Jonathan Chait has apparently gotten the notion somewhere that Martin Feldstein is about half a step above George Gilder and Jude Wanniski in intellectual heft:
I see that, in their efforts to show that Republican budget policy is actually driven by sensible people rather than raving loons, conservatives are now citing the work of Martin Feldstein (see here and here.)I will concede that Feldstein is more credible than, say, George Gilder or Jude Wanniski. That, however, is not saying much.
I've only been a journalist for a few years. But I've developed a small list of phrases that should never come out of one's mouth:
"Peter Singer--what a 'tard!"
"I just don't think Stephen Hawking is all that bright"
"Well, fine, Crick and Watson may be smarter than your average creationist, but not much."
Since I mostly write about economics, that means I mostly try to avoid saying, or implying, that highly respected economists are not very good at their job1. Even when you think their research is mistaken, you want to tread carefully with the accusations of stupidity or bad faith. Especially when that economist is a holder of the John Bates Clark medal, which is harder to get than the Nobel Prize in economics. Extra especially when he is a chaired professor at Harvard, and the head of the National Bureau of Economic research. For one thing, when you do write things like that, anyone who knows anything about the subject is not reading it and thinking, "that McArdle chick sure must be smart, if she knows more about trade theory than Paul Krugman!"
Moreover, you run the risk of having to prove that you are smarter than said professor, when trust me, you aren't. There is no way an argument between you and Martin Feldstein, or any other economist of his stature, about their subject is going to end except with you backing away slowly, eyes fixed on your shoes, mumbling "I'm sorry, I just didn't quite understand . . . I'm sorry, yes, listen, I really ought to go . . . I think I left something on the stove . . . no, no more equations, PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!"
And of course, sometimes my old employer notices what you've said, and then things like this tend to happen:
JONATHAN CHAIT apparently is unimpressed by citations to the work of personages such as Martin Feldstein, the president of the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research and the George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Indeed, Mr Chait has a knack for drawing the bounds of intellectual respectability so tightly around himself that by late afternoon even his shadow falls outside the charmed circle. Even so, one must admit that Mr Feldstein's Clark medal and his endorsement by the New York Times for the job of Chairman of the Federal Reserve does leave one with a residue of suspicion. The Bank of Sweden has not bestowed upon him its coveted prize—though it's true he has been mentioned, specifically for his work on the theory of taxation. So let's not be too hasty to take him seriously.
Because Mr Chait is a self-avowed empiricist, perhaps he will favour this new NBER paper (free version here) by Christina and David Romer of the Univesity of California, Berkeley (despite somewhat embarrassing credentials, even slightly more lackluster than Mr Feldstein's). It is a dazzling empirical investigation of the effects of tax cuts and increases on economic output in the United States since the end of the second World War—one that significantly improves on the methodology of earlier attempts to estimate the effects of tax changes. They find that
tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.The economists Romer looked at every tax change legislated at the national level since WWII. Impressively, they scoured "presidential speeches, executive-branch documents, and Congressional reports ... to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar tax policy actions." They then categorized each tax change based on whether or not it was intended as a forward-looking correction to the direction of the economy (they call these "endogenous" changes), or intended for other reasons, such as to reduce an inherited deficit or to boost long-run growth (the "exogenous" changes.) This allows them to tease out the output effects of tax cuts and tax increases set in place for different reasons.
Those interested in raising taxes, but unwilling to take seriously Martin Feldstein's estimate of the deadweight loss of tax increases, will need to grapple with Mr and Ms Romers' new findings. For example:
Our baseline specification suggests that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent.This is bad news for those with aspirations to higher levels of tax-financed spending. However, they find that not all tax hikes hurt the same. Tax increases specifically intended to offset budget deficits largely avoid the negative effects of other kinds of increases, in part by improving the climate of investor confidence.
The deadweight loss of taxation is still a matter of hot debate, and other economists would push forward other numbers. But Mr Chait's recent writings seem to imply that he hasn't really understood the terms of the debate, or learned how to separate the cranks from the titans, which may be why his article lumps all of their claims together. Unfortunately, I haven't a copy of the book, so I can't tell if it's any better than the article in The New Republic.
"It's true because Martin Feldstein said it" is a stupid argument--but no stupider than "Tax cuts are bad because Art Laffer likes them".
1 But what about Paul Krugman, I hear you cry. I don't care for Paul Krugman the columnist, which is a job I know something about. You won't see me airily dismissing his work on trade, however, nor other respected economists whose work I disagree with, like Card and Krueger.
This is precisely what I mean when I say that, however intelligent you are, you make many intellectually frivolous arguments. Appeals to credentials are fallacious. However well credentialed these people are, that does not ipso facto make them correct and Chait incorrect. There are plenty of people who sit in endowed chairs at major universities, have won multiple prizes, and are universally respected who are still wrong on the merits on certain issues.
Also, on the "they're smarter than Chait" issue-- you've made no argument at all. Once again, you've simply assumed that your perspective is so blindingly obvious that it can't be disputed. But it can. Simply because something seems obvious to you does not make it correct. I mean, taking it as a layman, who doesn't know Feldstein at all-- why should I accept that contention that he's smarter than Jon Chait? You haven't provided any evidence to that point at all. And really, why is this debate about who's smarter, exactly? You've slid from an argument about credentialism into an argument about intelligence without, I think, a logically meaningful reason to do so.
Finally, the quote you posted is mostly an appeal to a research paper, which can be evaluated on empirical and analytic grounds on its own. Perhaps that paper will refute Chait on this individual issue. That remains to be seen. But you seem to be under the misapprehension that your quote somehow really "socks it" to Chait, that it leaves him looking foolish. It doesn't, at all. And even if the paper in question does count against him, his views on one subject can't answer the question, raised by you, about Chait's general intelligence.
Finally, I don't think people are impressed by The Economist as much as you are. You seem to think people are going to say "Eek! The Economist is coming after Chait! It's over for him!" Again, that's an appeal to authority that doesn't really move me.
Freddie, Chait is claiming that Martin Feldstein is an intellectual lightweight or a crank. This is simply a ludicrous claim. He may be wrong, he may be biased, but he is highly respected economist whose views need to be rebutted, not dismissed with references to Jude Wanniski and George Gilder.
Freddie, Chait is claiming that Martin Feldstein is an intellectual lightweight or a crank. This is simply a ludicrous claim.
If so, then I spoke too soon. My apologies, sorry to be hasty.
Megan,
Can you point us toward something you've written (or something you've read that you find useful) disagreeing with Card and Krueger? (I assume you're referring to their work on the minimum wage.)
That's a cute rhetorical trick Chait pulls there -- make the mildest concession you can, then repeat what a mild concession it is to imply that no greater concession can be made. Let me try it,
I will concede that the Boston Red Sox are a better baseball team than the Kansas City Royals, but that's not saying much.
I will concede that Peyton Manning, at this point in his career, is a better quarterback than Joey Harrington, but that's not saying much.
I will concede that George W. Bush is not as good a wartime president as Abraham Lincoln, but that's not saying much.
I will concede Nome is usually colder than Phoenix, but that's not saying much.
Hey, this is fun!
But let me point out-- saying that Chait is wrong to question the intellectual bona fides of Feldstein is a far different thing from saying that Chait is not intellectually in the class of the people he criticizes. You can arrive at the position "Chait is not intellectually in the class of Feldstein", while at the same time rejecting Megan's justifications for that claim, "Feldstein is better credentialed than Chait, and anyway it is obvious that Chait is not in the same league as Feldstein, and he would embarrass himself in an argument with Feldstein."
I'm beginning to like Freddie.
The Romer and Romer paper is a good find. In a long paper there is plenty to pick out. So the interest of Keynesian cherry-picking, note their finding that the bulk of the effect on GDP is coming from the demand side and not the supply side i.e. slow adjustment to the equilibrium level of output rather than changes in the equilibrium. Coupled with their famous findings on the monetary policy side, the tools of policymakers look quite traditional in their framework. They work because nominal prices are inflexible, not because there are huge labor supply responses to tax changes.
Is it okay to call O'Hanlon and Pollack an intellectual lightweight or a crank? What about Charles Krauthammer? George Will? Little Tommy Friedman?
I'm familiar with the work of Martin Feldstein and Jon Chait, and I am very, very comfortable saying that Jon Chait is not in Martin Feldstein's intellectual class. That's no insult, mind you; neither am I.
You're entitled to dismiss someone as a crank, or strongly imply same, if the odds are that in an argument with the crank, a panel of impartial observers would vote you the winner. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Jon Chait would get knocked out in the first round if he tried an intellectual throwdown with Martin Feldstein on the subject of taxes. Hence, Chait is not entitled to suggest that he's not really credible.
Again, that doesn't make him right; just serious.
Which is more fallacious, Megan: an appeal to authority, or disagreeing with someone who has authority?
I have no idea what the merits of Chait's or Feldstein's body of work are, but it's not clear that you do either, because you didn't bother to mention them. It's simply self-evident that Feldstein is a Very Serious Person. The rest of us are required to take him seriously no matter what we think of him.
Chait is entitled to suggest Feldstein isn't credible if that's what he believes, just as you are entitled to suggest otherwise. But if you're going to argue with him, it might be a good idea to argue with him.
Marty Feldstein is an extremely smart guy. Also, if you ever need someone to steal a truckload of shit, he's your guy.
Megan,
You are correct that it was wrong of Chait to suggest that Feldstein is an intellectual lighweight. But that is completely independent of whether Chait is smarter than Feldstein or not and so appears as a gratuitous snide against Chait on your part.
If somebody smarter than Feldstein were to suggest that Feldstein was a lightweight he would be equally wrong. Chait's intelligence (or anyone else's) is irrelevant to the question of assessing Feldstein's capabilities.
