October 18, 2003

Krugmanism and the Grand Strategy of the United States

Back when Daniel Drezner was criticizing Paul Krugman:

Daniel W. Drezner: On politics, [Krugman's] not moving down the learning curve. Krugman, along with many economists, has some serious blind spots in his political analyses. He's consistently shocked when politicians engage in strategic or opportunistic behavior. He's always stunned when leaders take actions that maximize their own power rather than benefiting the greater good. He's flummoxed by the idea that nation-states might care about their relative economic power. These are all rational motivations -- they're just not ones that economists really consider when they do their own work. [Isn't this a really cynical view of the world?--ed.] Not necessarily. Politicians can desire power in the short run so as to pursue their desired ends in the long run. The logic of Bush's National Security Strategy is to prevent other great powers from rising in order to ensure the long-term growth of freedom, democracy and prosperity...

I had a bunch of thoughts that I could not put into any coherent form. Now I think I can. I have four thoughts

First, it is simply off-track to criticize Paul Krugman for holding politicians to high standards. That's one of the functions of the public intellectual: to demand that the politicians we elect do the job we elected them for: "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." That politicians often turn aside from promoting the public good is a flaw in our system, not something to be excused. Political scientists build models of politicians who have forgotten to act according to their oaths of office, but that doesn't mean that economists--or any patriot--should not be upset when they do so.

Second, consider Drezner's claim that the Bush administration's "National Security Strategy is to prevent other great powers from rising in order to ensure the long-term growth of freedom, democracy and prosperity." "Prevent other great powers from rising" translates into "keep China, India, Brazil, and Russia poor"--that's the only way to keep them from becoming great powers. This seems to me appallingly stupid and shortsighted: it directly retards their (and our) prosperity; it imperils world peace because there seems to be something about being trapped halfway to industrialization that promotes "hard," authoritarian, expansionist, tyrannical, and totalitarian regimes, and we really don't want to live any longer than we half to with half-industrialized Wilhelmine China, National Hinduist India, or Weimar Russia; and it is not in the long-run national interest of the United States or the world for school children in India, China, Russia, and Brazil to be taught in 2070 that the United States tried hard to keep their countries as poor as possible as long as possible. This "National Security Strategy of the United States" seems to me to be a total botch.

Third, I agree (and still agree) with Dan that Paul would be better-placed at the Washington Post than at the New York Times, writing 2,500 words twice a month rather than 700 words twice a week. Paul is a master at the 2,500 word length, while 700 is much too short to say much of anything.

Fourth, the main criticism that Daniel Drezner has of Paul Krugman is that Paul Krugman has a very low opinion of the ethics, the intelligence, the competence, and the goodwill of the Bush administration. Here time has answered Dan. It has been Dan, not Paul, who has been moving up the learning curve.

The view that Paul Krugman (and many other economists) had of the Bush administration's ethics, intelligence, competence, and goodwill after watching the economic policy circus of 2001 and early 2002--which is also the view that sociologists and other specialists in domestic policy like John DiIulio have long held as well--that view is now Dan's view.

For example, Dan writes:

"These paragraphs, on the other hand, should prompt more concern: '...infighting, backstabbing and maneuvering on... North Korea, Syria, Iran and postwar Iraq... escalated... Bush himself asked... "This isn't as bad as [George] Shultz vs. [Caspar] Weinberger, is it?"... One top official reportedly nodded and said it was "way worse."'"

"The problem isn't with the management style -- it's with the President and the foreign policy principals that have been selected."

"The second part of this story sends a shiver down my spine: '... the administration's policy toward the three countries identified by Bush as the "axis of evil": Iraq, Iran and North Korea. In each case, officials said, the NSC has been unable to bridge gaps in ideology and establish a clear and consistent policy.... The two factions, convinced they had the backing of the president, have pursued contradictory policies, often scheming to undermine each other. Insiders said that Rice rarely kept on top of the intramural bickering...'"

"Leaving questions of right and wrong aside for the moment, this whole affair is stupid on many levels.... The "nepotism" charge would carry weight if Wilson owed a job or perk to Plame, but even the mystery men in the administration only claimed she suggested Wilson go to Niger (the CIA denied this), a trip for which he did not get paid to a place not high on anyone's list of fun destinations. What was the point of trying to alert the press to his connection to Plame and to Plame's role at the CIA? To intimidate and generally to be bad, sure. But to what end?"

"The most generous thing I can say about [Bush's] statement is that it's factually correct.... Note that this does not excuse Bush's statements from yesterday, however. The leaker's incentive structure doesn't matter -- Bush should be making clear what his preferences are on this issue. And yesterday's statement indicates that he's not all that worked up about it. Shame on him."

"Many on the liberal side of the spectrum believe there was an eleven week pattern of malevolence that only became public in late September. They could be proven correct, but at this point I don't see any facts to support this assertion.... UPDATE:... Mark Kleiman has a post today that does an excellent job of constructing the proper timeline... the comments below suggest that McClellan was briefed when facing the press on July 22nd. So I'll concede there's a high probability that Bush's senior aides knew about this in July. As for Bush himself, Kleiman acknowledges that he's got no evidence either way."

Mendacious, stupid, disorganized, backstabbing, incompetent, malevolent--it's all there in these judgments of the Bush administration. And that's just what he's written in the past two weeks. Daniel Drezner's views have caught up--and it's now clear that the disagreement wasn't because Paul Krugman didn't know how politics really works, but because Dan Drezner had a lot of illusions about the Bush administration.

