
Tarnished Silver - Anon84
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/tarnished-silver/
======
chimeracoder
Have we still not agreed to stop paying attention to Paul Krugman altogether?
It's been sad watching the quality of his column tumble since 2009 or so - one
column in January 2014 actually referred to Amy Adams's cleavage[0].

> But data never tell a story on their own. They need to be viewed through the
> lens of some kind of model, and it’s very important to do your best to get a
> good model. And that usually means turning to experts in whatever field
> you’re addressing.

His first two sentences are spot on - data must be matched with a story (I
might not use the word "story" here, but the general principle is right).

The amusing part though is that he assumes that Nate Silver _isn 't_ an expert
at this point. I've been following 538 since before 2008, and the quality of
analysis _from a non-statistical level_ was consistently far higher than
almost any other publication (except perhaps the Economist).

If anything the quality level once 538 signed with the Times decreased
slightly, but only because a number of the other contributors (Andrew Gelman,
etc.) stopped contributing at that time.

[0] Krugman hit an impressive low in January with this column - a rather vapid
dismissal of the Silk Road as (and I quote) "libertarian derp", devoid of any
actual analysis or supporting arguments whatsoever:
[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/derp-pirate-
robe...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/derp-pirate-roberts/)

~~~
rquantz
And yet, he's been right about the consequences of the financial crisis,
austerity, and debt hysteria where everyone else in the punditry has been
wrong. I'm sorry that he thinks Silk Road and bitcoin are stupid. I happen to
agree with him, but even if I didn't, I think with his track record you ignore
his analysis on macroeconomics at your peril.

~~~
pdonis
_he 's been right about the consequences of the financial crisis_

I'm not so sure. He did predict that quantitative easing would not cause
inflation; but the reason QE has not caused inflation is that banks are not
making loans; they are letting $2.4 trillion of QE money sit in their accounts
at the Fed instead of loaning it out.

Krugman most certainly did _not_ predict that outcome; he said QE would cause
a recovery in the loan market. It hasn't. Getting one prediction right by
accident because you got another prediction egregiously wrong doesn't make you
a good predictor.

~~~
rquantz
_he said QE would cause a recovery in the loan market._

Can you provide a citation for that claim? Because my recollection is that he
said QE would have limited effects. I can't find much supporting this memory
right now, aside from this entry about QE2[1]. He definitely supported QE, but
I don't think he ever argued it would fix everything by itself. He's
consistently argued that the Fed can't fix things by itself.

On the other hand, here's this entry where he says that, contrary to what you
suggest, the whole point of QE is to cause inflation [2].

[1] [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/how-to-think-
abo...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/how-to-think-about-
qe2-wonkish/) [2] [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/fiscal-
aspects-o...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/fiscal-aspects-of-
quantitative-easing-wonkish/)

~~~
pdonis
_my recollection is that he said QE would have limited effects_

You're correct, he did say that back in 2008. See Amezarak's post in response
to me upthread.

 _he says that, contrary to what you suggest, the whole point of QE is to
cause inflation_

I think he meant that the Fed thought it would cause inflation. But he has
said a number of times that if the economy is in a "liquidity trap", printing
more money will not cause inflation. (QE is one way of effectively printing
more money.)

------
forgottenpass
I missed whatever controversy started the current round of 538 commentary. All
I know is that they put out a statistical march madness bracket and heard
something about their global warming piece not worth the time figuring out
what the drama was about.

So I'm behind the times. Why are most of the comments on this article pulling
out all well-worn Hacker News tropes for dismissing the article and/or making
the field slippery enough that I can ignore what Krugman says?

As far as I know, Krugman and Silver are both regarded as real smart dudes in
their respective fields (both with actual political hacks ready to paint them
as hacks), and nobody is expected to bat 1.000 so this looks like a "hey kid
new to these waters, be careful there be dragons."

So is the drama over a politically sensitive topic? I'm assuming. Is the
narrative about the issue coming out of 538 more pleasing to the ears of
entrepreneurial self-styled "hackers" than the one from Krugman? I bet so! Now
that I've posted this, I'll go catch up on the drama to find out just how
wrong I am.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I don't think its that deep, most of the comments here appear not to know what
the column is about, so they're just churning out standard anti-krugman or
pro-silver cliches.

------
thesausageking
_Unfortunately, Silver seems to have taken the wrong lesson from his election-
forecasting success.... What he seems to have concluded is that there are no
experts anywhere, that a smart data analyst can and should ignore all that._

Doing your own analysis doesn't mean you believe there are no experts. It
means you believe experts are sometimes wrong and there's value in doing
original analysis from the source data.

