it is currently measured?

Bob's answer is instructive, and I also believe that Keynesians cannot refute it, at least honestly.

***********************

On another note, Krugman's Princeton colleague Alan B. Krueger has been named the chairman of President Obama's economic advisers. I have commentary here.

NYC's "stimulus" plan falls flat: Irene is a dud

So, it looks as though Paul Krugman will survive the Storm of the Century, and one only wishes that the political careers of Michael Bloomberg, Chris Christie, Janet Napolitano, and Barack "I'm in Charge of Hurricane Central" Obama could take the hit that the Big Apple was supposed to take.

So, the newsies don't get their disaster, the politicians look like fools instead of heroes, and New York doesn't have enough broken windows to stimulate the economy. How sad.

Krugman's Bernanke Problem

I must say that Paul Krugman always is on the lookout for villains. Christians, Creationists, Austrian Economists, Ron Paul, Republicans, and anyone else who is not in complete agreement with The Master all dissent from His Wisdom because they are evil. There can be no other explanation.

So, when people disagree with his view that another $400 billion would have done the trick with the "stimulus," they did so out of evil intent because they enjoy watching people lose their jobs and the economy falling into depression. When people voice concern about massive expansion of the monetary base and the real problems of inflation, they do so out of evil intent because they enjoy watching people lose their jobs and the economy falling into depression. When people object to the massive borrowing that creates an unpayable debt mountain, they do so out of evil intent because they enjoy watching people lose their jobs and the economy falling into depression. And so on.

Today, Krugman introduces a new villain: Rick Perry. Yes, it is Rick Perry, the Texas governor who now is running for the Republican nomination for president. Why is Perry now responsible for the economic misery? He criticizes Ben Bernanke and publicly worries about the various QE's and Fed-financed bailouts, and has used over-the-top language (i.e. "almost treasonous" and “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas” if he has the Fed purchase even more long-term government debt).

However, given the rhetoric I hear from the Democrats (and their media allies like Rachel Mad-dog and Keith Olbermann), accusing Ron Paul of "treason" and "the Tea Party is the enemy" and the like, it seems that what Paul Krugman is saying is that he and his allies are permitted to make whatever accusations they want (free speech, you know), but no one else is permitted to speak. After all, he argues, unless Ben Bernanke is able to do what Krugman has recommended, all hope of economic recovery will be lost, according to Krugman.

Am I exaggerating? Krugman writes:

...I’m using Mr. Perry — who has famously threatened Mr. Bernanke with dire personal consequences if he pursues expansionary monetary policy before the 2012 election — as a symbol of the political intimidation that is killing our last remaining hope for economic recovery. (Emphasis mine)

Just what is this "last remaining hope" policy? Something Krugman believes the Fed should be doing:

Well, in 2000 an economist named Ben Bernanke offered a number of proposals for policy at the “zero lower bound.” True, the paper was focused on policy in Japan, not the United States. But America is now very much in a Japan-type economic trap, only more acute. So we learn a lot by asking why Ben Bernanke 2011 isn’t taking the advice of Ben Bernanke 2000.

Back then, Mr. Bernanke suggested that the Bank of Japan could get Japan’s economy moving with a variety of unconventional policies. These could include: purchases of long-term government debt (to push interest rates, and hence private borrowing costs, down); an announcement that short-term interest rates would stay near zero for an extended period, to further reduce long-term rates; an announcement that the bank was seeking moderate inflation, “setting a target in the 3-4% range for inflation, to be maintained for a number of years,” which would encourage borrowing and discourage people from hoarding cash; and “an attempt to achieve substantial depreciation of the yen,” that is, to reduce the yen’s value in terms of other currencies.

Was Mr. Bernanke on the right track? I think so — as well I should, since his paper was partly based on my own earlier work. (Emphasis mine)

Given Krugman's rhetoric, one would think that Bernanke has been cowed into doing next-to-nothing, yet we read that Bernanke's Fed has made literally trillions of dollars in secret loans to banks and financial houses around the world, not to mention massive purchases of near-worthless assets in hopes that somewhere there is another short-term bubble the Fed can create to give us the illusion of recovery.

Now, I will say that Krugman is right -- we are losing hope for a real economic recovery -- but for the wrong reasons. Krugman is claiming that all that is needed is for the U.S. Government (and governments around the world), along with central banks, to try to pump up massive spending, or, as Keynesians call it, "aggregate demand" in hopes of re-employing "idle" factors of production.

Krugman can make this claim all he wants, but all he is doing is calling for the re-employing of malinvested assets that have gone bust, and that is not going to happen no matter how much nasty rhetoric he and his allies spew out. Krugman can blame Perry, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and a whole list of other "villains," but perhaps he needs to look in the mirror and admit that he and the King's Men cannot inflate our economy back to prosperity.

Space aliens and coal mines: yeah, it all makes sense, now!

When I taught a macro course 20 years ago at UT-Chattanooga, we used Wallace Peterson's book which quoted Keynes as though it were Holy Scripture. Not surprisingly, Paul Krugman now seeks to justify his "space aliens" nonsense with...a quote from (Who else?) Keynes.

I will let readers view his post, but keep in mind that Krugman also thinks that he has effectively demolished the idea of gold being legitimate money. (According to Krugman, gold is a "useless metal," which I suspect is his way of saying that people use scarce resources to dig up something "useless," which, I guess, means that they are idiots.)

Furthermore, the use of gold bars in the "basements of central banks" is a relatively recent phenomenon and has little to do with the historical role of gold being used as a medium of exchange as opposed to a basis for issuing paper. But, given what I have read of Krugman, he would take it that we should leave gold in the ground (except for jewelry) because paper is being managed by Really Smart and Serious People like Ben Bernanke.

The creator of the fake Krugman statement confesses!!

So, the perpetrator of the Hoax has come clean! One wonders if the Obama administration's Department of (In)Justice will come after him in the way they have gone after S&P for downgrading U.S. paper. (Yeah, the DO(In)J has another explanation, but politics is politics.

I do find it interesting that Krugman DID classify the earthquake and tsunami in Japan as possibly being "expansionary" events, so while he did not make the statements on the U.S. earthquake, nonetheless he has said similar things elsewhere. Say what you want, but Paul Krugman IS a practitioner of the Broken Window Fallacy.

No, I don't support forgeries, although I do remember that a lot of Democrats and assorted lefties did not condemn the use of forged documents against President Bush by CBS News and Dan "The Frequency" Rather in 2004. In other words, for some people, if a forgery is politically useful, then it is OK.

It was only 5.9. Blame the Bond Vigilantes!! Too Small!

[Update]: Krugman claims that this comment is a forgery. Maybe it is, but it is no more ridiculous than his "space aliens" comment.

Hey, forget the space aliens! We now have a new economic stimulus package: the earthquake!

Actually, no. It was too small, just like the "stimulus," darn it! Paul Krugman has given us the Ultimate Broken Window Fallacy post on Google about yesterday's earthquake (which I admit we did NOT feel here in Riga):

"People on Twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage."

Now, if we only could get the space aliens to induce and earthquake, we all could get rich!!