Paul Krugman is an economist who is despised by those who are invested in faith based economics. He uses data to support his conclusions. David Brooks is a faith based economist who has not studied economics because data is only relevant if it supports his conclusions. They are both given a platform by the NYT to write opinion articles about political economy. They have a disagreement about whether the economic problems in Europe are the result of government social welfare programs.
Krugman provides a graph in his op-ed that shows that European governments that spend the most on government welfare programs are performing better than governments that spend less on social welfare. He concludes that the economic problems in Europe cannot easily be explained by excessive spending on social welfare.
David Brooks belongs to a political party which believes that government spending on social welfare programs (but not on defense) is harmful to the economy. His party has also argued for years that government spending on social welfare programs in Europe is destroying their economies. Therefore, David Brooks wrote an op-ed which argues that the problems in Europe proves that the US should cut investments in social welfare programs. That is how faith based economics works.
The war of ideas between Krugman and Brooks does not distinguish between data driven conclusions and faith based conclusions. News reporters are required to back up conclusions, if they choose to reach conclusions, with evidence to support them. This is not required on the opinion pages. The NYT gives equal weight to Krugman and to Brooks. Their war of ideas is good for circulation and it shows that the NYT does not have a liberal bias. Data based economics and faith based economics receive equal treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment