dueling economists

[topaz]

Yesterday's On Point addressed the competing economic plans of John McCain and Barack Obama, with Larry Summers arguing for Obama's plan and John Taylor arguing for McCain.  (Summers and Taylor have apparently been serving as economic advisers to the Obama and McCain campaigns, respectively.)

There's audio for this interview here: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/09/the-financial-crisis/

The debate turned into a shouting match pretty quickly.  Lots of fireworks between from about 16:00 to 24:00.  This was one of the highlights for me (starting about 19:27):

Summers: "John, are you prepared to make available a detailed budget, documenting your claim that Senator McCain will balance the budget by 2013, for external scrutiny, and to show where the cuts are from? You've made that claim in a very strong and direct way.  Is that something you're prepared to make available for external scrutiny?"

Taylor: "Well, the information has already been made available to the Tax Policy Center---"

Summers: "And what was the Tax Policy Center's conclusion, John?  Its conclusion was that there will be trillions of dollars of extra deficits in Senator McCain's plan, relative to Senator Obama's plan, was the conclusion of the Tax Policy Center -- trillions of dollars of debt that would --"

Taylor: "I don't think they included anything on spending, they included nothing on spending on this, and so I'd say the information is there, you're welcome to go look at it, but their interpretation, where you just don't include any spending control, is completely--"

Summers: "John, I am -- I'm sorry -- I am sorry that you are speaking in this way."

You can hear him biting his tongue, trying not to call Taylor a liar on the air in as many words.  Marvelous theater.

Andrew Sullivan has been writing on what he calls the "odd lies" of Sarah Palin.  What makes these lies odd is that they are so naked -- so easily disproven.  It makes you wonder why they would even try to lie about such things.  Taylor seems to be doing the same thing here.  What does he think he can get away with?  It makes no sense.

Comments

[wotw]

Taylor absolutely should be ashamed of himself. If we
let people get away with this kind of naked lying (and
I absolutely agree, he was flat out lying), the next
thing you know we'll have people going to Ohio and
claiming that midwesterners are suffering because of
NAFTA.

[kcatalyst.livejournal.com]

I'm curious, this is the only issue I see you talking about relative to the election (not that we talk that often these days!). Are you really a single-issue voter on it?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Andrew Sullivan has been writing on what he calls the "odd lies" of Sarah Palin. What makes these lies odd is that they are so naked -- so easily disproven.

On the linked page, Sullivan himself seems to see the stories he's talking about as reconcilable. Even leaving aside the question of why one would assume that a campaign publicity puff piece would be more reliable than Palin on the timeline of what she told the girls when.

Granted, then the campaign PR would be engaging in a blatant lie! Or at least unforgivably and scurrilously reporting an earlier or garbled version of Palin's plans wrt informing her children about her vice-presidential run. (It's well that the Democrats don't have a VP candidate who would mislead the electorate about anything to do with his family. Or at least Neil Kinnock's family. ;-) )

Criticizing the candidates' economic plans is germane. (Though is there any doubt that whomever's elected, he's going to say, "Gosh, I had no idea it was that bad! Thanks to the Bush administration's/Congress's/those darn speculators' misdeeds, I can't do half of what I was talking about just yet"? Cf. Bill Clinton in 1993. Figuring out either candidate's actual first-year economic policies pretty much demands a Ouija board; all you can do is vote based on general preferred direction and expectations.) But either way, going over the standard-issue "my family is, of course, 100% behind my candidacy, [insert optional heartwarming anecdote here]" stories looking for inconsistencies? What next, a comparison on policies of when they let the kids in on the secret behind Santa Claus?

[sandhawke.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not really clear to me if this spin (misleading) or outright lying. Outright lying is when there is no interpretation of the words which is not contradicted by the truth.

There is something brave and strong about outright lying (and attractive, in a primate bad-boy sense), and I think the republican strategy is one of emotional domination and intimidation not reasoning. Pulling off a bold lie might win more votes than (weakly) correcting ones self or admitting an unwanted truth.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

On the linked page, Sullivan himself seems to see the stories he's talking about as reconcilable.

d'oh! You're right. I linked to the wrong page there. This (http://friendfeed.com/e/449c59ee-aa87-429e-ae4c-838ee4e59bae) list links to all of the "odd lies" Sullivan has compiled so far, most of which are frankly more interesting than that one. I'll fix the post.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

What does he think he can get away with? It makes no sense.

Except if you think you can lie and be caught and still have it be a net positive for whatever it is you're for. Which is the case now, for certain values of "whatever it is you're for."

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Just clicking randomly at a few of them, it's not clear that they're even mostly lies. How is "I'm not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic" inconsistent with either belonging to a church that teaches that homosexuality is wrong, or letting the electorate decide whether or not to extend benefits to gay couples? The bit on her pay cut as mayor seems consistent with her getting it cut in her first year and having it raised back by the Council in the third (something no one seems to be saying she even lobbied for). Her statements on climate change are equivocal but not inconsistent (since in neither case is she saying much of anything so much as denying having taken one or another strong position). Other "lies" seem to be construing hyperbole literally ("[Obama is] worried that someone won't read them their rights."), or flying off the handle at her being a bit out of date ("her absurd claim that Alaska produces ["nearly 20 percent"] of US energy" juxtaposed with "[t]he state's share of total U.S. oil production fell from 18 percent in 2005..." Maybe my standard for absurdity needs to be recalibrated, but...)

Some of them probably are, what with her being a politician and all. But this list doesn't exactly lend itself to a narrative of Palin as unusually mendacious or corrupt.