I agree with Meg that Jonathan was wrong to single out Fieldstein as unimpressive. But it was also wrong for Meg to single out Feldstein's findings when they contradict most of the impirical work in the field by a factor of 2. Less wrong, but also important in rebuttal, are the number of factors, as Yew-Kang Ng illustrates:
http://fol.math.sdu.edu.cn/tyx/content/content.php?id=97&tb=wlg
Megan,
You have to be careful though. Even intellectual giants can go off the rails. For example, William Maurice Ewing was very prominent American marine geographer in the 1930s, but he never accepted the theory of plate techtonics and continued to adhere to this idyosincratic views even when by the 1970s they were manifestly wrong.
Big intellectuals can become invested in Big ideas that they are reluctant to modify even with new facts on the ground. Perhaps Martin Feldstein has simply invested too much in a negative view of taxation and can not let it go, even in light of new reaserach.
No doubt Feldstein is a very smart guy, so why didn't the Reagan Administration take him seriously (as in, paraphrasing, "that's not my Economic Report of the President")?
And I am most definitely with whoever it was above who said that having The Economist come after you is hardly the last word or even a major hit. Their economics columnists aren't exactly Feldstein level either; I think the old James Fallows' article "The Colonial Cringe" from about 1992 established that fairly definitively.
And citing one (1!) journal article (actually, not even a journal article, but an NBER working paper) as definite refutation or proof of anything is bogus. Economics is a fairly imprecise discipline (I don't think that it is a science), lab studies are almost impossible so there are invariably a host of conflating and confounding factors, error terms generally remain large, and results almost always should be interpreted cautiously. Which I suspect is what the Romers did.
So piss on Chait as much as you want (it really was pretty obnoxious being snide about Feldstein that way, George Gilder is the author of "Naked Nomads: Unmarried Men in America" for pity's sake) but for the pisser to be The Economist is rather rich.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that Jon Chait would get knocked out in the first round if he tried an intellectual throwdown with Martin Feldstein on the subject of taxes.
Okay. Here's the thing. You may have very good reason to believe that this is the case. Unfortunately, we don't have access to the information that leads you to believe this. And as much as you may be correct, and you may have good reason for believing that you are correct (and I hate to sound like a broken record here), we (your readers) have no reason to believe that what you are saying is true beyond your assertion that it's the case. I don't mean to suggest that you are always obligated to demonstrate sound logical basis for your claims. In this instance, though, I think it really behooves you to demonstrate evidence beyond your own assertion. And surely you understand that the fact that you really think something isn't really a compelling reason for anyone else to think that way.
Hence, Chait is not entitled to suggest that he's not really credible.
Also, even if the previous is correct, I don't believe that this logically follows. You don't have to be on the intellectual level of someone to assert that they are not intellectually credible. I think you're assuming Chait's point to amount to, "I am more intellectually credible than Feldstein, so I have the ability to denounce Feldstein's credibility." But I don't think that's necessarily the idea. I think the idea is simply "I don't find Feldstein to be intellectually credible," which I suggest can be asserted regardless of the relative credibility of the person making the claim. (Got all that?)
Also, what Gabriel said.
In this one, I've got Freddie and I can't see it going past the third round.
Any takers?
Chait's wrong to imply that Feldstein is only "slightly more credible" than "raving loons." He's obviously a highly respected professional in his field. His arguments deserve a serious rebuttal, not a casual dismissal.
That said, winning a prestigious award does not automatically entail that the honoree will not subsequently grow intellectually lazy and become something of a crank who clings to his cherished pet theories long after everyone else has abandoned them.
Not all tax cuts are equal. Feldstein won the Clark Medal in 1977, during an era when much of the Western world was laboring under a higher tax burden than it is currently. It could be credibly argued then that high taxes contributed to a shortage of investment capital. I don't think it could be seriously argued that the same conditions apply today. Expecting that a tax cut or a tax hike in 2007 would have effects that can be predicted by using a simple historical model from the 1960s through the 1980s, without considering the relationship to the money supply... this is straying perilously close to crank territory, even when the argument comes from a respected elder.
Romer and Romer don't actually do this. They concede that "controlling for all other non-policy factors that affect revenues and that could directly affect output is essentially impossible..." and then attempt to categorize their data based on the legislative intent of the tax code changes. Which is fine as far as it goes, and I'm not qualified to judge the quality of their model. But what they aren't taking into account is that since 1980 or so, the actual legislative intent of every tax cut has been "helping us beat the Democrats." It's become less of a principled economic strategy and more of a political cudgel.
I don't see any of these economists seriously addressing the possibility that tax cuts, regardless of whether they are countercyclical, provide diminishing returns as an economic stimulus. At some point, one would think that additional monies to be invested unwisely in overpriced condos or converted into consumer debt at 29%APR, in the absence of rising wages, will not continue to stimulate the economy. It will simply rack up unproductive debt and necessitate a larger tax hike in the future.
Which is more fallacious, Megan: an appeal to authority, or disagreeing with someone who has authority?-Mike M.
Noone is arguing "Fedlstein says it so it must be right." Not Meagan, nor anyone else. What I believe Megan is arguing is something like: "Martin Feldstein is a very serious and respected economist, so when he has an opinion about an economic question backed by research, it would be foolish to dismiss that opinion without careful consideration." It's hard to believe a sensible person could deny this.
Also, I think it's worth noting that, far from being a rabid supply-sider, Martin Feldstein angered the supply-siders in the Reagan administration by pushing for a tax increase to reduce the deficit (which I believe Gene was alluding to above). That's because he's a mainstream economist and, like other mainstream economists, he worries about the effect of large deficits on real interest rates.
Well, Freddie, you don't really have to ask me. You can look at the positions he holds, and the awards he's received which indicate that his fellow economists also find him pretty impressive. I don't even know what you're suggesting when you say "point to a body of work". Do you want a list of his publications? There's one available on his website, I'm sure. What would that tell you?
You don't have to rely on my assessment, of course; you'll have to decide whether I'm credible or not. But other than pointing out that this guy's fellow economists have repeatedly annointed him as one of their best guys, I can't "prove" that he's intellectually credible to you--what sort of proof would you accept?
Gabriel, my point is that perhaps a genius could dismiss Martin Feldstein as a quasi-crank, but Jon Chait is not that genius. Think of it in another field. Chait took on Martin Feldstein, not by disagreeing with him, but by implying that he is not worth rebutting. If a physicist said that about, I don't know, Freeman Dyson . . . well, then he'd better be so damn smart that it's obvious he is entitled to think of a rebuttal to Dyson as a trivially boring excercise. Otherwise, the suspicion is that you are a) arrogant and b) too stupid to rebut Freeman Dyson. If a journalist said the same thing, physicists would laugh their ass off, because the heavy odds are that the journalist didn't understand all but the broadest outlines of the work, much less formulate a reasoned rebuttal to it.
Chait is entitled to engage with Martin Feldstein's work, and explain why he thinks it is incorrect. He is not entitled to sneeringly imply that Martin Feldstein is a charlatan, and thereby duck the responsibility of engaging with his critiques--any more than I am entitled to imply that Paul Krugman is an intellectual half-step above Robert Kuttner.
In Chait's case, I don't know what his degree was in, but given his profession, the odds are that he doesn't have the statistical and econometric tools to even have an opinion on Martin Feldstein's work--other than the one that I hold, which is that, wisdom of crowds being what it is, it's likely that the value is closer to the median estimate than to Feldstein's.
At some point, you have to accept things like this on authority. I can't become enough of an expert in enough fields to assess the quality of the research; I have to take the word of experts. That's why I accept the consensus of climatologists that the earth's atmosphere is warming, and the consensus of economists that Martin Feldstein is an extremely smart man whose work should be taken seriously.
Megan is trained in economics at the University of Chicago; she's familiar with the literature and thus with whats agreed upon and whats in dispute (presumably including the merits of republican budget policy); and she knows something about the standing of the principal economists making arguments on that topic. Her warrant for saying what she did is simply that of an economics insider who can make competent judgments about work in that field--which I presume Chait cannot similarly do. And its a perfectly good warrant.
She's credible because of her record posting and writing on economics on this blog and elsewhere. It seems to me that either you see this or you don't...
I don't think there is anything snide or insulting about suggesting that Chait isn't on Feldstein's intellectual level. Megan freely admits that she isn't there either. Chait hasn't spent a lifetime studying taxation unlike Feldstein and it is pretty bold to casually dismiss the views of someone with his pedigree.
Additionally, commenters repeatedly and conveniently forget that Megan isn't arguing that Feldstein is correct about the effects of lowering taxes, she is just arguing that not all tax cut proponents are complete hacks or totally nuts. The reaction to Megan's claim about people's beliefs about cutting taxes seem similar to reactions to claims about global warming or some other hot button issue. I'm imagine that Megan believes that global warming exists and is a serious concern, but I'm also pretty sure that she believes that some respected individuals sincerely and credibly believe that its dangers are overstated.
Megan,
I agree with what you say. Feldstein has certainly earned the right to be taken seriously on issues of taxation and economics. That, of course, doesn't mean he is always right (and I realize that is not what you are claiming).
But I don't think the intelligence of Chait is the issue and I think that bringing it up obscures your core point. I don't think any genius can, or should be allowed to, dismiss Feldstein as a crank.
If Feldstein is wrong, then we should debate that on the merits (your point) since he has earned that right given his record (your point) but we can ignore the intelligence or lack thereof of anyone who thinks or implies that Feldstein is a crank (my point). That's all.
Andrew Golis describing this week's Book Club at TPM Cafe:
Megan McArdle writes this morning:
She continues "I don't care for Paul Krugman the columnist, which is a job I know something about." Presumably she knows enough about punditry to be paid to discuss a book she doesn't yet have a copy of.
Did anyone link through? In Chait's quote, the words "not saying much" are a link to one of his own columns.
Chait mocks Feldstein for two bad revenue predicitions in 1993 and 2001. If you follow the trail, what Chait is doing is implying that Feldstein's poor predictive powers mean you can discount his analytical powers.
Chait is generous enough to assign Feldstein an excuse, but only to fire another shot:
"Feldstein's defenders would claim he just got unlucky twice in a row: Clinton's tax hike happened to precede a huge boom, and Bush's tax cut happened to coincide with a major slowdown. But revenue grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush, far more than could be accounted for by growth alone."