Posted by DeLong at October 18, 2003 12:10 PM | TrackBack

Comments

My own unscientific sampling of "conservative" opinion indicates that the single individual hated most by the right has become not Saddam, not OBL, not that funny North Korean guy, not Daschle, not Jesse Jackson, not even (cue gasp-scream) Bill or Hillary. It is Paul Krugman.

Whatever else he is doing wrong, he must be doing something right.

It is in now way surprising that conservative critique of Krugman will turn up to be in the spectrum of wide-of-the-mark down through illogical to fully hysterical.

And why is this? Every bit of work he does directly rips at the foundation of everything they hold dear and true. Why they choose to believe the hazy ideal of their world-view and hide from the hard facts and simple logic Krugman throws in thier face I don't know. But that's the mindset they have, and they are sticking to it.

Posted by: Alan on October 18, 2003 03:51 PM

The "functions of a public intellectual" in a totalitarian system are to either support the ruling Party, or else go to prison or exile.

Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on October 18, 2003 06:12 PM

Alan -- that's not news to anyone at this site. I've spent hours defending Krugman here.

Drezner's piece is relevant to the recent "M-type argument debate", about which I have become obsessive. (Summary: Arnold (?) Kling said Krugman should write about what the Bush people are doing and evaluate their acts according to expected results, but should not speculate about their motives or criticize them for dishonesty. By doing the latter, Krugman supposedly discredits himself by acting emotionally and unprofessionally).

Now, as I understand, Drezner is a political scientist. Note that he **assumes** dishonesty on the part of politicians, and condones it under the right circumstances. In other words, in politics deception is an integral part of the game. Kling spoke of dishonesty about motivation as unknowable, contrasting it to the observation of observable behavior and its evaluation on its merits. But a political scientist cannot really afford to renounce speculation about motives and honesty; these are an integral part of his subject matter.

For Drezner, Krugman's mistake is **getting all excited** about the dishonesty that is one of the staples of politics. His mistake is bad etiquette, or a lack of coolness and sophistication. This does not mean that Drezner thinks that it is not permitted in politics to accuse adversaries of lying. It's just that all cool politicos know that everyone lies from time to time, so they only make accusations at strategic moments when the case is ironclad and when the political situation tells them that accusations of dishonesty will be useful and effective.

In my earlier defenses of Krugman I pointed out that Krugman's newspaper pieces are political writing which discusses economic aspects of politics -- and **not** properly economic writing at all. Thus professional strictures of economics should not be applied to him; he's not functioning as an economist. (And to me, this is perfectly fine; Krugman isn't the only economist ever to wear two hats).

My own feeling is that Krugman is doing exactly what he should be doing. You don't have to be an innocent to think that the Bush administration (with the collaboration of the media) has pushed dishonesty into the toxic zone. I've already said far too much against Kling's belief that Krugman should simply ignore these M-questions and only talk about the economic nuts and bolts.

But I'm equally opposed to the cool inside-baseball approach (seen especially at Salon and Slate, but really throughout the cool insider media) that forbids anyone ever to get excited or to take sides.

Posted by: Zizka on October 18, 2003 06:40 PM

Alan -- that's not news to anyone at this site. I've spent hours defending Krugman here.

Drezner's piece is relevant to the recent "M-type argument debate", about which I have become obsessive. (Summary: Arnold (?) Kling said Krugman should write about what the Bush people are doing and evaluate their acts according to expected results, but should not speculate about their motives or criticize them for dishonesty. By doing the latter, Krugman supposedly discredits himself by acting emotionally and unprofessionally).

Now, as I understand, Drezner is a political scientist. Note that he **assumes** dishonesty on the part of politicians, and condones it under the right circumstances. In other words, in politics deception is an integral part of the game. Kling spoke of dishonesty about motivation as unknowable, contrasting it to the observation of observable behavior and its evaluation on its merits. But a political scientist cannot really afford to renounce speculation about motives and honesty; these are an integral part of his subject matter.

For Drezner, Krugman's mistake is **getting all excited** about the dishonesty that is one of the staples of politics. His mistake is bad etiquette, or a lack of coolness and sophistication. This does not mean that Drezner thinks that it is not permitted in politics to accuse adversaries of lying. It's just that all cool politicos know that everyone lies from time to time, so they only make accusations at strategic moments when the case is ironclad and when the political situation tells them that accusations of dishonesty will be useful and effective.

In my earlier defenses of Krugman I pointed out that Krugman's newspaper pieces are political writing which discusses economic aspects of politics -- and **not** properly economic writing at all. Thus professional strictures of economics should not be applied to him; he's not functioning as an economist. (And to me, this is perfectly fine; Krugman isn't the only economist ever to wear two hats).

My own feeling is that Krugman is doing exactly what he should be doing. You don't have to be an innocent to think that the Bush administration (with the collaboration of the media) has pushed dishonesty into the toxic zone. I've already said far too much against Kling's belief that Krugman should simply ignore these M-questions and only talk about the economic nuts and bolts.

But I'm equally opposed to the cool inside-baseball approach (seen especially at Salon and Slate, but really throughout the cool insider media) that forbids anyone ever to get excited or to take sides.

