Imagine if you had to rely on Paul Krugman to filter your information…
Hey kids, pop quiz time!
(1) Using this Paul Krugman NYT column from September 24, tell us how costly the CBO says Waxman-Markey’s cap-and-trade plan will be, in the year 2050.
(2) Using this Paul Krugman blog post from September 27, tell us how costly the CBO says Waxman-Markey’s cap-and-trade plan will be, in the year 2050.
(3) Calculate the maximum discrepancy between your answers for (2) and (1), in percentage terms of the answer for (1).
(4) Using Krugman’s blog post, find the spot where Krugman explains the size of your answer for (3). (Hint: Don’t spend too much time looking.)
(5) Relying on both Krugman’s blog post and his NYT column, which side of the climate debate does Krugman think is full of ideologues playing fast and loose with statistics to bamboozle a gullible public?
UPDATE: Some readers point out in the comments that the same CBO report (pdf, pages 2-3) contains both the “1.2 percent of income” and “1.1% – 3.4% of GDP” estimates for the cost of Waxman-Markey in 2050. So that means we can’t get too upset at Krugman for switching between these two stats from one article to another. However, my beef is now with the CBO: I think they must be doing things like saying, “The efficiency mandates will mean people will have to spend less on heating their homes etc.,” but still, there should be an idiot check. How can it be that Waxman-Markey will reduce GDP by 1.1% – 3.4% by 2050, yet at the same time will only reduce household income by 1.2%? That just doesn’t make sense.