But here's the kicker. Chait wrote his attack on Feldstein in 2004. In 2007, he still links to it. But wait, tax revenue rose significantly in 2005 -- much more than in 2004. Jon, what have you done for us recently?
Freddie, you've really talked yourself into a frenzy here - and you've still missed the point.
Chait's original point was that Republicans are only listening to a handful of wingnut economists (or not even economists) to get their economic advice. To prove the point, Chait needs to show that all the economists to whom Republicans are listening are wingnuts. They are clearly listening to Feldstein, and so Chait must then defend his position by showing that Feldstein is indeed a crank.
The problem is that he didn't attempt to show that. He essentially tried to prove that Feldstein was a crank by simply saying "he's a crank". Megan's point seems to be that, perhaps if Chait had been talking about someone with no authority on tax policy, simply pointing out that he's a crank is probably good enough because their lack of authority makes the point self-evident. But Feldstein - as with most published academics - is above being presumed a crank. If he's crank, demonstrate it with references to his now-discredited papers. If not STHU.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, Feldstein egregiously blew his analysis of Clinton's tax hikes and Bush's tax cuts.
It's possible to be wildly wrong twice and not be a dumbo, but the twice-wrong-headed-on-a-global-scale schmuck shouldn't be deferred to, though. Particularly when he keeps singing the same song.
Freddie, I think you owe everyone an explanation of why you are too lazy to go to the public library or subscribe to one of the various on-line services for academic publications and read Feldstein's most recent 100 publications. (Unless you have at least a master's degree in economics, you won't understand many of them.) Then read Chait's most recent 100 publications. (That will go a lot quicker.) Then you will see that when it comes to economics, Feldstein has vastly superior knowledge to Chait. Why is Megan supposed to do this job for you?
Alternatively, you could simply look at their professional positions (Harvard professor versus newspaper columnist) and make a guess as to which is likely to be more knowledgeable, which is what most people would do.
That you were too busy to look it up?
Teh list of publications.
It's not about you, Meg. We have 1860s issues of the Atlantic that are, you know, crying bitter tears with this not-look-it-up, 'Hi! I'm me!" ethos.
There don't seem to be too many people here defending Chait, which is good, because Chait is very foolish to call Feldstein "crazy" and dismiss him as a crank. But many still seem to think that Feldstein is in a tiny minority in thinking that the incentive effects of taxation can be significant--that only a small coterie of right-wing economists agrees with him. But that isn't so.
The center of the economics profession has moved significantly in Feldstein's direction over the last three decades. In the following quote from The Commanding Heights, Democrat (and esteemed economist) Larry Summers explains just how much economic thought has changed:
Extra especially when he is a chaired professor at Harvard...
What's next, assertions that Marty Peretz is an international relations genius?
It's not clear to me why appealing to credentials is fallacious. If two people are arguing about physics and one of them teaches physics at a prestigious university and has won all sorts of physics awards, and the other is just some guy, I'm probably going to side with the credentialed guy. It's not a conclusive argument, of course, but it can be pretty compelling.
An earlier commenter had suggested that Feldstein may have credentials, but he could be so ideologically committed to his thesis of lower taxes that he isn't credible. Couldn't the same point be made about Chait? Chait is suggesting that all Republican economic advisers are bonkers and so he has to characterize anyone associated with Republicans as nuts or else his theory is no longer valid.
Now that Sadly, No has given us a list of Feldstein's publications, I presume Freddie is off reading them to confirm for himself whether the guy knows anything about economics.
Marty Feldstein is an extremely smart guy. Also, if you ever need someone to steal a truckload of shit, he's your guy.
Kieran,
You are confusing Marty Feldstein with Martin L. Weitzman. It is the latter who stole manure from a farm.
Unbelievable.
If your real complaint is that economics discussions are not being left to the economists, then say that (I think that's your real objection to Chait). Don't get all huffy about who the heck this Chait character thinks he is to opine about that which he is not qualified. EVERYONE does that.
Anyway, who the heck is Jonathan Chait, really? Never mind Feldstein, who I never heard of before this; why get all worked up over what some pundit says on a blog? Unless you enjoy that sort of thing...
Chait's original point was that Republicans are only listening to a handful of wingnut economists (or not even economists) to get their economic advice. To prove the point, Chait needs to show that all the economists to whom Republicans are listening are wingnuts.
Actually, I think proving that most or all wingnuts are citing the same economists would suffice to prove the wingnuttery of said economists. Otherwise, why would all the wingnuts cite them?
Whose ox and all that ...
Swap economists w/ climate scientists. ("Listen to the vvvvolves. Children of the de naaaaahhht.")
Always, the important thing is the science and how well the science matches reality. Feldstein has had two very public, very broadscale failures in applying his economics.
Megan McArdle and Blackadder have both introduced physicists to justify their arguments as if physics and economics are somehow comparable.
Physics is a hard quantitative science with a thin veneer of religion. Economics is a soft qualitative religion with a thin veneer of science.
Freddie, you've really talked yourself into a frenzy here - and you've still missed the point.
I really have a hard time seeing anything I've written here as "a frenzy". If someone could show me a quote of what I've written and demonstrated
Look, Megan et al.-- I am sorry that it bothers you, but it is simply an established fact of logical discourse that appeals to authority (or credentials) and argument by assertion are fallacious. As I have been careful in saying, the fact that Megan has committed these fallacies doesn't make Chait right and Feldstein wrong. But the fact is that what we are left with for evidence to support the claim that Feldstein is a superior intellect to Jon Chait is
A) Martin Feldstein is a impeccably credentialed, respected economist who works for Harvard, so he must be smarter/more credible/more correct than Jon Chait; and
B) it is simply obvious that Martin Feldstein is smarter/more credible/more correct than Jon Chait.
Neither of these is what I would call a serious argument. Sorry. I don't know many who would. And as it is Megan who is making the claim that Chait is not in Feldstein's league (and, indeed, that Chait would be utterly embarrassed by Feldstein in an argument) it is Megan who carries the burden of proof.
I find this important, by the way, because Megan makes arguments like B) above all the time, and I think it hurts her credibility.
"In Chait's case, I don't know what his degree was in, but given his profession, the odds are that he doesn't have the statistical and econometric tools to even have an opinion on Martin Feldstein's work--other than the one that I hold"
--Megan
Dude. Awesome.
Tell me, what am I allowed to have an opinion on? Where is it okay to only have your opinion?
Now that Sadly, No has given us a list of Feldstein's publications, I presume Freddie is off reading them to confirm for himself whether the guy knows anything about economics.
If you would bother to read what I've actually said (and read it carefully), I think you'll find that I've never made a claim either way about Feldstein's quality as an economist-- good, bad, or indifferent. Megan has said that not only is Chait incorrect, he should be disqualified from the discourse ("he is not entitled...") because he does not have the necessary economics bona fides to challenge Feldstein. This is a deeply undemocratic claim. If only those acknowledged as experts are allowed to weigh in on policy, then we might as well anoint philosopher kinds now.
What's more, as I have said repeatedly, Megan hasn't even really passed her own test, because she's failed to provide evidence for why Feldstein is worthy of being taken seriously, and Chait is not, beyond repeated arguments through assertion ("...it's ludicrous...").
The problem here is that both Chait and Megan are making the same bad move, making a genetic argument: these positions are wrong, because they come from a bad source-- in Megan's case, Chait, in Chait's case, Feldstein. A much better tactic would be to actually demonstrate how Feldstein's arguments are superior to Chait's. I think it's funny that Megan attempts to rebut Chait with another genetic argument.
Freddie,
It actually isn't "an established fact of logical discourse that appeals to authority (or credentials) and argument by assertion are fallacious." Some appeals to authority are no doubt fallacious. Others are not. What Megan said would seem to be a pretty obvious example of a non-fallacious appeal to authority.
I believe Megan's assertion was that Chait has not spent enough time studying economics to deem Feldstein a hack. Her claim isn't that Feldstein is correct, it is just that you can't dismiss a man who has spent his life studying taxation with a link to a several years old article that Chait wrote. Megan didn't say Chait was incapable of commenting in any way about economics or Feldstein, only that he can't simply categorize him as a hack with a single link. That criticism of Chait is neither undemocratic nor incorrect.
Megan didn't say Chait was incapable of commenting in any way about economics or Feldstein, only that he can't simply categorize him as a hack with a single link.
Would that it were so.
In Chait's case, I don't know what his degree was in, but given his profession, the odds are that he doesn't have the statistical and econometric tools to even have an opinion on Martin Feldstein's work--other than the one that I hold
liberalrob wonders who this Chait guy is. Well, he was a close pal of Stephen Glass, who was fired from the New Republic for fabricating stories. Chait said of Glass:
"The paradox is that people who didn't know him -- like my wife -- would say that they thought he was making things up. I would indignantly deny that that could be true," said Chait.
I don't mean to imply that Chait was in any way a part of Glass's fraud. But his failure to notice anything at all odd about Glass's sometimes wild stories does indicate that he's not the sharpest guy around.
I must admit, I've never seen such a thoroughly detailed example of the Argument From Authority fallacy in my life. It's actually quite impressive! Especially the followups in the thread where people assert that Jonathan Chait has less "intellectual heft" because he doesn't know as much about taxes as Martin Feldstein. Well, yes, but neither does Stephen Hawking.
And to respond to a point made upthread, I would quite happily call Charles Krauthammer an "intellectual lightweight". So would anybody that's actually managed to get through "the unipolar moment" without collapsing into tears of helpless laughter.
Her statement doesn't disagree with what I said. To not cherrypick:
"Chait is entitled to engage with Martin Feldstein's work, and explain why he thinks it is incorrect. He is not entitled to sneeringly imply that Martin Feldstein is a charlatan, and thereby duck the responsibility of engaging with his critiques--any more than I am entitled to imply that Paul Krugman is an intellectual half-step above Robert Kuttner.