Posted by: Zizka on October 18, 2003 06:45 PM

Zizka,

Thanks for your post, and I have been reading them.

Question: Does Krugman get (is getting) excited because "politicians" lie, which they frequently do, or is he getting excited because these particular politicians are lying in an outstandingly blatant and provable way very often and absolutely nobody in major media is calling them on it?

I think there is a big difference. And I think that is more important than the M-type argument debate.

I forget who wrote this, but it is germane: the notable thing about Paul Krugman is not that he is writing what he does, but that nobody else is. In his own book Krugman accounts for this, but it is notable.

Thanks again for all your posts.

Posted by: Alan on October 18, 2003 07:10 PM

It seems clear that both the intentions and scope of the lies seen in mass politics have been upped in ante since after World War Two. They have reached monumental new heights with the current administration.
It has been a decently long time since we had a group of politicians in this country that would lie with a straight face about starting wars without provocation.

At one time, I seem to recall honesty being a redeeming value in a politician - this is no longer true, particularly when you look to the right wing.

-Josef

Posted by: K. on October 18, 2003 08:10 PM

I definitely think that the Bush administration is more ambitious and "revolutionary" than any since Roosevelt (more than Reagan). And I also think that the edministration is more dishonest than any other, ever. McKinley/Hearst's fake war with Spain comes to mind -- many conservatives admire McKinley, BTW.

I'm not letting LBJ (Gulf of Tonkin) off the hook bcause he was a Dem. Bush goes beyond that, though.

Posted by: Zizka on October 18, 2003 08:16 PM

Those of us familiar with the details of the budgets breathed a sigh of relief when the budget surplusses appeared in the late 1990s. Finally, it appeared that we would be paying down the debt and getting the federal budget in shape to handle the looming boomer retirement. That Mr. Bush would so cavalierly and blatantly abandon sound fiscal policy was a shock. That he would demagogue the tax cut issue was unbelievable. It is a very big deal. It is possible to dig a financial hole that has no good exit. PK knows this and so do most economists who study the budget. People who know little about the budget cannot comprehend the problem. Because Drezner is uninformed about the budget and the fiscal shortfall, he can pretend that PK is over reaacting. It is like seeing someone walking down the railroad track with the Amtrak bearing down and shouting at them to get off the track only to have them criticize you for being shrill. Right or wrong, no one likes Chicken Little.

Most reporters and pundits are clueless when it comes to budget policy. It is really unfortunate that we do not have a press corp that is competent to evaluate the long term fiscal problems facing the US and communicate them to the public.

Posted by: bakho on October 18, 2003 08:45 PM

Well, I think that part of what's so infuriating about Bush's lies, as opposed to, say, Clinton's lies, Bush Sr.'s lies, Reagan's lies, etc., is that Bush's underlying "message" for election might be considered "He may not be smart, well informed, or experienced in the ways of Washington, but he's a good, honest man [unlike Gore]." (much as Clinton's "message" might be "He's creative, smart young new blood who can get us past the old-fashioned ideological arguments and out of economic stagnation," and Bush's Sr.'s theme seemed to be "He has the stuff you liked about Reagan, but toned down a bit and made more caring, gentle, and moderate." (at least, I *think* that was roughly the underlying theme of those presidents)

Sure, Clinton promised a new age of ethics in the White House, and Bush Sr. probably said a lot about that too, and Bush Jr. talked about moving beyond ideology and helping the U.S. economy like Clinton did too, but the difference was how central the message was.

This is not to say that it's morally worse when Bush Jr. lies than when Clinton, Bush Sr., or anyone else does (though the magnitude and consequences of the lies DO mean that, in a practical sense, Bush Jr.'s lies HAVE been more damaging than the lies of other presidents since Nixon.) However, it does make it more angering. A man who claims he's honest (don't we all?) and lies is a hypocrite. A man who builds an entire image and mythology about his honesty is a bigger hypocrite.

Posted by: Julian Elson on October 18, 2003 10:01 PM

Zizka makes some good points, as he always does. In my opinion, there's little doubt that Krugman's been proven right in his claims about the Bush administration. More to the point, I think he's been proven right in the justification for his "tone". But the problem with this is twofold.

First, Krugman's not doing something that many people couldn't be doing, and he's not terribly effective at it. Maybe Alan's right that he's the conservative's #1 enemy (although I doubt it). Even if he is, though, to make a difference he'd need to be reaching a lot more people than he is. Go stand on the street, take a poll, and find out how many people recognize his name. It will be a very small portion. Zizka thinks that pundits significantly affect American politics. But they don't.

Related to that is the second problem. The second problem is that partisan politics is such in this country that every President we've had in my adult life has been accompanied by the loud blarings of professional partisans, both pro and con. Those against the President are *always* outraged, *always* making the case that this administration is particularly mendacious and corrupt. No one listens to these claims—except the partisans who are inclined to believe it—because they are routine. It's the boy who cried "wolf". This administration is similar to the previous one in that it aroused disprortionate partisan ire almost immediately. Most people are aware of this, they expect it, and they discount it.

I think that Krugman can have a much greater impact on our lives as a working economist, not a pundit. But I also believe that he's unwittingly squandered the opportunity he's had to be as influential as possible as a pundit by not admitting the "boy who cried wolf" problem and adjusting his strategy accordingly. To Zizka and others, if outrage is justified, then it's justified and thank god someone will comment on the emporer's new clothes. But, to me, if the village is in danger from a wolf then what is important isn't to honestly and earnestly cry "wolf!"—especially if the villagers are inured to such cries—but to get the villagers awake by any means possible. That means modulating your tone and message in such a way that they'll listen.

