A Sponge for Contraception Discussions
Oh man, some foolish reporter decided to cross swords with Steve Landsburg, not realizing that this is the email equivalent of invading Stalingrad. In light of my recent post, and the comments in Steve’s latest, let me clarify my own “contribution” to this saga:
(1) Originally, I thought Steve’s post was hilarious. Rush Limbaugh had said some clearly inflammatory things and was causing a firestorm, and Steve chimed in on the issue by lamenting that he (Steve) hadn’t come up with perhaps the most controversial of Rush’s sentences (namely that if others are forced to subsidize Fluke’s birth control, then she should have to post video online). When I say I thought it was hilarious, I just mean, “Oh man Steve, you’re something else.” After noting that bit of funny, I then went on to quibble with Steve’s economic analysis. At that point, I thought we were all done with the issue.
(2) My point in this hasn’t been to wag my finger at Steve (or Rush Limbaugh). I have nothing to add in this category. They were both trying to be entertaining in their critique of Fluke’s testimony. You can say it wasn’t funny, it was insensitive, or that it was awesome. I have nothing to add on that decision.
(3) The reason I decided to jump in again, is that once the president of the University of Rochester publicly chastised Steve, a bunch of Steve’s fans went ballistic and acted as if Steve were being persecuted merely for his failure to properly express his own disapproval of what Rush Limbaugh said. So THAT I thought was completely bogus.
(4) In the comments of Steve’s latest post, I would like to think I’ve come up with the clearest illustration yet of why Steve’s strongest defenders have no leg to stand on. (To repeat: If you want to say, “Lighten up everybody, Rush and Steve were just making a joke, chill out,” OK that’s coherent. But you can’t say, “Steve was as appalled by Rush’s misogynist comments as the University president. Steve decided to focus on the economics though, and for that he is being vilified.”) So here’s my comment [with typos fixed]:
Just when I thought I was out, Neil at 12:48am dragged me back in with:
There is an iron law in political debate. If your opponents can misinterpret your words to their political advantage, they will maliciously do so (with glee). And this is a bipartisan law.
That is what we are seeing being done to Landsburg. Anyone who thinks that they can win this argument with logic, forget it. When Steve made the mistake of coupling his logical argument with a correction of Limbaugh’s use of the English language (a prostitute, not a slut, is the correct word for someone who engages in sex for money), rather than condemning it, he gave the jackals all the ammunition they needed.
OK Neil I told Steve Landsburg in person once that his Armchair Economist was one of the biggest influences on me as an economist and writer (in this vein). All right, so I’m not a “jackal” out to get Steve. Please take a minute to consider what I am saying here, because if I’m right then you will be relieved to learn that the world isn’t as awful as you currently think.
Rush Limbaugh *on the air and in real-time* corrected his use of the term “slut.” (Or maybe Bo Snerdley, his off-air producer, did; I don’t remember.) Rush realized Fluke’s position didn’t make her a slut, so he updated it to “prostitute.”
Now suppose that Rush had had just one more eureka moment. Suppose he added the following sentences to the progression: “What’s that, Snerdly? You say this Fluke gal probably would have sex either way, since she goes to Georgetown after all and probably spends $10 a day on lattes at Starbucks? You’re right, Snerdly. She’s not a prostitute. She’s an…extortionist, I guess. I know! She’s a contraceptive sponge! Ha ha, brilliant, thanks HR.”
So Neil, Ken B., et al., do you want to tell me if Rush had added the above commentary, then there would have been no furor?
Of course there would have been furor; the “contraceptive sponge” would have made things worse, not better, for Rush.
One last thing: There seems to be outrage among Landsburg’s partisans on the issue of using the term in a derogatory fashion, versus choosing correct terminology tailored to Fluke’s testimony. But that is exactly what Limbaugh was doing. Limbaugh wasn’t calling Fluke that word as a generic insult, the way Dan Akroyd in that famous sketch said, “Jane you ignorant slut.” No, Rush was saying that the logic of Fluke’s position implied that she was a slut. Then, Rush corrected himself and realized the term didn’t fit, and switched it to prostitute.