In Chait's case, I don't know what his degree was in, but given his profession, the odds are that he doesn't have the statistical and econometric tools to even have an opinion on Martin Feldstein's work--other than the one that I hold, which is that, wisdom of crowds being what it is, it's likely that the value is closer to the median estimate than to Feldstein's.
At some point, you have to accept things like this on authority. I can't become enough of an expert in enough fields to assess the quality of the research; I have to take the word of experts. That's why I accept the consensus of climatologists that the earth's atmosphere is warming, and the consensus of economists that Martin Feldstein is an extremely smart man whose work should be taken seriously."
Today's condensed Megan:
At some point, you have to accept things like this on authority.
Is there any topic you actually know something about? Didn't you major in something? Besides the intricacies of networking those Ivy League connections, of course.
Uh, yes, they did. You said that she isn't questioning Chait's right to an opinion. ("Megan didn't say Chait was incapable of commenting in any way about economics or Feldstein"). She did, in fact, say so explicitly and expressly. ("he doesn't have the statistical and econometric tools to even have an opinion on Martin Feldstein's work--other than the one that I hold".) What am I missing? She says he doesn't have the tools to have an opinion.
And, by the way, an argument from authority is always fallacious, whether or not the authority in question is correct. If you make an argument of the sort "Person X is more credentialed/respected/educated than Person Y, therefore Person X's opinion is correct", that is always a fallacy, regardless of whether or not Person X is in fact correct.
It is truly breathtaking to see supposed libertarians argue that only experts have the ability to meaningfully comment on a political issue.
Various commenters have repeatedly brought up the "Argument From Authority fallacy" and used it to dismiss any statements about Feldstein's background. Didn't Chait essentially make an appeal to authority in dismissing Feldstein as a hack? He said Feldstein is a hack and here is proof, an article in TNR several years old article calling him a hack. There isn't a lifetime of scholarly articles that might contradict that.
And, by the way, an argument from authority is always fallacious, whether or not the authority in question is correct. If you make an argument of the sort "Person X is more credentialed/respected/educated than Person Y, therefore Person X's opinion is correct", that is always a fallacy, regardless of whether or not Person X is in fact correct.
Megan never said that Feldstein was correct. That is the gaping hole in your argument. You keep saying that Megan claimed Feldstein was correct. She just said that he wasn't a hack. You can't keep changing her argument. I haven't seem you present any evidence that supports Chait's assertion at any point. Getting budget projections wrong twice turns you into a hack? That's not a particularly forgiving standard.
"Uh, yes, they did. You said that she isn't questioning Chait's right to an opinion. ("Megan didn't say Chait was incapable of commenting in any way about economics or Feldstein"). She did, in fact, say so explicitly and expressly. ("he doesn't have the statistical and econometric tools to even have an opinion on Martin Feldstein's work--other than the one that I hold".) What am I missing? She says he doesn't have the tools to have an opinion."
I believe Megan's point is that everyone can claim to have any opinion about anything. However, if you have no background in economics and you are caling one of its foremost practitioners a hack, you better have better evidence than a couple thousand word article.
Some appeals to authority are no doubt fallacious. Others are not.
No. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Always. Relativity isn't right because Einstein proposed it.
He said Feldstein is a hack and here is proof, an article in TNR several years old article calling him a hack.
Maybe we saw different Chait articles. I saw one which pointed out a couple of wowzer Feldstein predictions that turned out badly for Our Seer of Seers. And the political pressures which Feldstein bowed to produce those.
It is truly breathtaking to see supposed libertarians argue that only experts have the ability to meaningfully comment on a political issue.
I don't know that it's so much libertarian as Randian. I think this was Megan's "Jane Galt" aspect on display here.
If Chait had come out with a post extolling how "serious" and authoritative Feldstein was, would Megan have been similarly dismissive of Chait's ability to render an opinion?
it is simply an established fact of logical discourse that appeals to authority (or credentials) and argument by assertion are fallacious
Ah, self-refuting arguments...
Several commenters here (Freddie and Jeffrey Davis, to name two) seem to believe that appeals to authority are always fallacious. If they stopped and thought about this for a minute, they'd see that this can't be right. Most of our knowledge comes by way of authority, and if all appeals to authority were fallacious, we would be hard pressed to know even basic facts about history, science, geography, etc. Any competent account of the argument from authority will take account of this fact, and will thus be qualified in some way to avoid falling into absurdity.
You are confusing Marty Feldstein with Martin L. Weitzman.
Whoops, you're right. My mistake.
To take Jeffrey Davis' example, relativity isn't true because Einstein says it's true, but the fact that Einstein says it's true is a pretty good reason for thinking that it is true, at least if you're a layman. Similarly, if I see you on videotape robbing a 7-11, that's a pretty good reason to think that you robbed the 7-11, even though you didn't rob the 7-11 *because* you were videotaped doing so.
As I pointed out on one of the other threads on this, Chait was wrong. 1993 brought in only 17.5% of GDP in tax revenue, even though it was the third year of an economic expansion.
Similarly, 2001 was a recession year so tax revenue would be expected to decline.
To take Blackadder's argument a step further, if I were to assert that some branch of science based on evolution was based on junk science, and someone else were to point out that it is based on Einstein's evolution, and I responded by disimissing Einstein as a hack, well, I'd be making a fool of myself.
That's what Ms. McArdle is saying about Chait -- not that he "doesn't have the right" to opine about economics, but when he does things like dismiss respected academics like Feldstein as little better than hacks, he makes a fool of himself and hurts his credibility.
Nobody here is mounting a serious logical argument. We don't reinvent the wheel in every public debate, and use the opinions of experts as shortcuts. That is not a logical proof, but it does save us some time to focus on matter that are controversial.
Blackadder is right about the "argument from authority" point. To put it in Bayesian terms, the probability that X is true, given that Y says it and Y is an expert is greater than the probability that X is true, given that Y says it isn't and Y is an expert. That's what being an expert means.
The fallacy would only be if you said the probability that X is true, given that Y says it and Y is an expert = 1. But then there are very few empirical propositions in this world whose probability is really 1.
I see I cross-posted with JohnMCG.
As he points out, you could try denying that there is such a thing as expertise in economics or that Feldstein possess it if it exists. But then you'd be wrong.
Megan,
There is another, maybe deeper issue at play here. You say that:
"There is no way an argument between you and Martin Feldstein, or any other economist of his stature, about their subject is going to end except with you backing away slowly, eyes fixed on your shoes, mumbling "I'm sorry, I just didn't quite understand . . . I'm sorry, yes, listen, I really ought to go . . . I think I left something on the stove . . . no, no more equations, PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!"
Really? Is that true?
Yes, if Chait or most any other non-academic economist were to debate Feldstein on the intricacies of one of his papers then I think you would be right. But that's probably not something Chait has any interest in debating.
If, on the other hand, Chait and Feldstein had been debating the impact of tax policy in 1993 and 2001 it would probably be Feldstein who would be asking for it to stop.
The problem is not Feldstein but the very real limits of economics as a discipline in helping us understand and predict the real world economy, specially at the macro level. Feldstein's equations turned out to be pretty useless to help him predict what would happen to taxes. It's not clear that his intelligence or academic achievements give him too much of an advantage in debating real world tax problems.
Given that Chait's trenchant analysis of Feldstein's forecasting errors makes basic tyro errors--failing to control for the business cycle, and comparing two periods of unequal length--then yes, I think that if Chait advanced upon Feldstein with this level of economic analysis, Mr Chait would quickly find himself humiliated and dismissed. I mean, maybe he's capable of better, but he chose what to link to, not me.
The business cycle in one case consisted of two presidential terms of office. Odd how that worked.
8 years without a "Sorry. My bad."
Trenchant is as trenchant does and twice on Sunday for tyros.
I don't think Chait is making any error here. After all it was Feldstein who predicted X and not Chait. All Chait is saying is that Feldstein doesn't have a very good record and that's true.
Whether there are attenuating circumstances (business cycle) is not the point. If Feldstein's greater economic knowledge had led him to predict what he did but only if the business cycle had been different than he should have said so. he didn't. Nobody forced Feldstein to make the predictions he did. He did and was proven wrong. If Chait and Feldstein had had a debate in 1993 and Chait had said "let's talk in a few years and see who is right" it would be Feldstein who would be asking to stop.
I am quite aware of Feldstein's academic credentials. But they don't seem to be of much help when debating a real world tax issue like this one.
Feldstein's defenders would claim he just got unlucky twice in a row: Clinton's tax hike happened to precede a huge boom, and Bush's tax cut happened to coincide with a major slowdown. But revenue grew under Clinton and shrank under Bush, far more than could be accounted for by growth alone.
And, anyway, even if that excuse were right, it undermines Feldstein's point. Feldstein and his conservative allies argue that upper-bracket tax-rate levels are crucial to economic health. But history shows that, at the very least, many other factors have a greater effect on economic growth. So accepting large deficits for the sake of tax cuts makes no sense. This history also suggests that it's Feldstein who has a "fundamentally incorrect view of how taxes affect individual behavior."
This is "failing to control for the business cycle"? Even if the business cycle were a totally uncontroversial and immutable influence--a position that Keynes wiped clean off the map a near-century ago--this certainly seems to at least acknowledge the business cycle as a possible factor, while at the same time dismissing it.
Chait's point isn't really that difficult or controversial: that despite the ravings of Feldstein et al, raising taxes didn't have anything remotely like serious negative consequences on the Clinton economy. Unless you're willing to adopt the (truly precious) conceit that economic growth under Clinton was due to Bush and/or Reagan, Feldstein's position on taxes seems well and truly discredited.
Oh, and yes, appeals to authority are always fallacious, because they mistake the argument for its author.
(Megan was a lit major, wasn't she? Surely she should be able to expound upon "the death of the author" at length.)
Past reputation is a nice little heuristic for how you should approach an argument, but it isn't one in-and-of itself, especially if the position is as deeply questionable as Feldstein's is. Someone with no education can make a brilliant point, whereas a Professor with a well-documented history can make a boneheaded one.
Proof of both is left as a (really, really easy) exercise for the reader.