I don't think that the conservative response to Krugman validates his influence. Indeed, I think perhaps it indicates his lack of influence. They attack him because they can, because he's made himself vulnerable and they get political mileage out of it. If Krugman had been doing this NYT gig the way I think he should have, they wouldn't have been able to attack him without making themselves look bad.

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on October 19, 2003 02:42 AM

Let me begin by saying I have no bone to pick with Krugman; he does o.k.. ( 750 words, 2500 words? How about eliminating David Brooks and giving him 1500.)

But economists always have this thing about politicians and politics. They, the politicians, always get policy wrong. And this complaint does not vary much whether the economist is a pure free marketeer or thinks there is a prominent role to be played by the public sector. Politicians and politics, as well as the political hoi polloi, are variously depicted as incompetent, short-sighted, ignorant or corrupt. Correct policy is always a matter of taking advantage of automatisms based on a true knowledge of constraints, as manifested in the pristine operations of markets. But this is an illusion, to some degree, not just because of the dialectic of omelets and eggs. Behind the operations of markets- or for that matter, the dynamics of production- lie human activities, actions and decisions. This is disguised by the fact that economics concerns itself with physical and monetary quantities, hence the prevalence of mathematics. To be sure, in economics physical- and a forteriori, technical- constraints come to the fore, in contrast to other social "sciences". And I have no objection per se to focusing upon functional reasons. (Functional reasons are not causal explanations, but concern the arrangement of causal conditions necessary for the reproduction of limited objectives.) But to carry on as if such functionality took place in a world of its own, independent of relations and dynamics of power, in its ambiguity both as domination and exploitation and as the gathering of consensual legitimation, would be Platonism to the point of absurdity. Any "science" must aim at understanding and explaining real processes, more specifically, the structures of real processes. To explain away as a distortion what intervenes upon ones chosen domain amounts to secondary elaboration. To account for the way in which productive surpluses are most optimally achieved, while disregarding the way in which they are distributed and converted into other forms of surplus power, regardless of whether one shills for these or criticizes them, is to play a mug's game. "Political-economy" is clearly a monstrous hybrid bastard, lacking the methodological security to earn its keep within the academic "spiritual-animal kingdom"; in comparison with economics and political science, it has only its own ignorance to blame. But, by focusing only on "private" resources, while ignoring the construction and maintenance of the public domain, the public "thing", upon which both the economy and the enactment of policy depend, economics contributes to a politics, whose domain has its own constraints, that is all too unconstrained.

Posted by: john c. halasz on October 19, 2003 04:50 AM

The series of posts is quite fine. Several years ago, I remember listening to guests on Wall Street applaud the peg of the Argentine currency to the dollar. The dollar was growing ever stronger, and Argentina was losing exports and raising interest rates while the economy weakened and joblessness rose beyond 10 and 15%. Gently and clearly Paul Krugman wrote of the fierce problem of the peg, a peg which Wall Street and the economic press well loved. The reason for the gentle columns was fear that strong complaints might quicken the coming financial collapse.

Paul Krugman has the discipline, independence, and courage to present economic currents that are neglected by an economic press generally with far less knowledge and independence. Also, PK writes clearly and simply.

Economics twines about all sorts of other studies, and PK has the opportunity to write not only on purely economic issues but issues of government in general. I value every column of this remarkable thinker.

Posted by: anne on October 19, 2003 07:28 AM

It's really pretty simple:

1) George Bush lies about important matters of public policy

2) George Bush lies much more than the average president about important matters of public policy

Unless you can disprove the above, all the whining about Krugman and what he ought to do etc. etc. is just that: indefensible whining.

Everyone knows presidents should not lie about important matters of public policy. Everyone. This requires no argument. And Krugman has proved that Bush does exactly that. Case Closed.

If you find yourself having to argue that the earth is not flat, you should ask yourself why you are in the position of having to make that argument and whether or not you should engage arguments that the world is actually flat. People who lie to your face in such a way that you know that they know that you know that they are lying, need to be dealt with in different ways than rational argument. The fact that they are lying in this way proves that rational argument will not work with them.

These people need to be exposed not defeated in debate.

Posted by: The Fool on October 19, 2003 07:49 AM

"First, Krugman's not doing something that many people couldn't be doing, and he's not terribly effective at it. Maybe Alan's right that he's the conservative's #1 enemy (although I doubt it). Even if he is, though, to make a difference he'd need to be reaching a lot more people than he is. Go stand on the street, take a poll, and find out how many people recognize his name. It will be a very small portion. Zizka thinks that pundits significantly affect American politics. But they don't."

Considering that Krugman is doing a one-man job, he's doing very, very well. He is not capable of doing the job of the entire media all by himself.

"Related to that is the second problem. The second problem is that partisan politics is such in this country that every President we've had in my adult life has been accompanied by the loud blarings of professional partisans, both pro and con. Those against the President are *always* outraged, *always* making the case that this administration is particularly mendacious and corrupt. No one listens to these claims—except the partisans who are inclined to believe it—because they are routine. It's the boy who cried "wolf". "

Who listens to those claims? The target seems to be those who, over time, look at what Krugman says, compare it to the behavior of the Bush administration, and realize who has credibility.