I love that about 538. Most news sources are writing based on the same small
set of sources and quotes. Even if I don't agree with 538's analysis, it's
useful to get the perspective of a critical outsider armed with data.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Doing your own analysis doesn't mean you believe there are no experts.

Krugman isn't criticizing Silver for doing his own analysis, he's criticizing
the lack of judgement he displays is hiring Roger Pielke, Jr., -- who is
neither a neutral data scientist nor a climatologist, but a political
scientist who has long been selling a very specific position regarding climate
change -- to do his analysis for him on the issue of climate change, and then
publishing his report with the specific flaws that critics have identified in
Pielke's piece, and suggesting that the process that allowed all that to
happen was a result of Siver's disregard for expertise in the domain.

Personally I think that Krugman is attacking Silver for the wrong reason -- I
don't think that Silver's problem is a lack of respect of real expertise in
any domain (and in his own work, while he was conducted his own analysis, he
has also demonstrated respect for -- without unquestioning deference to --
domain experts), I think its more likely that if there is a problem its just a
simple failure of judgement regarding someone else's abilities and interests.

------
ycaspirant
The few articles that I've read on fivethirtyeight so far have all been of
excellent quality. While Krugman might have some ideological grievances with
this website, there are no concrete flaws that he can actually point to,
therefore his criticism remains very abstract, and for practical purposes
moot. I would take his criticism a lot more seriously if he can pick out a
handful of articles published on fivethirtyeight, and show that their
conclusions have been refuted by various expert researchers in that domain
(while saving the data).

~~~
rejuvenile
He does point to concrete flaws by linking to this article:
[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/3416369/538-clim...](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/3416369/538-climate-
article/)

He does not rehash them for brevity.

------
bluedevil2k
Ironic, and telling, that Silver presents a viewpoint against Krugman's and
backs it with data, while Krugman simply refutes his arguments by espousing on
his same opinion with no data whatsoever.

This statement from Krugman, to me, flies in the face of scientific thought -
"you should be very wary if your analysis runs counter to what a lot of
professionals say." Not at all true - the "lot of professionals" should be
wary if a scientific study runs counter to _their_ analysis.

~~~
berkay
By the professionals Krugman does not refer to political analysts/hacks that
spew opinion. He is referring to scientists. He is cautioning Nate Silver
against dismissing the work done by scientists who use scientific methods.
Nate Silver's crew ignoring scientific studies would be no different than
political analysts ignoring Nate Silver's work based on anecdotes.

~~~
craigyk
Exactly. Statistics without purpose, ie. as a fishing expedition, is
dangerous. Scientists use statistics all the time, but usually under the
guidance of hypothesis driven experiments. Krugman is merely mentioning that
if Nate Silver keeps drawing conclusions based on statistical analysis without
a deeper understanding and grounding, it is highly likely that he'll come to
some bone-headed conclusions.

The best value of statistical wizardry is when it works alongside domain
experts.

------
cowsandmilk
Ignoring the personalities for a moment, I viewed this column as pushing the
Bayesian vs. frequentist views.

Nate Silver believes you should be purely frequentist viewpoint of the data
first.

Krugman is pushing the Bayesian viewpoint. Given experts' assumptions (that
have been built up from examining lots of prior data with critical thinking),
let's examine this data.

This is a battle that is being fought on many other stages than Krugman's
blog.

~~~
pdonis
_Nate Silver believes you should be purely frequentist viewpoint of the data
first._

Does he? A recent column on 538 (not written by Silver himself, true) talked
about using Bayesian methods to help find the missing airliner:

[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-statisticians-
could-...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-statisticians-could-help-
find-flight-370/)

------
crusso
It's a feature that Silver's group is approaching data from outside of the
circles of the various fields of study.

Krugman is probably worried about what pure stats will say about the
predictions of most economists.

~~~
craigyk
Krugman frequently disparages the predictions of most economists... His own
record isn't perfect, but pretty good. IMO, he is pretty careful about not
making too many falsifiable claims. His main point over the past couple of
years has simply been that under current economic conditions money printing
won't result in inflation, and that the government should have done more to
address unemployment as the biggest problem of the financial crisis.

