Who Won the Debate: Paul Krugman or Bill O'Reilly?

[kcballer21]

I'm sure most people have already heard about this debate on the Tim Russert show, but I was wondering what everybody thought? Personally, I think that Krugman came out as more convincing, but maybe I'm biased. All in all it is an entertaining debate.

http://pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert080704.html

 

[loseyourname]

Why do you think Krugman came out on top? You don't think O'Reilly is correct to say that Clinton's superior job-creation record compared to Bush had more to do with the fact that Clinton presided during a tech boom, whereas Bush presided during the largest attack ever carried out on US soil, that just happened to occur in the heart of the nation's financial capital, than it did with either man's economic policy? Krugman was right to say that Bush's forecasts were inaccurate, but what does that have to do with O'Reilly? O'Reilly never claims otherwise nor did he have anything to do with making those forecasts. Furthermore, Krugman's own forecasts were just as far off, and he even admits as much.

 

[kcballer21]

Why do you think Krugman came out on top? You don't think O'Reilly is correct to say that Clinton's superior job-creation record compared to Bush had more to do with the fact that Clinton presided during a tech boom, whereas Bush presided during the largest attack ever carried out on US soil, that just happened to occur in the heart of the nation's financial capital, than it did with either man's economic policy?

Krugman says that he predicted the tax cuts would "lead to a lousy job creation." So yes Bush had a much tougher situation than Clinton as far as creating jobs, but his tax cuts only made it worse, as Krugman predicted it would. O'Reilly then proceeds to tell Krugman the economist (PhD from MIT, taught at Yale, Stanford, and now Princeton) what it means to be in a recession.

Krugman was right to say that Bush's forecasts were inaccurate, but what does that have to do with O'Reilly?

It has nothing to do with O'Reilly, did I say it did? Krugman was stating that for Bush to enjoy some success job creation would had to have been at least what the administration predicted. "What we have--look, these days Bush is out on the road boasting of 1.5 million jobs over the last 10 months; that's 150,000 jobs a month. The US economy needs 140,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So that's just barely gaining ground"(Krugman)

Furthermore, Krugman's own forecasts were just as far off, and he even admits as much.

Can you support that? I believe he says economists are not 100%, he also mentions that his position was that tax cuts (during wartime) would be bad for job creation.

 

[loseyourname]

Krugman says that he predicted the tax cuts would "lead to a lousy job creation." So yes Bush had a much tougher situation than Clinton as far as creating jobs, but his tax cuts only made it worse, as Krugman predicted it would. O'Reilly then proceeds to tell Krugman the economist (PhD from MIT, taught at Yale, Stanford, and now Princeton) what it means to be in a recession.

How do you know that Bush's tax cuts led to less job creation than we would have had without tax cuts? You must realize that lowering taxes is a method by which the economy is meant to be strengthened over a large period of time, and also to be kept strong for a long time. It is easy to create jobs by raising taxes - Roosevelt created millions of jobs, none of which brought the US out of the depression. It is much more difficult to build an economy poised for lasting strength. It takes time.

It has nothing to do with O'Reilly, did I say it did? Krugman was stating that for Bush to enjoy some success job creation would had to have been at least what the administration predicted. "What we have--look, these days Bush is out on the road boasting of 1.5 million jobs over the last 10 months; that's 150,000 jobs a month. The US economy needs 140,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So that's just barely gaining ground"(Krugman)

But it is gaining ground, whereas the impression I got was that Krugman predicted we would lose ground. Then again, I haven't read his book.

Can you support that? I believe he says economists are not 100%, he also mentions that his position was that tax cuts (during wartime) would be bad for job creation.

Mr. O'REILLY: Did you predict that year?

Prof. KRUGMAN: After a couple of--no.

Mr. O'REILLY: Did you predict it?

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK, fine. There we go.

Prof. KRUGMAN: But compare me with anyone else, and I think my forecasting record is not great.

 

[kcballer21]

How do you know that Bush's tax cuts led to less job creation than we would have had without tax cuts?

I don't know that, but that is not the point. It is not good economic policy to make huge permanent tax cuts during a time when spending is going to be high as well. The key word there is 'permanent'. What Bush did was not the only option, there is the option to cut taxes, let the economy heal, and roll them back. Bush does the opposite of this, by proposing more tax cuts. Krugman suggests rolling back the tax cuts for the top .13% (more than a million a year).

I think Krugman suspects something because his (and others) analysis of the tax cuts showed poor job creation while the more affluent were the prime beneficiaries. As usual, the issue is that Bush seems to hear what he wants to hear.

But it is gaining ground, whereas the impression I got was that Krugman predicted we would lose ground. Then again, I haven't read his book.

I haven't either. I don't know if Krugman predicted that we would lose ground as far as jobs, but look at the deficit. According to Krugman the deficit will be around $450 billion with $270 billion of that the result of tax cuts. You thought the war was expensive. Where we lose ground is not being able to fund social programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Krugman believes those programs are important and so do I.

As far as Krugman predicting the exact numbers for job creation/loss as a result of the tax cuts, he never claimed to. He simply suggested that job creation would not be good. He was right.

 

[Dissident Dan]

O'Reilly just came off as the pompous ass he is on his own show. It wasn't even his show and he was cutting people off!

 

[Jeebus]

O'Reilly just came off as the pompous ass he is on his own show. It wasn't even his show and he was cutting people off!

I saw him talking with Moore and I always wondered how many licks of O'Reilly's ego it would take to the center. Haven't figured it out, yet.

 

[amp]

Ya know... the critiques linked to the transcript in mediamatters and the howler shows O'Rielly up as a donkeys rear.

 

[Gokul43201]

Mr. O'REILLY: "... And if you look at The New York Times op-ed on last Wednesday, you'll see George Shultz has a chart that the economy is rebounding after a tremendous blow on 9/11."

Holy Mackerel ! Did O'Reilly just use material from a NYTimes op-ed to support his argument ? Wow, that's gall !

 

[JohnDubYa]

So the main objection so far seems to be that O'Reilly is pompous.

Whatever.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Holy Mackerel ! Did O'Reilly just use material from a NYTimes op-ed to support his argument ? Wow, that's gall !

I thought that was quite clever of O'Reilly to use material from Klugman's newspaper to support his argument.

 

[kcballer21]

So the main objection so far seems to be that O'Reilly is pompous.
Whatever.

The intention of the post was to discern whose argument held up stronger against the other. I think you'll notice a trend that when O'Reilly begins to feel the pressure he becomes more and more pompous.

I thought that was quite clever of O'Reilly to use material from Klugman's newspaper to support his argument.

Not really:

Prof. KRUGMAN: George Shultz is a good economist and a partisan Republican. He's a good enough economist that he knows how to make a chart that is true but misleading. And what that chart shows you is just rates of change. Doesn't give you any sense of level. And what it's really telling you is that after three terrible years on jobs, we've had one year where the rate of change is OK. But that's like saying, 'Well, we're down 400 feet, and we've now climbed 100 feet, so we're back where we started.' And it's not true.