"This administration is similar to the previous one in that it aroused disprortionate partisan ire almost immediately. Most people are aware of this, they expect it, and they discount it."

Flat out lie, Keith. Clinton aroused disproportionate partisan ire almost immediately. Bush aroused a little bit of ire, far less than he deserved. I've seen far more Nader-bashing on the left than Bush-bashing.

Keith, did you *ever* look at the editorial page of the WSJ during '92-2000?

I can't think of anything that those guys weren't willing to put into print bashing Clinton. And the WSJ is a prominent national newspaper, among the top few in daily circulation. It isn't 'The Nation'.


(some stuff snipped)

"I don't think that the conservative response to Krugman validates his influence. Indeed, I think perhaps it indicates his lack of influence. They attack him because they can, because he's made himself vulnerable and they get political mileage out of it. If Krugman had been doing this NYT gig the way I think he should have, they wouldn't have been able to attack him without making themselves look bad."

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on October 19, 2003 02:42 AM

Another flat-out lie. The people attacking Krugman aren't working their way through a list of random Americans. They go for prominent targets. The only prominence Krugman has outside of technical areas of economics is his public criticism. Take away his popular writings and columns, and how many conservatives would even know about him?. And they do make themselves look bad. To those middle of the roaders who are aware, and willing to learn.

To the apologists on the right, nothing makes Bush look bad. They're more inclined to blame the critics. But they aren't the target audience here.

So keep bashing away, Keith.

Posted by: Barry on October 19, 2003 08:14 AM

Actually, I would amend my previous comment slightly. The Republicans have gotten so used to getting away with lying their asses off and/or making false statements (whether completely knowingly or not), that we progressives and Krugmanites do not necessarily find ourselves in a situation where we know that they know that we know the Republicans are lying.

Because the Republicans have gotten away with lying or peddling false information for so long there are 2 classes of them who don't fit this formula: 1) those who have sincerely been baffled by their fellow Republicans' bullshit and 2) those who do not yet realize that we know that they are lying.

The true believers (i.e. the former of the 2 categories above) are a particularly hard case. Here is the key point: what we progressives need to do is to convince the Drezners and the Brooks' etc that we do in fact know that they are lying.

This, I contend, is the primary function of Paul Krugman's columns. The more Krugman's unassailable arguments get out and the more we progressives learn those arguments and publicly endorse them, the more the Republicans will know that we know that they are lying.

If we continue to increase pressure on them in this way eventually they will be transformed from Republicans who lie and don't think we think they are lying into Republicans who know that we know thay are lying. And that is when their lies will be untenable even for them. Once enough of them become convinced that we know they are lying, they are doomed.

Posted by: The Fool on October 19, 2003 08:22 AM

Simply look at the Administration push for happy happy news from Iraq, and echo of happy happy Iraq from the radical rightees, and you will know why a careful honest writer like Paul krugman is such a scary columnist for these folks. Happy happy news is all this Administration and sycophants can abide.

Posted by: lise on October 19, 2003 08:56 AM

Barry, I'll grant you that reasonable people may differ on my statements of opinion. I won't grant you that anything I wrote was a "flat-out lie"—and if you can't tell the difference, then perhaps you are not the most qualified person to evaluate Paul Krugman's contribution to national discourse.

In my opinion, your behavior here validates much of what I've said previously on this and related matters: you adopt a pretty extreme partisan position against me and what I wrote more obviously on the basis of what you assume are my motives and a mischaracterization of my argument than on what I actually wrote. This is revealed, for example, by your use of the term "bashing" to characterize a post that starts with "there's little doubt that Krugman's been proven right in his claims about the Bush administration. More to the point, I think he's been proven right in the justification for his 'tone'." That's not "bashing".

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on October 19, 2003 09:02 AM

Ellis's assertion that pundits have no significant influence is nothing but an assertion, and it's wrong. George Will and William Safire, alas, have had lots of influence. Pundit influence is limited to the 10%-30% of the population which tries to keep well-informed, but even in these know-nothing this group is somewhat more influential than its numbers indicate. In particular, Krugman might contribute to splitting off some of Bush's relatively moderate and rational supporters, something which I think is starting to happen and which also is really our only hope.

When there really is a wolf, the problem isn't the boy crying wolf, but the people who won't listen. Most people do not automatically discount this kind of statement, but I think that you do, Keith. One of the things I'm suggesting is that you're wrong.

Krugman's contribution as an economist and his contribution as a political writer are on different time scales. If he makes a great economic discovery today (and we really do NOT know that his scientific work has ceased), its effects will first be seen sometime in the next 10-20 years. His political writing of the moment is targetted at 2004, as it should be.

I personally think that Krugman's political involvement will enrich his more scientific work, since he has been forced to deal with actual real-world systems which include important elements that formal economics stipulates out.

P.S. What I said about "opinion leaders" also applies to the blogosphere. Blogs can keep "page 17" big-media stories alive when they would otherwise die. (That was I. F. Stone's whole method). The Trent Lott story is the most successful example. This dynamic comes not from reaching the general public, but from reaching the media professionals. First, the media know that someone is watching. (The blog blitz against the Times was wrong-headed IMHO, but rather successful; similiar attacks are under way against the BBC and the Guardian). Second, media professionals now can scavenge the net for tips. But most important, when media professionals realize that the stuff is out there, they'll worry that one of their competitors will scoop them. So there's a force toward revelation instead of the cautious replication of the conventional wisdom.