~~~
pdonis
_His main point over the past couple of years has simply been that under
current economic conditions money printing won 't result in inflation_

But the reason it hasn't is that banks are not making loans with the new
money; they are letting $2.4 trillion of it sit in their accounts at the Fed.
Krugman most certainly did _not_ predict that; he said QE would help restart
the loan market. So he got one prediction right only by accident, as a result
of getting another prediction egregiously wrong.

~~~
Amezarak
Krugman most certainly did predict that. In fact he repeats it constantly, and
says that monetary policy can only be effective in the current crisis by
changing expectations. Indeed, Krugman is always pointing to Japan as an
example, and the same thing happened in Japan, which Krugman explained in a
paper in 1998. Krugman's attitude seems to have mostly been "if we can't have
fiscal policy that would actually solve the problem, then I guess we'll have
to hope that QE does something but I doubt it."

Krugman, 2008: [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/the-humbling-
of-...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/the-humbling-of-the-fed-
wonkish/)

2009: [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/followup-on-
samu...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/followup-on-samuelson-
and-monetary-policy/)

2013: [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/hawks-doves-
and-...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/hawks-doves-and-
ostriches/)

I don't know what it is about Krugman, but he seems to have his views
misattributed more than any other commentator.

[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/nobody-could-
hav...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/nobody-could-have-
predicted-monetary-edition/)

~~~
pdonis
_Krugman is always pointing to Japan as an example_

You're right; I had forgotten that he pointed out that QE didn't help Japan's
loan market at all.

 _Krugman 's attitude seems to have mostly been "if we can't have fiscal
policy that would actually solve the problem, then I guess we'll have to hope
that QE does something but I doubt it."_

Yes, he often talks about "forward guidance" as his preferred method. I didn't
mean to say he was in favor of QE in preference to other methods.

Personally, I'm as skeptical of "forward guidance" as I am of QE, mainly
because the Fed has, for quite some time now, been trying to double-promise
that it won't raise interest rates for a while even if the economy starts
recovering. The problem is that nobody appears to believe them.

------
htk
I expected more from Krugman. All I saw were statements that carried no weight
and complaints about how Silver and his team, instead of asking for the
blessing of their "peers", tried to do the job by themselves.

Krugman's mentions "But data never tell a story on their own.", and does the
polar opposite, tries to tell a story with no data, and that's the wrong kind
of story for what he was aiming for.

Using Krugman's own words, his post "looks like something between a
disappointment and a disaster."

------
JamilD
Krugman seems to be attacking a straw man here. I don't think Nate Silver has
argued that data must be examined in an absolute vacuum.

However, Krugman often takes it (as in this case) to the opposite extreme –
like many economists, finding a model, then examining the data and
interpreting it to fit that model. This sort of confirmation bias and
narrative-based news is what Nate Silver is trying to oppose, not the lack of
a narrative or model whatsoever.

------
kenjackson
Even if Krugman is right he should support Silver's experiment. This is how it
should work. Krugman asserts one thing, and Silver assets another thing.
Silver creates a way to test the theories. I like it, regardless of who is
right.

------
chestnut-tree
We need more journalism that uses data to support a story. In the UK, there
are countless reports in the national press where journalists simply dress
opinion as fact or push their own beliefs often in a deliberately misleading
way. Even opinion pieces ("op-ed") state facts which may not be true but which
supports the opinion writers' point of view.

There's an interesting experiment from the UK Daily Mirror (a broadly left-
leaning tabloid newspaper) called ampp3d: a website which tries to use facts
and infographics to tell a story. The editorial tone varies quite a bit from
story to story, but tends towards the informal and light. I like aspects of
their approach and can see the potential but I actually wish they were more
rigorous in picking their sources.

Here's an example where they try and unravel claims about welfare benefits:

[http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/02/04/wed-rather-have-big-
be...](http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/02/04/wed-rather-have-big-benefits-
facts-than-a-big-benefits-row/)

------
zefhous
This sounds a lot like the attitude that Palm CEO Ed Colligan had about Apple
entering the phone market:

> We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a
> decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not
> going to just walk in.

------
cushychicken
Nick Confessore had a great tweet about journalists' resentment of Nate Silver
being rooted in the subtext of journalists knowing stats being worth more than
journalists who don't.

------
mcguire
My favorite part of the whole flapperdoodle: John Holdren's fisking of Roger
Pielke[1]. Best quote:

"Senator Sessions quoted from testimony before the environment and Public
Works Committee the previous July by Dr. Roger Pielke.... Specifically, the
Senator read the following passages from Dr. Pielke’s written testimony:

"' _It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters
associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on
climate timescales either in the United States or globally. Drought has “for
the most part, become shorter, less, frequent, and cover a smaller portion of
the U.S. over the last century”...._ '

"Footnotes in the testimony attribute the [statement] in quotation marks [...]
to the US Climate Change Science Program’s 2008 report on extremes in North
America....