Again–Rush did exactly what Landsburg said was the appropriate thing to do. The only “mistake” Rush made was in settling on “prostitute” as the right way to label Fluke, given her testimony and the worldview it implied, rather than amending it once again to “contraceptive sponge.”
Leon Panetta Cues the Empire Theme Music
Just watch the first 80 seconds, that’s all you need… And Panetta is right: This is a bipartisan affair.
Update on Scott Sumner Showdown
Sorry for not mentioning this sooner, but here’s an update: At my request, Scott and I have postponed our debate that was originally scheduled (I think) for January. The reason is simple: I got bogged down with “day job” stuff and couldn’t prepare. I think for sure if I had debated Scott in January, it would have been at best a draw and he might have beaten me.
Before you go judging the true strengths of our positions or who is the good guy vs. villain, just remember this.
More Blogging Is Safer Blogging
Steven Landsburg is drawing heat from the president of the University of Rochester over Steve’s posts on the Limbaugh/Fluke fiasco. (If anyone is concerned, I checked with Steve to see if we should all just let this issue die away, and he basically told me, “Bring it on” [not in so many words].)
First, to avoid the same trap that ensnared Steve, let me be clear: I don’t think the UofR president should have said anything about it, and of course he is doing so because “politically correct” people are complaining. Also, I have been reading Steve’s stuff for years and I didn’t think anything he wrote was outrageous.
Having said that, many of Steve’s loyal fans are being quite obtuse in their over-the-top defenses of him. I can totally understand why some of his more recent readers–or people who never heard of him but were pointed to his Fluke comments by outraged people–were shocked at his initial post.
I’m bringing this point up because this type of thing happens a lot when there is a public controversy. People quickly rush to their preferred outposts, and then heap massive sarcasm and exaggeration on their opponents. This is bad for both sides, because (a) it’s unfair to the opponents and (b) actually makes it harder for the reasonable people on one’s own team reach out to the reasonable people on the other side.
So let me get specific. In the comments of Steve’s post about the president’s statement, I said:
Well, I think your longtime readers know “what you meant” Steve, but jeez when RL calls a law student a “slut” and a “prostitute,” you probably should be a little clearer when rushing to his defense. (Again, you didn’t defend *those words*, but my sentence is perfectly accurate as to what happened.)
Probably (though not necessarily) responding to me, a subsequent commenter said:
KenB, I think you nailed it. We all know that ignoring 95% of a news story to focus on the economics and logic is part of Landsburg’s shtick. But to some people, any discussion of Limbaugh’s statements that doesn’t include a denouncement of his degrading tirade against Fluke is tantamount to being completely on his side.
Now THIS is what I’m claiming, is complete BS. This guy is making it sound like Landsburg meekly said, “Well you know, in this whole Rush Limbaugh thing, what’s important to focus on is the equivalence of insurer mandates and wealth redistribution. So let’s talk about when it makes sense to make others bear some of the cost of…”
Except no, that’s not what Steve did. If he had done that, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Instead, what happened is that Steve posted a blog with the title “Rush to Judgment.” OK? Steve didn’t call it, “When is it proper to make others share costs?” No, when Steve is trying to summarize what his post is about, he decided to characterize it as his defense of Limbaugh from the criticism of others. With that title, here is how Steve then proceeded (my bold):
Rush Limbaugh is under fire for responding in trademark fashion to the congressional testimony of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who wants you to pay for her contraception. If the rest of us are to share in the costs of Ms. Fluke’s sex life, says Rush, we should also share in the benefits, via the magic of online video. For this, Rush is accused of denying Ms. Fluke her due respect.
But while Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they don’t want to pay for it.
To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy: If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone else’s sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesn’t actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself.
Some could be forgiven for construing the above as Steve’s basic endorsement of what Rush said, not merely absence of evidence that Steve was shaken deeply to his core by the obvious mistreatment of a woman.