Eighteen months ago the blogosphere was mostly hawks and libertarians. Without the liberal sites such as this one, Kos, Eschaton, etc., etc., our political situation would be far worse than it is.

Posted by: Zizka on October 19, 2003 09:10 AM

It gets very hard to keep track of all this n-th order logic. To finish the above, there is one more step: Once the Republicans know that we know they are lying, THEN the situation is ripe for transformation into one in which they know that we know that they know that we know they are lying -- and THEN the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

Posted by: The Fool on October 19, 2003 09:57 AM

" I pointed out that Krugman's newspaper pieces are political writing which discusses economic aspects of politics -- and **not** properly economic writing at all."

Why not, it used to be called political economy?

Anyhow, about a quarter century ago, two former JB Clark Medal winners used to alternate short essays in Newsweek magazine without gratuitous slanders of the sort Paul Krugman specializes in. Which led to both of them having a great deal more influence on the body politic than the more often published Krugman will ever have.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 19, 2003 10:27 AM

That this White House lies about fiscal policy cannot be questioned. The WH says its fiscal policy is designed to increase savings (aka reduce consumption) AND to increase consumption at the same time. This WH is for free trade and against free trade within the same breathe. This WH wants to 'give us our money back' on a permanent basis, increase entitlements, increase defense spending, and be fiscally responsible. Regardless of one's views on economics or one's policy objectives, these inconsistencies cannot be defended. Yet - the WH supporters do. How by writing the earth is flat in the same article that they say the earth is round. And people hold onto any illusion that the WH and its defenders are honest?

Posted by: Harold McClure on October 19, 2003 10:50 AM

Patti Sulli: Eternally unfair and unbalanced. Regards to Rush Druggy and Billy Ben Slots.

Posted by: Ari on October 19, 2003 11:06 AM

"Pundit influence is limited to the 10%-30% of the population which tries to keep well-informed..."

I urge you to investigate the veracity of that statistic. I think you'll find that it's off by an order of magnitude. Since Krugman, Will, and Safire are newspaper columnists, I suggest you start by examaning the percentage of Americans who subscribe to a daily newspaper; or, for a more generous baseline, the number that claim to read a newspaper "regularly". That number will be the absolute upper limit to the number of people influenced directly by Krugman. It won't be 30%. And the real number will be a small fraction of the upper limit.

I cannot for the life of me imagine what kind of hothouse existence you live such that you think that newspaper columnists exert a considerable influence on American political life. Well, actually, I can. My intuition is that this assumption is a form of self-aggrandizement. Because you believe yourself to be of the "10%-30% of the population which tries to keep well-informed", and Krugman matters to you, then Krugman's importance is a proxy to your own assumption of importance. This is a form of narcissism.

"When there really is a wolf, the problem isn't the boy crying wolf, but the people who won't listen."

The inattentive people are ignorant. The boy isn't. It's his job to get the people's attention, however possible. Saying that an ineffectual "wolf!" is the only appropriate cry because it's simply true is *missing the whole damn point*. The appropriate cry is the one that works.

"Most people do not automatically discount this kind of statement, but I think that you do, Keith. One of the things I'm suggesting is that you're wrong."

Yes, they do automatically discount this kind of statement. That this is true is revealed by a quick walk through the blogosphere where every kind of accusation is made, and little attention is paid to those accusations outside the confines of the predisposed audience. Tell me: how much time did you spend watching Bill O'Reilly, carefully cataloging his claims, determining their unreliability, before deciding to mistrust him? Pat Robertson? Clearly, you ignore opposition partisans—you must. So, you cannot be representative of the supposed "majority" that take all "wolf!" cries seriously. But if you are in a minority, yet you take Krugman seriously, then by the same reasoning the majority cannot be taking Krugman seriously. Or, finally, the majority is not partisan and does not discount opposition partisan claims prima facie merely by virtue of the fact that nothing is "opposition". Then we're left with the simple truth that for the non-partisan, there's necessarily an even larger selection of partisan cries of "wolf!" that they each have to take seriously and evaluate—something that isn't possible. And, in any event, most people don't even know what continent Slovakia is in, much less evaluate partisan claims of opposition mendacity and ill-behavior.

You write: "the Trent Lott story is the most successful example". But this is damning with faint praise. How substantial of a success was this, truly? In the context of everything the Bush administration has "accomplished" in the last three years, this taking down of an easy and long-overdue target it well-nigh irrelevant. But, hey, it apparently makes for a nice bit of political circus and an opportunity for self-congratulation by some interested parties. Which makes it exemplary of American political discourse.

Posted by: Keith M Ellis on October 19, 2003 11:25 AM

IN BAGHDAD, OFFICIAL control over the news is getting tighter. Journalists used to walk freely into the city’s hospitals and the morgue to keep count of the day’s dead and wounded. Now the hospitals have been declared off-limits and morgue officials turn away reporters who aren’t accompanied by a Coalition escort. Iraqi police refer reporters’ questions to American forces; the Americans refer them back to the Iraqis. Reporters and government officials have always squabbled over access; but the news coverage of the messy, ongoing conflict in Iraq has worsened the already tense relationship between the press and the administration. American officials accuse reporters of indulging in a morbid obsession with death and destruction, and ignoring how Iraq has improved since Saddam Hussein was toppled. Reporters grumble that the secretive White House and Pentagon hold back just how grim and chaotic the situation really is.