Demosthenes, you and Chait are making the same logical fallacy -- "Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence." (Dr. Michael C. Labossiere).
It doesn't help that Chait manipulates the data (two different time frames) to create the "vividness."
Obviously, in my post I meant "relativity," rather than evolution, but it does raise a point.
Why is Ms. McArdle so bad for calling out Chait, but it's OK for everyone else to ridicule Brownback, Huckabee, et al for dissenting on evolution.
Note -- Those candidates didn't imply that Darwin was little more than a hack; they just said they don't beleive in him.
If an Administration official had similarly dismissed a scientific expert, I am quite sure it would be cited as a another example of the Administration's "contempt for science and facts."
I'm not here to defend the Brownback/Huckabee decision. Just to point out that we have little trouble recognizing when someone is making a fool out of himself by challenging the giants of a field without having done his homework when that person is our political opponenet.
Henry,
That's the problem here. There is no "significant amount of statistical evidence". At all. Different studies have come up with different numbers.
When Feldstein predicted what he did it was not based on widespread scientific consensus. It was his opinion, one many other economists disagreed with, and he turned out to be wrong.
Gabriel, did you read the linked piece? Feldstein didn't make a forecast. In 2001, he said
"the true cost of reducing the tax rates is likely to be substantially smaller than the costs projected in the official estimates"
Which Chait "refutes" by saying that income tax revenues fell; but since the economy went into recession, revenues would have fallen no matter what Bush had done. Similarly, in 1993, Feldstein says
"there is no possibility that the Clinton plan will produce the deficit reduction that it projects."
To which Chait rejoinders:
No possibility! Well, in case anybody has forgotten, the deficit actually dropped far more than anybody projected. Income tax revenue shot up through the ceiling. It's as if there was an actual invisible hand guiding the economy, and it grabbed Feldstein by the collar and screamed, "You're utterly, completely wrong, you fool!"
. . . except that no one thinks that the huge upside surprise Chait writes about was the product of Clinton tax magic; rather, it was a product of stock options, and the strange way they're treated by the tax code (as income, rather than capital gains), along with an increase in inequality (which raises income tax revenue, because the income tax is highly progressive), general macroeconomic growth, the stock market bubble, and a bunch of other things Clinton had no control over. Had Feldstein made a projection about the size of the deficit, you're right, he'd be wrong (though I'd point out that I'm literally not aware of anyone who foresaw the strange changes in the behaviour of income tax revenue that we saw in the 1990s and 2000s), but he didn't. He didn't (at least in the quoted bits) say the deficit wouldn't close; only that the Clinton tax increases wouldn't close it. Which they didn't. Whether they hit their numbers at all is probably a matter of hot dispute, but here's a good paper on the topic from the Fed:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clevelandfed.org%2Fresearch%2FCommentary%2F2000%2F0401.pdf&ei=qrPlRtSsCILQeZWx7ZEK&usg=AFQjCNE3ZzgUaUP87aGiAWKp5iYsTVNyxw&sig2=OXS6yXZKTFJA7xEctDITRw
It's almost as if an invisible hand had grabbed Jon Chait and made him write nonsense.
"Unless you're willing to adopt the (truly precious) conceit that economic growth under Clinton was due to Bush and/or Reagan, Feldstein's position on taxes seems well and truly discredited."-Demosthenes
Intersetingly, the original Demosthenes had a reputation as rabble-rouser who attacked great men with spurious charges and insults. But I'm sure that description wouldn't fit this Demosthenes...
Anyway, as nearly all economists would agree, the main factor in the 1990's boom was the technological innovation that allowed for such strong productivity growth. The seeds of this innovation were sown in previous decades and could not reasonably be attributed to President Clinton's policies. Many economists would point to the tax cuts and deregulation of the 1980's as a spur to innovation and a contributor to the boom.
That said, the free trade and fiscal prudence of the Clinton era probably did help to create favorable eonomic conditions. Whether due to the influence of advisers like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers or the pressure of Newt Gingrich, Clinton pursued policies that were fairly conservative and fairly successful. As he once observed, "We're Eisenhower Republicans here. We stand for low deficits, free trade, and the bond market."
Megan,
Hmm...this is what I get for getting sidetracked from my original point, that Chait's intelligence was irrelevant to whether Feldstein is an expert or not.
I though I read Feldstein making predictions somewhere but I am too lazy to check that now so I will take your word I was wrong. Sorry.
I still think my point (above) stands as does my second point, that being an academic expert is not that much help in many of these practical policy disputes.
Henry: It takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch, and it takes one inexplicable event to ruin a model, "dramatic" or no. (Hence the reason Popper was so keen on trying to disprove your model, instead of prove it.)
Besides, we're dealing with a relatively small sample set to begin with, with an incredibly huge number of potential confounding variables. Romer and Romer aside (and their study actually supports the wisdom of Clinton's "endogenous" tax increase), you can't just yell "STATISTICS!" and expect to be able to somehow contradict people's lyin' eyes.
(It's like trying to apply statistics to presidential elections. Sure, you can do it, but there's only been 41 of them, so it's pretty hard to generalize such a small group to all the potential elections to have ever possibly taken place. You've got enough confounding factors to make it of questionable predictive usefulness at best)
John: the problem is not their dissent. Their problem is that their dissent is based on advocating a competing model that is nothing more (or less) than "God did it".
A better example would be the climate science debate, where the "argument by authority" is more along the lines of "argument by consensus". To claim that there's a consensus among economists on anything--let alone the economic effects of taxation--as strong as the consensus among climate scientists on global warming is ludicrous.
(Well, okay, maybe if you're only including neo-classicals. Max Sawicky and Dan Davies would tear your rhetorical head off for trying that, though. And with good reason.)
Demosthenes, we're not arguing "consensus on Martin Feldstein's deadweight loss figures", of which I agree there is not one. We're arguing "consensus on Martin Feldstein's stature". There is one, and Chait is pretending it ain't so, and offering as proof less than stellar economic reasoning.
Phillip of Macedonia was a "great man"? Wow. That puts the Phillipics in a whole new light, I suppose.
(Not that that's relevant. It's just a pseudonym.)
Isocrates, aside from trying to resurrect "REAGAN DID IT!" (implying that, I suppose, Carter was responsible for the success of the Reagan years) you're giving away the point. The tax policies of the Clinton adminstration that are in question here are at the core of the "fiscal prudence" you're referring to. The reason why Romer and Romer referred to the Clinton tax increases as "endogenous" was because they were intended to reduce the deficit and the negative effects that said deficit had on the economy. The consensus (except, I suppose, for David Altig) is that they were pretty successful.
You do raise an interesting point, though: what was it, precisely, that Reagan did that was in any way responsible for the Internet revolution? The Internet, after all, was a product of government spending on defense and scientific research, not deregulation, and I don't recall regulation or deregulation as having much to do with the growth of computers during the 1980s. The industry seemed rather (benignly) ignored, which would explain why the industry was, in turn, rather benignly ignorant of Washington.
(Except, I suppose, for the big computer vendors of the 1980s. They, um, weren't exactly at the forefront of the 1990s boom. Far from it.)
Oh, and don't think I didn't notice that little argument from authority of your very own, there. "Most economists"? Do tell.
Wow so much good stuff:
LFP nails it. The error in endless laffer curve theories and dead weight loss notions is just this - complete disregard for the arrival of diminishing returns in cutting government spending. At some point an extra cut will return less to economic efficiency than it removes. A collapsed bridge, a missing educated employee, a sick worker, if you will.
Isocrates,
Economic opinion has moved back to the center since Clinton. Growth in Europe has not collapsed as predicted and perverse effects seem to be croping up in the American economy under right of center economic policies. The 2001 Bush tax cuts have not created longer term growth rates for the American economy. If they had, the massive fed easing that took place to pull the US out of recession would not have been necessary for as long as it was. Instead of leading to better economic efficiency, these tax cuts via deficit financing will be translated into inflation or future tax increases. You could argue that the tax cuts have helped produce the asset inflation we saw in the debt markets and housing markets, but it is hard to separate the fiscal policy (lower taxes) from the monetary policy (low rates). I am sure someone is working on it now. Anyway the resulting asset bubble is a disaster. (buy gold)
Not convincing. Feldstein set the parameters and failed on his own. This strikes me as red herring via detail. A general claim is then refuted by a general observation then the observation is attacked for not being technical and scientifically rigorous when the original claim itself was not on this scientific level. If it's pistols at dawn it should be pistols at dawn, not pistols versus swords.
Logical on its face, ultimately it is wrong. Argument by expert is just dueling opinion. It is the experts argument that is real not the experts reputation. An argument is an argument based on facts and information not reputaion. This is why appeal to authority is a fallacy. It is used as a shorthand sometimes, especially on the net where space is at a premium.
Why don't you economists and psuedo-economists just agree you are as clueless as everyone else and be done with it? You are, actually.
Geez. What a waste of time.
At least Chait is proposing solutions, I'll leave y'all to argue minutiae.
Nice to see you again too, Jane.
The problem is that both Chait and Feldstein's supporters are making roughly similar arguments: they're drawing on Feldstein's past to contextualize his present advocacy of policy.
The difference is that the defenders are playing that old, old game of "serious economists believe 'X'", whereas Chait (to his credit) is pointing to his past record on this specific issue and a case of similar advocacy to say "maybe that track record isn't so bright after all". Which, unless you're trying to credit Reagan for Clinton's economic success, is probably as decent as anything else. After all, it is possible for formerly reasonable economists to go off the deep end, especially when they come into contact with the ol' voodoo.
(Paul Krugman spent a rather entertaining 180 pages on it. And this is the oldschool, "accidental theorist" Krugman.)
Yes, you should have some respect for those who have done things like win Clark medals, but it's kind of like judging the works of Robert A. Heinlein: the incredible quality of the earlier books, and the volume of awards won, doesn't make the later output any better.
Economists--like science fiction authors--can indeed lose their touch. And Chait makes a pretty convincing case that Feldstein, sadly, is no exception.