Oh wait, I spoke too soon. Steve then did go on to criticize Rush for calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Phew! Some of us were worried. I guess the UofR president didn’t read this part of Steve’s post:
There’s one place where I part company with Rush, though: He wants to brand Ms. Fluke a “slut” because, he says, she’s demanding to be paid for sex. There are two things wrong here. First, the word “slut” connotes (to me at least) precisely the sort of joyous enthusiasm that would render payment superfluous. A far better word might have been “prostitute” (or a five-letter synonym therefor), but that’s still wrong because Ms. Fluke is not in fact demanding to be paid for sex. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) She will, as I understand it, be having sex whether she gets paid or not. Her demand is to be paid. The right word for that is something much closer to “extortionist”. Or better yet, “extortionist with an overweening sense of entitlement”. Is there a single word for that?
And then, just to make sure Steve lets us know what the real issue is here, he concludes the post like this:
But whether or not he chose the right word, what I just don’t get is why the pro-respect crowd is aiming all its fire at Rush. Which is more disrespectful — his harsh language or Sandra Fluke’s attempt to pick your pocket? That seems like a pretty clear call to me.
Love him or hate him, it’s your call. But don’t tell me we are supposed to think Steve was on-board with everybody who thought Rush was totally out of line for using those terms, and that Steve simply failed to mention the obvious.
I also note that my above commentary is also applicable to the half a dozen people at Landsburg’s blog who said, “The president obviously didn’t read your posts Steve!” No guys, the president obviously did read Steve’s posts; he had to know how bad the damage control was going to be, for one thing. And after reading the above commentary, the president would quite understandably say, “Holy cr*p Landsburg, you wrote that?? Do you know how many phone calls I’m going to get now?!”
And now since I’m complaining, how about this blogger’s attempt to spin things around and make Landsburg’s critics into anti-feminists?
[UofR prez:] “We are here to educate, to nurture, to inspire, not to engage in character assassination.” [Blogger defending Landsburg:] Where’s the character assassination? Landsburg disagreed with the policy Sandra Fluke promoted. In Congress. Professors have the obligation to “nurture” and “inspire” her from afar by refraining from taking on her ideas? Is that some special kid-gloves treatment for women? Ironically, that would be sexist. Should we be patting the female political activist on the head and murmuring good for you for speaking up? That is dismissive. It’s better feminism to react to what a woman in politics says and to respond to her with full force the way you would to a man. And that’s what Landsburg did…
Again, no, that’s not at all what happened here. Limbaugh attacked a person he disagreed with in a way quite specific to her sex. I don’t recall Limbaugh calling any of the guys who support the coverage “gigolos.” So no, Limbaugh didn’t respond the way he would have to a man. Limbaugh wouldn’t have asked for a man to post videos of him having sex (even though, unless the guy were gay, that would still involve the same type of show). But in that case, it wouldn’t have been as funny/entertaining, and that’s why Limbaugh wouldn’t have said it. The joke only worked because it was a young woman saying those things. If it had been a 50-year-old woman, Rush might have made a different joke about “who the heck would want to sleep with her?” or something like that, but it wouldn’t have been the same joke.
And, in regards to Limbaugh saying she should post video online, Steve was upset that he hadn’t thought of that argument himself.
Last thing: Rush Limbaugh has said way more controversial stuff in the past. I actually don’t understand why this particular thing ignited such a firestorm.
Near-Miss On Stossel
Well here was the guy (David Barker) I was talking to in the green room at my taping with John Stossel. So far as I can tell, my clip is not available. It’s the man keeping me down!
Anyway as this guy and I talked, we slowly realized that we were each as crazy as the other. By the end of the conversation we were talking about Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Tannehills, and I promised to send him the link to Chaos Theory. Here is his book on an anarchist US, coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
I Might Apply for the New York Times
I came across this stuff on Facebook. The guy in the Cato/Koch stuff who thought highly of President G.W. Bush responded to Krugman’s recent criticism, and pointed to this very interesting Luskin post from early 2005:
It’s a catfight on West 43rd Street! Former New York Times “public editor” Daniel Okrent is clawing out the eyes of America’s most dangerous liberal pundit, Paul Krugman. The fur is flying as Okrent cites case after case of Krugman’s inaccuracy and partisan bias in all manner of economic statistics. Check it out on the New York Times website, unless you have a particular aversion to cruelty to animals.