Newsweek - October 27, 2003

Posted by: Ari on October 19, 2003 11:26 AM

Patrick R. Sullivan: "Anyhow, about a quarter century ago, two former JB Clark Medal winners used to alternate short essays in Newsweek magazine without gratuitous slanders of the sort Paul Krugman specializes in. Which led to both of them having a great deal more influence on the body politic than the more often published Krugman will ever have."

By all means, tell us what slanders Krugman has engaged in -- and then compare them in number and importance to the count of slanders and glaring misstatements uttered by, say, George Will or William Safire. Then come back and tell us again that even a small number of "slanders" decreases one's influence on the body politic.

Incidentally, those two Clark winners in Newsweek were Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson -- who already had immense influence on the body politic before they got those Newsweek columns, and in fact got the columns only BECAUSE they already had such influence, to which their columns added very little. Nor am I aware of any important respect in which Krugman's views differ from Samuelson's -- it's interesting to speculate on what Samuelson would have said about this administration's policies, given the number of infuriated brickbats National Review's writers used to throw at him.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 19, 2003 12:08 PM

Sullivan, the problem is that Krugman is right and you are wrong.

You can dig up the enormous White/Rangers controversies again if you feel like wasting more of our time. Those are the worst things you have ever been able to come against Krugman, and for all your repetition and ranting they are tiny flecks compared to the kinds of tendentiousness and misinformation that the conservative icons Will and Safire routinely slop out.

Posted by: Zizka on October 19, 2003 12:09 PM

Keith, I don't live any kind of hothouse existence. I think that the burden of proof is on someone who claims that nothing can be accomplished by newspaper columnists, but that Krugman could be a political force by continuing to do technical economics. Frankly, after hearing you say that, I really doubt that anything you say about the political process and the formation of public opinion is going to be worth much.

I don't work like you and not everyone works like you. **I can tell the difference between Bill O'Reilly and Paul Krugman**. If you can't (except that one's liberal and the other conservative) you have a major problem. The key is to pay attention to the **content** and not just the tone (though Krugman's tone doesn't resemble O'Reilly's either). You are right that many ignoramusses aren't able to tell the difference, but I'm dumfounded at your confession that you are one of them.

As I said, the people who Krugman might convince are the moderates in government and the Republican party. Quite an elite group, and all newspaper-readers. People in these elites are in a position to do things that will filter down to the moron voters that you are so expert on.

The liberal blogosphere is no more than about 18 months old. Sorry you feel that the Lott case was insignificant, but that's you (always asserting). In its small way, the blogosphere has changed the ball game, in ways that I specified.

Since I've been called a hothouse narcissist, I think that I am justified in suggesting that someone who is passionately attached to his own hardwired opinions, and thus impervious to argument, and who bases his own arguments primarily on bald assertions, is not in a good position to express contempt for the ignorant masses. Not being able to find Slovakia on a map isn't the only way to be dumb.

Posted by: Zizka on October 19, 2003 12:32 PM

" a careful honest writer like Paul krugman"

Oh yeah, the guy who had to get down on his knees and beg Antonio Fraga not to sue him, the guy who admits to merely Googling up topics for his Times' columns, the guy who just this week browsed an Economist article and reported:

-------quote---------
Lehman Brothers has a mathematical model
known as Damocles that it calls "an early warning system to identify the
likelihood of countries entering into financial crises." Developing nations
are looking pretty safe these days. But applying the same model to some
advanced countries "would set Damocles' alarm bells ringing." Lehman's press
release adds, "Most conspicuous of these threats is the United States."
----------endquote---------

Yeah, that guy is REAL careful.


Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 19, 2003 01:19 PM

Patrick, take your medication. You didn't get your Nobel Prize this year, and I know how that upsets you. Probably you'll get it next year, if Krugman fails again. I really feel for the two of you.

Posted by: Zizka on October 19, 2003 01:34 PM

You mean Slovakia is on a continent?

Yes, Keith M. Ellis, Barry was wrong to say you are a liar. But, really, your argument is quite circular, amounting to claiming that nothing could possibly be effective in penetrating this ideological head-lock around the American public.
A better effort would be directed at searching out the points of intervention and the points of argument that can be effective. (I think Krugman is just feeling his way on this, since he does not have a prior formation in the political domain.) At some point it comes down to: take your pick, Churchill or Chamberlain.


And, by the way, I have a horrible open secret to tell you: everyone is a narcissist- at least to the extent that, at the end of the day, one finds oneself...unavoidable. Accusations of narcissism are even less effective as an ad hominem argument than accusations of lying. In both cases, it is a matter of their conditions being quite specifically drawn-(though, in the case of Bush, this is readily doable on myriad occasions.) And as someone who falls exactly on the 30th percentile in all things, except when I don't, I find myself quite distinctive.

Posted by: john c. halasz on October 19, 2003 01:40 PM

Interesting comment from Donald Luskin on Krugman's quotes regarding Lehman Brothers:

"I also called Lehman's chief international economist Russell Jones, the author of the report on Damocles. He'd seen Krugman's column — I could hear the sound of his eyes rolling all the way from London. He told me that 'Krugman can be somewhat twisted and bitter on occasion. This analytic tool was not intended to be applied to developed countries. Damocles gave him an in to write a piece he wanted to write. He's making a career out of this kind of thing.'