Economics is a fairly imprecise discipline (I don't think that it is a science)
Sure it is, provided that economists use the scientific method when practicing their discipline. Science is not a collection of subject matter, nor is it defined by the precision of the results. It is simply the application of the scientific method in the quest for knowledge. There is no reason economics cannot qualify under this definition.
I have just learned that appeals to authority are always fallacious. I know this because I read it on the Internet. Unfortunately, I'm an engineer. Personally verifying all of the information I assume to be true is going to take quite a bit of my time.
The Laffer Curve isn't about govt. spending, it's about tax revenues. And, simply put, it IS the Law of Diminishing Returns, applied to tax rates.
Don Luskin dismantles Chait to my satisfaction here: http://www.poorandstupid.com/2007_09_02_chronArchive.asp#4597616266239311283
"I have just learned that appeals to authority are always fallacious. I know this because I read it on the Internet. Unfortunately, I'm an engineer. Personally verifying all of the information I assume to be true is going to take quite a bit of my time."
And that's exactly why we don't have time travelling cars yet. Trust no one! Think outside the box!
Arguments from authority are effective only to the degree that all sides agree that the authority is authoritative. History is replete with authorities who were highly regarded and made pronouncements which turned out to be fundamentally wrong; Feldstein is not immune from this simply because he is Feldstein.
Appeals to Authority are NOT always fallacious.
Here, I present a link titled Appeal to Misleading Authority.
Just the title should give you a clue. The link presents five tests for whether an appeal to authority is misleading, and therefore fallacious, or not misleading and therefore not fallacious.
It's important to avoid fallacies, one of which is labeling an argument a fallacy when it is not.
Yours,
Wince
freddie's like that punk rock fan who really thinks 7 seconds or even husker du is on par with the beatles, and just won't accept that there really are some things you accept on authority (who says the beatles are better than 7 seconds? i don't care if every rock critic ever says so, why should i buy what those old fogies believe?). that is, you may not like the beatles, but you can't legitimately claim they suck.
similarly here, chait could disagree with feldstein, even claim this is one area in which feldstein just doesn't get it. but claiming feldstein is a hack is silly.
George Gilder is a know-nothing loon?
For a big dope he sure seems to be making an awful lot of money.
That's the way those polymaths play it.
I'd say he's pretty smart for a big dummy.
Sheesh.
Talk about your sour grapes.
Just sayin'.
It's also important to remember HTML, and it's friend, preview.
Appeal to Misleading Authority
Yours,
Wince
Freddie writes: I mean, taking it as a layman, who doesn't know Feldstein at all-- why should I accept that contention that he's smarter than Jon Chait?
Doesn't this question answer itself?
It's Jon Chait, for God's sake. A bigger lightweight would simply fly off the face of the planet by dint of its rotational force.
Unfortunately, I'm an engineer. Personally verifying all of the information I assume to be true is going to take quite a bit of my time.
I see what you did there.
> the actual legislative intent of every tax cut has been "helping us beat the Democrats." It's become less of a principled economic strategy and more of a political cudgel.
Ah for the good old days, when politicians didn't pass legislation to screw the other side. Except that those "good old days", like so many others, didn't happen.
Every piece of legislation has the meta-intent of "help us beat the other guy". The hoped-for effects of said legislation is the mechanism by which said "beat" will occur. For example "the lion and the lamb lay down together after my tax change so therefore you shouldn't trust that other guy." They may have a theory that explains why goodness will occur, but that's irrelevant to whether they can take credit for good outcomes and/or blame the other guy for bad ones.
First of all, this blog is part of "The Atlantic" and not "The Economist" unless I'm badly misreading the url in my web browser. So for all of you who are snickering at "The Economist" above, please understand that it's impossible to take you seriously when you can't get even that basic fact correct. Oh... and the fact that you're just being snooty for laughing at "The Economist" instead of presenting an argument doesn't do much to convince either, btw.
Second, demands that Ms. McArdle provide the specific knowledge she has about the intellectual weight of an economist is boring. People, it's called Google.
There. I've set you free to find information on your own. Now you don't have to condescend to McArdle and are free to look elsewhere for these proofs you seek.
NOI (above): I believe that if you check, you will find that the lengthy quote in Megan's original post is from The Economist. If you can't get that basic fact correct, it's hard to take you seriously. If you need convincing, read the Fallows' article. It's called a reference or citation.
Freddie,
I would point out that you unfairly (in my mind) left off the predicate "odds are" when you quoted Megan writing of Chait. That changes it from a assertion of a fact to one of probability.
I personally don't see how statements of probability is liable to claims of argument from authority. (Just to be clear I don't mean extreme odds, though I am not exactly sure what that would be, perhaps 2 standard deviations). I think that is what a number of people here are saying, not "we should believe some because.." but "given the choice between an expert and a lay person, the expert has a better chance of being closer to the truth". Does that mean the expert doesn't need to "show his/her work"? No, absolutely not, but I would tend to go over with a finer tooth comb a lay person trying to overthrow orthodoxy. They could be right, but they have a tougher row to hoe.
Btw, I also don't see how "he was wrong a couple times" is necessarily dispositive. Wouldn't that suggest world class economists should be among the richest people (or at least most successful short term) if they knew precisely what was going to happen?
Freddie,
Just to be clear, the first paragraph of my reaponse was directed to you, the others were not necessarily.
After reading so many comments hotly debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I think I now know who is *not* smart, but rather contrarian and childish.
And there are many of you.
Oh, this is hilarious.
I learned in my logic class that argument from authority is always fallacious. Consequently, when my doctor says I can lower my risk of death from cardiovascular disease by eating less and exercising more, I have no more reason to believe him than any random person!
Why would my lawyer know anything about law, or my doctor about medicine, or my PhD advisor about physics, just because "universities" give them "degrees"? ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS!
The logical fallacy is simple to demonstrate. Allow me.
Premise: An expert is a person whose opinion in his area of expertise is to be given more weight than a person who does not have this expertise.
Premise: Dr X is an expert on Y.
Conclusion: Dr X's opinion on Y is to be given more weight than someone else who is not an expert on Y.
Well, that's funny. I can't seem to find the fallacy. Back to the logic class, I guess.
This sort of thread is sometimes amusing, although I usually avoid them. The funny part is watching Leftists complaining about Argument from Authority when somebody disagrees with declarations ex sinistra.
In this case, of course, Chait's argument rests on Feldstein's being wrong twice. The correct metric for comparison in this case would be to go back and see how many times Chait has been wrong -- but of course we can't do that, since it constitutes "sliming".
Regards,
Ric
Well, I'm reminded of Russell's admonition: "When the experts are agreed, it's not intellectually safe to be certain of the contrary opinion. When the experts disagree, it's not intellectually safe to be certain of any opinion." (Not quite verbatim, from memory.)
If there is any subtopic in economics on which the economists all agree, I'm unaware of it. So caution about being certain is in order.
That said, it would appear to me that tax reductions to cut the size of government are doomed. If cuts boost the economy and result in increases in tax revenue, then no matter how much the conservatives cut they will be faced with having to make use of greater and greater revenues!
So the best way to cut government is to massively raise taxes and cause horrific revenue losses and desperation defunding of everything in sight.
Isn't "God's Little Ironic Law of Unintended Consequences" ingenious?
Once, when a friend was visiting, my roomie entered the living room to see what had us laughing maniacally at 7:00 AM. He was smiling as he approached, such laughter being infectious, but when he realized we were watching Beavis and Butthead his expression changed to one of disgust and disillusionment and fatherly disappointment. That look was one of the funniest things we'd ever seen. Les, I'll admit this sort of thread doesn't appeal to everyone, and I can't even disagree with your assessment, but your disapproval feeds us.
I just remembered that your namesake did the same thing. Perhaps I'm being dense, and since this is my first day on this blog, I don't know the personalities here. Actually, that would be funny too.
I recognize all the other names cited in this column, but who the hell is Jonathan Chait?
Gene (above)
So you're arguing on Ms. McArdle's blog about an opinion she presented but which she did not herself write instead of addressing the author of the argument with which you disagree?
And you're winning this argument, how, exactly? By what metric can you win an argument with an author who is not present?
So, in future, I suggest you and others criticize McArdle for what McArdle says, not for the stories to which she links. After all, if we judge bloggers by the stories to which they link precious dKos, Gleen Grennwald, et cetera will have lots of 'splainin' to do.
Freddie,
Megan didn't make an appeal to authority, she factually rebutted an incorrect claim that Feldstein isn't an authority, then cited an empirical study he did. Talk about making an intellectually frivolous argument; you set up a nice little strawman way off on a tangent and then beat the snot out of it. Kudos.
Krugman did actually produce some very good work as an economist. Most notably, he correctly predicted the end of the Japanese boom. As a political analyst...
I think Jonathan Chait is obviously a lightweight compared to Martin Feldstein. Partisan commentators (on both sides of the political spectrum) who want to credit their own political party for great developments are especially suspect in my eyes.
At the same time, I think we need to assign different weightings to pronouncements from different categories of sciences. If physicists say they all believe X then I figure X must be true. But if economists all believe X I figure we can't be nearly so sure. If sociologists all believe X I figure the odds are better than 50:50 they are wrong.
The sciences differ in the average IQ of their members. They also differ in how provable their subject matter is. Social sciences have a very hard time proving anything because of the problem of controlling variables.
Social sciences also suffer because they study black boxes (i.e. the insides of brains) based on outside behavior. Sorry, the truth lies inside the box. Neurobiological research is the path to a real social science. The economic model of humans is naive.
My reservations with pronouncements by economists are illustrated by a historical episode where top economists created a hedge fund that used fancy mathematical equations to model markets. Then the markets turned in ways they didn't expect and the Fed had to bail them out in order to prevent a deep world recession or depression. This sort of episode makes me fear economists more than I fear the nukes made by physicists.
Saying "Mrs. Y is an expert, therefore she is correct" is always a fallacious argument.