In this fight, you, dear reader, can be the winner — by participating in the Krugman Truth Squad’s first-ever Jayson Awards — named after Jayson Blair, the Times reporter who admitted to a pattern of fraudulent and plagiarized stories — established to recognize Paul Krugman’s most outrageous statements in six categories. More on that in a moment. But first, about that catfight . . .
It all started ten days ago. As I reported Tuesday, Okrent wrote in his farewell column that “Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers.” Next, in a lecture in Princeton last Friday, Krugman called Okrent’s comment a “peculiar blast,” saying he had caved to “constant pressure” from conservatives that had “built up a list of grievances in his mind.” Then on Sunday, the Times published a letter from Krugman lashing Okrent for not citing specific examples and proclaiming, “I played entirely fair with my readers, using the standard data in the standard way.”
Now, in postings Tuesday to the Times’ web-log for new “public editor” Barney Calame, Okrent unloaded on Krugman with both barrels. Krugman wanted examples? Okrent has examples. Lots of examples. Employment statistics. Social Security benefits. Federal deficits. Taxes. To readers of the Krugman Truth Squad column, none of Okrent’s examples of Krugman’s sleaze economics will be new. They aren’t even close to the most damning ones he could have used, and Okrent’s a little over his head on some of the technical details. But trust me, you’ll still take delight in the fact that Okrent is up off his knees at last — finally acting like a real “public editor,” and very aggressively calling Krugman’s spade a spade.
And you’ll also take delight in watching Krugman squirm to defend himself. Okrent charges that Krugman misused employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to make the economy under George W. Bush look worse, ignoring BLS research cautioning about difficulties in comparing those figures across time. Apparently this Princeton economics professor can’t be bothered to know the things that an expert like him is supposed to know. He lamely harumphed,
I don’t go hunting for research papers suggesting possible problems with the numbers unless the BLS says there’s reason to be concerned otherwise, it would be impossible to get any work done.
I took particular delight in Okrent’s candid portrayal of how difficult it has been to get Krugman to ever admit error. After 18 months and 40,000 words of e-mail correspondence with Okrent, in which I pointed out dozens upon dozens of substantive factual errors and distortions, only one published correction resulted — and that one wasn’t even labeled a correction (Krugman now claims, “I forgot”). Here’s Okrent:
I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed ‘reluctantly’ to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word ‘reluctantly’; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism.
That last part made me chuckle, because I’ve been waiting to get the time to mention a perfect (and very recent) example of this. On Feb. 28 Krugman had a post entitled, “Four Fiscal Phonies” where he wrote posted a chart showing that Obama’s policies would yield about a 76% debt-to-GDP ratio by 2021, while Ron Paul’s would be about 85%, and the other Republicans would be even worse. Krugman then commented:
Yep: as Republicans yell about Obama’s deficits and cry that we’re turning into Greece, Greece I tell you, all of them, all of them, propose making the deficit bigger.
And for what? For reverse Robin-Hoodism, taking from the poor and the middle class to lavish huge tax cuts on the rich.
And I believe that all of them know this, too. It’s pure hypocrisy – and it’s all in the service of class warfare waged on behalf of the top 0.1 or 0.01 percent of the income distribution.
So those are pretty strong words, eh? Then, the next day (and a mere three posts later), Krugman had a new post entitled, “Four Phonies Update” where he wrote:
There were some technical problems with my earlier post on GOP deficit phoniness, although not in any way that changes the message. So, here’s an update. I use the intermediate-cost estimate from CRFB (pdf) for the four Republican plans, and for consistency, I use CRFB’s own estimate (pdf) for Obama. And here’s what we get:
The new chart shows Obama still with about a 76% ratio, but now Ron Paul has dropped to about 74% or 75%. (I’m just eyeballing the chart.) Krugman then comments:
So it remains true that all of the proposals, except maybe Ron Paul’s (which contains huge and probably impossible spending cuts) would lead to higher deficits than Obama, based on a common assessment.
After that, Krugman goes on to mock supply-side economics.