"...[A]ny reference to the CCSP 2008 report in this context should include not
just the sentence highlighted in Dr. Pielke’s testimony but also the sentence
that follows immediately in the relevant passage from that document and which
relates specifically to the American West. Here are the two sentences in their
entirety
([http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap3-](http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap3-)
3/Brochure-CCSP-3-3.pdf):

"' _Similarly, long-term trends (1925-2003) of hydrologic droughts based on
model derived soil moisture and runoff show that droughts have, for the most
part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S.
over the last century (Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006). The main exception is
the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where increased
temperature has led to rising drought trends (Groisman et al., 2004; Andreadis
and Lettenmaier, 2006)._ '"

Yes, Pielke argued ¬P by carefully picking a quote immediately next to a
statement of P.

Extra credit for the mention of "Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of
Alabama", who is the smarmiest goof-ball I've ever heard present. Really, no
one is a bigger fan of contrarian scientists than I am; one of the best things
Einstein ever did was to ensure the quantum mechanicists had their shit
together. But starting off your talk by referring to everyone else in your
field as "politicians and scientists who want to be politicians" just isn't
"god does not play dice" and it sets off every kook alarm I have.

[1]
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ost...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/critique_of_pielke_jr_statements_on_drought.pdf)

~~~
sien
Pielke's response is here:

[http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/john-
holdrens-e...](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/john-holdrens-
epic-fail.html)

It was extraordinary that Holdren should write such a harsh attack on an
individual scientist, particularly when as pointed out by Pielke that his
response is entirely consistent with IPCC SREX.

Here is the most important quote in Pielke's article:

What the IPCC SREX (2012) says: “There is medium confidence that since the
1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and
longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some
regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for
example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.” For the US the
CCSP (2008)20 says: “droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less
frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”21

It appears that stating what the IPCC says is now outside the consensus
according to Holdren.

------
Aqueous
The New York Times as the jilted ex.

~~~
joelgrus
It's also the case that a lot of people at the NYT disliked him already

(see e.g. [http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/nate-
silver...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/nate-silver-went-
against-the-grain-for-some-at-the-times/) )

and now they no longer have any reason to hide it.

~~~
Aqueous
That's because Nate Silver shows that all the drama that political journalists
manufacture has next to nothing to do with what's really going on, that the
race is never quite as uncertain as they say it is, and that numbers really do
tell most of the story. In short, he makes them if not completely irrelevant,
then much less relevant than they are now. And he shows them to be deeply
mistaken at best and dishonest at worst about the reality they're covering. So
yeah I'd expect political journalists to be resentful of Nate Silver.

Perhaps they could become relevant again by analyzing the actual data as
opposed to engaging in this false personality narrative all the time, the kind
of personality narrative that elevates corrupt individuals like Chris Christie
because, well, he has a big personality. But I doubt they're going to do that.

That said, Krugman is more of a data-minded columnist, as you would expect
since he's an economist, so I find his objections to Silver's new site
surprising. I don't think Nate Silver ever said that data without
interpretation is all there is; but that data _with_ interpretation tells the
actual story, as opposed to whatever all these political journalists are doing
.

~~~
Amezarak
> That said, Krugman is more of a data-minded columnist, as you would expect
> since he's an economist, so I find his objections to Silver's new site
> surprising.

Krugman in his earlier blog posts was more specific:

"I feel bad about picking on a young staffer, but I think this piece on
corporate cash hoards — which is the site’s inaugural economic analysis — is a
good example. The post tells us that the much-cited $2 trillion corporate cash
hoard has been revised down by half a trillion dollars. That’s kind of
interesting, I guess, although it’s striking that the post offers neither a
link to the data nor a summary table of pre- and post-revision numbers; I’m
supposed to know my way around these numbers, and I can’t figure out exactly
which series they’re referring to. (Use FRED!)

More to the point, however, what does this downward revision tell us? We’re
told that the “whole narrative” is gone; which narrative? Is the notion that
profits are high, but investment remains low, no longer borne out by the data?
(I’m pretty sure it’s still true.) What is the model that has been refuted?

“Neener neener, people have been citing a number that was wrong” is just not
helpful. Tell me something meaningful! Tell me why the data matter!"

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/sergeant-friday-was-not-a-fox/

So his objections do take the form of something like you'd expect - this post
is just the latest in a series. Krugman clearly had very high hopes for the
site - this is his 3rd of 4th post about it, which makes sense given Krugman's
prior cheerleading for Silver.