Saying "Mrs. Y is an expert because she has a position of authority in which she teaches others at a respected,prestigous, and high-level university; she has written journals reviewed by her peers at the highest levels of discourse in the field; and she has won academic awards from her peers precisely because of her expertise" is not an appeal to an authority, it is proof of expertise. Those arguing otherwise are actually using the fallacious argument from ignorance, once their argument is extrapolated slightly. The essence of freddie's argument doesn't accept as proof perfectly acceptable forms of proof, such as the demonstrated use of knowledge and the demonstrated recognition of that knowledge by one's peers to prove one has said knowledge.
When comparing the views of an expert, whom it is acceptable to properly label an expert because of empircal evidence that suggests this is the case, to a nonexpert, it is logical to assume the nonexpert should not dismiss the expert without a more substantive amount of proof than two partisan, political snapshots of said expert's record.
It having been established that the argument from authority is not fallacious (if authority is taken to provide a warrant for belief, rathere than deductive proof), what can we say the experts agree on?
Pretty much all economists seem to agree that there is a deadweight loss associated with taxes. They don't agree how much the deadweight loss is.
That doesn't imply that all government spending has a benefit/cost ratio less than unity, since it could still be the case that the public good provided is big enough to outweigh the deadweight loss.
Everyone would agree that there is some level of marginal taxation that would reduce revenue (say 110%), but as I understand it few real econmists think the US is currently close to that level.
The only reasonable tax policy is to keep lowering taxes slowly, until revenue decreases, then lower taxes again.
Slowly, so the private sector has a chance to digest each one. When tax rates decrease, government caused poverty decreases, so the demand for 'government aid' will decrease. Government spending can be redirected from the broad poverty caused by government taxation, to the decreasig pockets of poverty left behind by a prosperous economy.
Someone making 100,000 dollars a year will have about half his money taken by taxes, federal, state, and local. Everything he buys will be bought from people who have half their income taken by taxes, federal state and local. Further, government regulations will make production and distribution less efficient, and will spend a significant share on collection of taxes, and the producer will spend money on lawyers and accountants to limit that collection. The producer paid 100,000 dollars will have to live on 12,500 dollars of product. That is the government poverty program.
I. "Isocrates, aside from trying to resurrect "REAGAN DID IT!" (implying that, I suppose, Carter was responsible for the success of the Reagan years) you're giving away the point."-Demosthenes
Well, I wasn't implying that Reagan was responsible for the creation of the internet or anything like that. Instead, I mean that he helped to create an atmosphere in which people were more willing to take risks. The combination of tax cuts and deregulation helped to restore the dynamism and "creative destruction" that had waned in the 1970's.
As I wrote above, the technological innovations of earlier decades made the productivity boom possible. But you ought to ask yourself the question: why did America experience that boom to a much greater degree than Western Europe or Japan, when they had access to the same technologies? The key is that America was better able to make efficient use of that technology. I think Ronald Reagan's policies were a big part of the reason for that (though, to be fair, the deregulation really started under Carter).
I suggest reading the following transcript from an address by Alan Greenspan that explains very well how Reagan's laiseez-faire policies helped to restore flexibility to the American economy--something sorely lacking in Germany, France and Japan:
Chairman Greenspan on Adam Smith's Ideas
II. "Phillip ofMacedonia was a great man. Wow."
Yes, Phillip of Macedon was indeed a great man. The unification of Greece was necessary and he deserves credit for recognizing that and bringing unification about. It's too bad his son didn't have Phillip's self-control.
Dear Nobody of Importance
Actually, if you read my post, you will see that I am not arguing or disagreeing with Megan at all. But thank you very much for explaining to me how I am permitted to respond to her post.
By the way, don't you feel a wee bit chagrined at criticizing those of us who refereneced The Economist given that you couldn't get the simple fact correct (your words, not mine) that her original post included a lengthy citation from that very journal? Or do you always take the tack that the best defense is a good offense?
To explain my point more clearly to you, The Economist consistently takes an editorial position of superior knowledge on many economic, business and political topics. It often doesn't just report about these topics, it preens with an very clear editorial stance on them and condescends toward those who disagree, even when the latter have fairly siginificant credentials. And behind this is what? Oftentimes clever generalist journalists who have neither advanced degrees nor significant professional experience in their subjects but feel free to pose as if they were offering an expert assessment (as opposed to merely an informed opinion). Which was the point of the Fallows article though I thought it rather tedious to repeat it all. And which is pretty much exactly what they deriding Chair for, which is why I said that the criticism is rather rich coming from them.
"The Economist consistently takes an editorial position of superior knowledge on many economic, business and political topics. It often doesn't just report about these topics, it preens with an very clear editorial stance on them and condescends toward those who disagree, even when the latter have fairly siginificant credentials."-Gene
Gene's got it right. Although I am a faithful reader of that journal and appreciate the quality of it's reporting and anlysis, I can't stand the arrogance of the writers there--especially the pompous preening peacocks who write the leaders every week. One could summarize their leaders every week thusly: "Here are all the problems in the world and here are the solutions, all in four pages."
And they are frequently wrong. They were all for the Iraq war until it went South. Now they seem to recognize their error but it does't stop them from pretending to have the answer to every other international problem... They've been predicting economic gloom for as long as I have been reading it. Every other week they tell me that America's cureent account deficit is going to cause a calamity shortly. Well, it hasn't yet.
So, I suggest they take this as there motto:
The only reasonable tax policy is to keep lowering taxes slowly, until revenue decreases, then lower taxes again.
And once the tax rate is zero, we can start give away tax credits. If lower taxes bring in more money, a negative tax rate should bring near infite money, right?
So, arguments from authority are fallacious. I agree with that, but I didn't read Megan say "Credentialed Figure must be right and Unwashed Prole has to be wrong because Credentialed Figure is, well, more credentialed." Sounded more to me like "Unwashed Prole doesn't stand much of a credible chance going toe-to-toe with Credentialed Figure because the odds aren't in his favor and his first swing wasn't much to write home about."
The smart money always goes with the odds. Which of the contrarians here would put $1000 on Chait over Feldstein one-on-one?
The smart money always goes with the odds. Which of the contrarians here would put $1000 on Chait over Feldstein one-on-one?
Posted by Christian | September 10, 2007 11:27 PM
I'd take Chait's opinion of Feldstein's tax claims over Feldstein's opinion of himself. The prof has been wrong too often.
Hey, I know I'm a "wingnut, a loon, a crank, a charlatan, a crackpot and a con artist" (even Bill O'Reilly knows that!). I confess I don't even know enough to bow respectfully to the highly credentialled consensus view that CO2 is a dreaded pollutant.
I also must acknowledge that among 13 books, I wrote Naked Nomads: Unmarried Men in America, excerpted in Commentary and in part in the Atlantic (and then mostly republished in Men and Marriage which is still in print 32 years later), showing that even in 1970 single men earned less money over their lifetimes than single women did. The Times found it out last month. I also believe in intelligent design rather than in Richard Dawkins. But at least I won my last debate with Marty Feldstein (and with Dawkins if you want to know) and unlike Feldstein, Chait, and even Romer, I know that the only way to study a phenomenon such as tax rate cuts is through international data.
The international evidence is conclusive that countries with low or declining tax rates increase their government spending some three times faster than countries with high or rising tax rates, because the low tax countries grow six times faster. Today we have a worldwide boom in government revenues spearheaded by tax cutting and flat tax countries (there are 17 now). If you like government spending, you have to like low tax rates.
The US economy has endured the telecom and dotcom crash, Katrina, the Iraq war, runaway medical spending, and the subprime fiasco, while reducing tax rates and achieving what is now close to an all government surplus. Chait also derides Art Laffer as a wingnut crank, but Art Laffer is the world's most influential living economist. I will hand it to Chait, though, he is a great collector of blurbs for his book and wrote a nice tribute to his wife and family in the acknowledgements.
George Gilder
Gilder!! You da man!!
The Laffer Curve isn't about govt. spending, it's about tax revenues. And, simply put, it IS the Law of Diminishing Returns, applied to tax rates.
Posted by Patrick R. Sullivan | September 10, 2007 6:03 PM
1. gov spending and tax revenues ... is there a connection?
2. Yes I know what the Laffer curve is PRS. My point is that the Law of Diminishing Returns applies to tax cuts as well. Specifically that with each additional tax cut, the economic return from a marginal reduction in the effective tax rate will diminish and eventually produce a negative return, a point at which it would have been better to leave the dollars in the government coffers. This too is inherently part of the Laffer Curve, but conservative activists gloss it over because it is politically inconvenient.
And in my limited, non-scientific experience, disproportionately read by recent college graduates with majors in non-technical disciplines, i.e., the most deservingly gullible for what the magazine offers.
I feel the need to elaborate on my earlier post. I am beginning to like Freddie, not because I agree with him but because he was good enough to apologize when it was pointed out that his first post, as reasoned as he had tried to make it, was based on a faulty premise.
Still, I like hearing what he says -- he stands out from the other commenters from Megan's first few weeks on this new site who were ideologically hostile to Megan, but couldn't move beyond purely emotional arguing. So, yes, I am still beginning to like Freddie, but I love Megan. (Well, you know what I mean.)
I think the more new readers get use to Megan's style and see more of her substantial posts, the more slack they'll give her a break on her shorthand posts. Ok, that's all.
Wow! That was just like "Annie Hall" when Woody Allen produces Marshall McLuhan to settle an argument. Thank you, Mr. Gilder for making an appearance. Your four paragraphs cleared away the pedantic underbrush obscuring the curative powers of lowered marginal tax rates.
Keep up your fine work.
I should just point out that Megan is not "trained in economics" from UChicago. She's not "trained in economics" anywhere - she's self trained, which is fine, because a business degree is relatively useless. I say that as someone who is *also* self-trained in economics, has a business degree, and can tell you that I've learned far more self-training (not to mention law school) than the shallow and simplistic pursuit that is business school.
Appeals to authority are fallacies. No authority addressing a question gets a pass simply because of his reputation. A coroner in a murder trial must present the steps which led to his finding. He doesn't get to rest on his laurels.
In the matter at hand, we're led to believe that Chait is mistaken because he's Chait and Feldstein is Feldstein! It's a double whammy of appeal to authority. As you all know and as fate would have it [1], there's a brief review up of Chait's book by McCardle's favorite economic columnist Paul Krugman. You want to guess what Krugman thinks of Chait's book? Sure, you do. G'wan. Guess.
"Obviously I agree with just about everything that’s in Jon’s book. I cover some of the same ground in my own forthcoming book, The Conscience of a Liberal, though in much less detail. I’d like to take this conversation in a slightly different direction by talking about the second part of the book, on the political environment that lets crackpot economics flourish; Jon’s description is correct, but, I think, somewhat incomplete.
First, supply-side quackery is only one of the gambits used to sell tax cuts."
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/bookclub/2007/sep/11/crank_politics
[1] spoken aside from "Motorcycle Song" by Arlo Guthrie
Jeffrey,
Let's say I respond to your post by saying Paul Krugman is nothing but a partisan hack.
Does my opinion carry more or less weight than Krugman's.
By asserting that Krugman is nothing but a partisan hack, have I gained or lost credibility on the subject of economics?
This thread summarized:
Appeals to authorities I disagree with are always fallacious.
Appeals to authorities I agree with are OK.
This thread summarized:
Appeals to authorities I disagree with are always fallacious.
Appeals to authorities I agree with are OK.
Posted by JohnMcG | September 11, 2007 11:47 AM
Well done.
The international evidence is conclusive that countries with low or declining tax rates increase their government spending some three times faster than countries with high or rising tax rates, because the low tax countries grow six times faster. Today we have a worldwide boom in government revenues spearheaded by tax cutting and flat tax countries (there are 17 now). If you like government spending, you have to like low tax rates.
OK, fine. But there has to be point where reducing taxes adversely impacts provision of services. The free market is very poor at providing social services such as health care; people unable to pay get left out/shut out of the system. Government MUST intervene in these cases, that takes money, and the source of that money is taxes. So where do you draw the line?
Obviously the Bush administration decided to defy the laws of economics, cutting taxes and raising spending through the roof. "Deficits don't matter" was their mantra. Well, I think deficits DO matter; I don't care if the national debt is supportable or is not a drag on the economy. Debt is debt, it is to be avoided and paid off when incurred, and government should be no different in that regard than any citizen. The national debt is at a ridiculous level and it must be paid off to some manageable low level. Cutting spending will help but probably will not in itself be sufficient; so revenues must be increased. If there is evidence that that will happen with reduced taxes fine, but it is counterintuitive and just having a few "respected economists" assure me it is so is not sufficient to allay my fears. I have to wonder, how many industrialized, "first-world," and/or OECD countries have these "low or declining tax rates," what their rates are in relation to the United States, and their ability to provide social services while maintaining these lower rates. I suspect the picture is more complicated than it sounds (how much of their ability to provide social services is helped by essentially "outsourcing" their military spending to the United States, for example).
I don't see a lot of evidence that the Bush tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefitted the upper 50% of Americans have stimulated any growth in the economy meaningful to the lower 50%. My personal experience has been of stagnant wages and increasing cost of living throughout the past 6 years, and from what is reported in the media my story is not unique. How long are we going to have to wait for the benefits of these lower taxes to have their positived effects on the poorest Americans?
Let's say I respond to your post by saying Paul Krugman is nothing but a partisan hack.
Does my opinion carry more or less weight than Krugman's.
By asserting that Krugman is nothing but a partisan hack, have I gained or lost credibility on the subject of economics?
I'd say you selectively read my post. I'm arguing for the use of evidence. I brought in Krugman as an example of relying on names. McCardle brought up Chait because he was Chait whose criticism of Feldstein was unreliable and comic. He wasn't Feldstein. But that reliance on names crumbles when another name, Krugman, weighs in against Feldstein. So, now, where are we? Still at sea, because a name instead of evidence was used.
Krugman weighed in in favor of Chait's book in general, not the specific impliciation that Feldstein is an intellectural lightwieght. "Just about everything" leaves us all some wiggle room to guess what is excluded.
If Krugman were to assert that Feldstein is a hack, yes, that would carry more weight because we have more reason to respect Krugman's knowledge of economics.
My suspicion is that while Krugman might vehemently disagree with some of Feldstein's conclusions, he would not dismiss him as a hack.
By asserting that Krugman is nothing but a partisan hack, have I gained or lost credibility on the subject of economics?
Posted by JohnMcG | September 11, 2007 10:42 AM
You've gained.
Jeffery Davis - You've missed the point. Megan's point is that Feldstein can't be dismissed as a fool because his credentials afford that his argument at least be given a reasonable look. As for your Krugman reference, Krugman didn't treat Feldstein as a lightweight.
tydanosaurus 10:53PM et al.
The Laffer Curve predicts that there is an optimal taxation rate for producing maximum tax revenues. Higher tax rates decrease revenues; lower taxes likewise decrease revenues. Y'all are the only ones claiming that a negative tax rate provides positive, much less "infinite," tax revenues.
100% tax rate results in zero reveunes because no one will work. 0% tax rate results in zero revenues because none are collected.
The position of those who disagree that raising rates is the only way to increase revenue is that we are currently operating above the optimal revenue-production tax rate. The revenue increase following the "Bush" tax cuts provide some evidence that this may well be the case.
One would think that we might all agree on the proposition that the tax rate should at least be no higher than the rate which produces the maximum government revenue. Any rate above that hurts both government and citizens, which, I would think, would not be a goal of any rational or liberty minded person.
That is our point. Do you have a point that addresses this question, or only aspersions for those making the argument?
I'm perfectly happy to say that Peter Singer may be intelligent but comes up with the stupidest ideas. He's a 'tard.
EI
You've missed the point. Megan's point is that Feldstein can't be dismissed as a fool because his credentials afford that his argument at least be given a reasonable look. As for your Krugman reference, Krugman didn't treat Feldstein as a lightweight.
I haven't missed anything. Krugman said, "Obviously I agree with just about everything that’s in Jon’s book. I cover some of the same ground in my own forthcoming book, The Conscience of a Liberal, though in much less detail. I’d like to take this conversation in a slightly different direction by talking about the second part of the book, on the political environment that lets crackpot economics flourish; Jon’s description is correct, but, I think, somewhat incomplete.
My emphasis. I can't find much of a distinction between "crackpot" and "lightweight", but all in all, I think I'd rather be a "lightweight" than a "crackpot". Since Feldstein is faulted for lending his reputation to "crackpot" economics, I'd say he's close to the Richard Rich character in A Man for All Seasons. "For Wales?"
Megan's point gets smeared around a bit. She wasn't simply trying to rescue Feldstein's rep against Chait's slur. She wants his economics supported too. It's a bit like defending Louis Agassiz against the charge of being a lightweight AND trying to keep his anti-Darwinian views. Agassiz was no lightweight, but his view on evolution was a non-starter.
The sciences differ in the average IQ of their members. They also differ in how provable their subject matter is. Social sciences have a very hard time proving anything because of the problem of controlling variables.
Randall -
1) Links for your IQ-related statement, please?
2) "Provability" is a red herring. You seem to think that major questions in the physical sciences are settled, once and for all, in the course of a grand experimental proof, the meaning of which is so obvious to anyone working in the field that all future discussion and reseach on the subject is pointless. That's not how science works. It isn't about proof so much as consensus. Progess is made along the edges; data is collected and analyzed on small segments of the larger question; this information accumulates and then, if it's credible in the eyes of people working in the field, becomes the accepted consensus - which can then be discarded if a better explanation comes along.
Frankly, it seems to me that you're simply expressing your "common sense" view of the value of "real" science versus that of social science. And that's about as interesting as a comedian's observations on the differences between New York and LA, or about how white guys do one thing, but black guys do something else.
It's a bit amazing that so many people seem to think the "argument from authority" fallacy was at issue in this post, in any way whatsoever.
Here's an actual argument from authority: "(A) Feldstein says X; (B) Feldstein is an authority; (C) therefore X is true."
Megan didn't argue (A) or (C) at all. Instead, the argument was solely around whether (B), as an independent proposition, is the case. Hence, her argument was this:
"Chait says Feldstein is a crank. But Feldstein is actually an authority, and it takes a enormous amount of chutzpah on Chait's part to suggest otherwise."
When one is trying to show that Feldstein is an authority rather than a crank, evidence as to Feldstein's authoritativeness cannot conceivably be, itself, an "argument from authority."
A better way to put it is this: If you want to have a debate about whether Feldstein actually is an authority, it's rather absurd to try to rule the entire affirmative side of the argument out of bounds as a supposed "argument from authority."
100% tax rate results in zero reveunes because no one will work. 0% tax rate results in zero revenues because none are collected.
*snip*
Do you have a point that addresses this question, or only aspersions for those making the argument?
In the meantime, negative tax rates are going to raise just as much in taxes as the Laffer curve predicts for tax cuts, so I'll stick with my prediction. Heck, I'll even make my argument:
a. The influx of capital frees the innate spirit of the American capitalist, increasing the economy exponentially.
b. Wealthy capitalists are so rich, their wallets literally explode.
c. Federal sanitation engineers collect so much currency from sidewalks outside fancy restaurants and luxury car dealerships, the federal governemtn is financed for decades to come.
(Or, yes, I think I'll stick to aspersions.)
Fishbone,
Sorry, I was gone from here a few days. Hope you see this:
A table of IQ by field.
Also, GRE Score Concentrations in 28 Fields of PhD Study.
Of course Physics and Math are 1 and 2 and the smartest people are in those fields. This is not a big revelation. Though people in other fields would just as soon not think they are dumber than the physicists and mathematicians.
Fishbone,
Yes, physicists can prove a lot more than economists can. Economists can't run parallel universes to test trade theories. They can't do experiments on sufficient scale to prove many of their theories.
Economics reminds me of epidemiology. Tons of uncontrollable variables. All sorts of conclusions that seem like good ideas to the brightest in the field. But the epidemiologists seem more aware of their limitations.
The "common sense" view of hard sciences as having a more solid foundation is correct.