No explanation of what the “technical problems” were; we get the idea that an intern faxed him the numbers and he misread Ron Paul’s percentage. No update to a “Three Phonies” charge; no retraction of accusing Ron Paul of hypocrisy. In fact, now that the numbers go (slightly) against Krugman’s whole point, he pivots and says “maybe” the numbers mean what they say, and then starts quibbling about the plausibility of the policies. (Since Krugman himself has often referred to President Palin’s administration, I guess he will agree that Obama’s tax hikes on the rich won’t last, and hence the deficit projections are also phony? Nah, of course not.)
Anyway, that’s what a Krugman apology looks like, soak it up while you can.
Landsburg Has Another Talk With Us About Sex
I have long maintained that Steve Landsburg is a modern-day Swift, whose essay “More Sex is Safer Sex” is the best critique of mainstream externality arguments ever penned. The only problem is, Landsburg was serious.
Landsburg displays similar skills with the ladies in his recent posts on the Fluke fiasco. Initially, Steve expressed disappointment with Rush Limbaugh’s comments–Steve was disappointed he didn’t come up with the camera idea himself.
Then in a follow-up post, Steve tackles some of the pro-contraception-coverage arguments. Steve’s dismissal of the first one, as not even worthy of serious rebuttal, seemed too hasty to me. So here is Steve:
The worst imaginable argument [for subsidizing contraception]— the one I have difficulty believing was ever intended seriously — is this:
It is cheaper to foot the bill for contraception than to to foot the bill for childbirth.
This is probably true (though I haven’t seen any actual estimates of the number of childbirths prevented per dollar spent on contraceptive subsidies) but (and I am embarrassed to even have to point this out), so what? If we’re going to start making choices strictly on the basis of what’s cheapest, we should all stop eating.
I don’t think this is as dumb as Steve is suggesting. At least, I hope it’s not, since I conceded that it might be a plausible argument when arguing with Daniel Kuehn on this matter.
So here’s the analogy: Many libertarian-types love to talk about the beneficial role of insurance companies in making us live safer lives. For example, an insurer might give you a break on your premiums for your homeowner policy if you install deadbolts, put in a sophisticated sprinkler system, get extra fire extinguishers, etc. Given that you are signing a contract with the insurer, in which they are on the hook if your house is broken into, or burns down, it might make sense for them to encourage you to take those activities. Rather than giving you a break on the premium, it’s conceivable they could encourage you by letting you send in the receipts from buying the sprinkler system (or whatever), and then refunding some of the price.
So by the same token, given that you have a health insurance plan that provides coverage in case of childbirth, why is it impossible that the insurer would want to encourage you to avoid unwanted pregnancies? Say, by covering the expense of contraception?
Note, in practice this apparently doesn’t make sense; that’s why people are complaining to Congress. So I’m not arguing that it’s efficient for this outcome to occur. Rather, I’m making the modest proposal that Steve has been way too flippant in his dismissal of the argument.
P.S. Here’s a thought: Let’s try to have the maturity level of at least 9th graders in the comments.
Krugman Admits He Doesn’t Understand Econ 101 201
I know this is a standard ploy–to decry your opponent not understanding undergrad economics–but how else can we interpret this recent statement from Krugman?
1. Even in microeconomics, we don’t insist on using models built up from maximizing behavior all the time. Exhibit A: supply and demand! I mean, we kind of know how something like the supply and demand curves can be derived from maximizing behavior, but it’s not all that easy, and nobody, nobody, insists that you do this derivation every time.
What in the world is he talking about, in the part I put in bold? I’m being dead serious; I have no idea what he can possibly mean. We literally derived supply and demand curves from maximizing consumer and producer behavior in my principles course. (It wasn’t actually 101, which is why I made the “mistake” in my post title.)
In case you think I’m taking an unfair shot at Krugman, let us not forget that a few months ago, he admitted that when he was writing up his textbook, he looked for a good example of supply curves that sloped upward in the real world, and he said he couldn’t find any. (!)
Hence I think it is literally an open question whether Paul Krugman understand Econ 201.
P.S. If anybody is a newcomer, here because you heard Tom Woods interview me on Peter Schiff’s show, here is the link to the Krugman Debate challenge.
Recent Comments