"Strong words from Jones, who told me at the same time that Krugman is not wrong, in principle, to be concerned about the U.S.'s 'rapid accumulation of debt,' and that indeed the U.S. scores poorly by Damocles's standards — as had been reported in The Economist. But he firmly told me, 'to apply this to the U.S. is not that relevant.' "

So, according to Luskin, Krugman is horrible becaue he's PARTIALLY wrong about the destructive effects of the debt load we're accumulating under Bush -- but the Bush Administration, although responsible for that accumulating debt which will still (according to Jones) be seriously harmful, is utterly morally blameless. Can you say "bias"?

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 19, 2003 01:49 PM

"the guy who admits to merely Googling up topics for his Times' columns"...

I confess that I don't quite see the sin in this particular action.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 19, 2003 02:17 PM

DeLong was too charitable (or too lazy) to dig up Drezner's statements about Bush immediately after the Plame Affair broke:

"What was done here was thuggish, malevolent, illegal, and immoral. Whoever peddled this story to Novak and others, in outing Plame, violated the law and put the lives of Plame's overseas contacts at risk. Compared to this, all of Clinton's peccadilloes look like an mildly diverting scene from an Oscar Wilde production. If Rove or other high-ranking White House officials did what's alleged, then they've earned the wrath of God. Or, since God is probably busy, the media firestorm that will undoubtedly erupt.

"Let me make this as plain as possible -- I was an unpaid advisor for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, and I know and respect some high-ranking people in the administration. And none of that changes the following: if George W. Bush knew about or condoned this kind of White House activity, I wouldn't just vote against him in 2004 -- I'd want to see him impeached. Straight away."

Well, the evidence continues to grow that Bush does indeed "condone this kind of White House activity",,and we all know why. I look forward to watching Pat Sullivan's debate with Drezner about the honesty and competence of the Bush administration.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 19, 2003 02:26 PM

From that NYT column:
//
[...]Lehman's press release adds, "Most conspicuous of these threats is the United States."
//

So it is not Krugman who says so.

//
O.K., let's run through some reassuring counterarguments.


First, economists are very good at devising models that would have predicted past crises, but each new crisis tends to happen where and when they didn't expect it. So even though our budget deficit is bigger relative to the economy than Argentina's in 2000, and our trade deficit is bigger relative to the economy than Indonesia's in 1996, our experience needn't be the same.
[...]
//

And so on for various reasons that help the USA. Still he does not fail to remind his readers that:

//
I know: it all sounds unbelievable. But would you have believed, three years ago, that the U.S. budget would plunge so quickly from a record surplus to a record deficit? And would you have believed that, confronted with that plunge, our leaders would offer excuses rather than solutions?
//


My take is easy: Krugman is worried because the current policies are unsustainable in a relative short time. The USA has the credibility of his recent past, but as I've seen often "past performance does not imply future performance"

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume on October 19, 2003 02:37 PM

Keith:

You wrote:

But I also believe that he's unwittingly squandered the opportunity he's had to be as influential as possible as a pundit by not admitting the "boy who cried wolf" problem and adjusting his strategy accordingly.

I don't see why anyone would object to using the most effective strategy available for making the public aware of how bad Bush's economic policies are. Would you be more specific about how to do this? In particular, if you have in mind a different writing style, would you post a link or two to examples of that style.

Posted by: Jonathan Goldberg on October 19, 2003 02:42 PM

Someone up above doesn't know the power of opinion leaders. The fact is that the top print pundits have enormous influence over the top tv pundits who, in turn, have audiences in the tens of millions.

Posted by: The Fool on October 19, 2003 08:04 PM

Do not misunderestimate the influence of Paul Krugman. People are absolutely correct that few read the newspaper. But MANY people in DC read pundits. PK is widely read. Even GOP leaning sites like NationalJournal linkto every new PK column. PK is not saying anything that Congressman Spratt is already saying, but the House Dems are powerless. PK is not saying anything that Gale, Auerbach, Sperling and others at Brookings or CBPP are saying. However, PK is writing in the NYT. There is always the possibiity that what he is writing will catch on with the general public. Then the rest of the media will be forced to cover it. This is why the right spins so hard to discredit PK. The only way to discredit what he says is try to make him into a partisan hack instead of the straight shooter he is. In case you haven't noticed the right lives by the hatchet job. There policies are not popular so they have to demonize their opponents on a personal basis.

Posted by: bakho on October 19, 2003 08:28 PM

Bruce Moomaw: It's interesting to speculate on what Samuelson would have said about this administration's policies ...

Why do you need to speculate? Paul has spoken out on the topic. Just a few months ago, in a full-page ad in the _NYT_, he was one of 200+ economists who strongly criticized Bush's "policies." (Also signing their names to the ad were Bob Solow and (now the late) Franco Modigliani.)

.

Posted by: Cervantes on October 19, 2003 08:46 PM

Keith M. Ellis writes (in separate posts above:

> I think that Krugman can have a much greater impact on
> our lives as a working economist, not a pundit.

and

> I cannot for the life of me imagine what kind of hothouse
> existence you live such that you think that newspaper
> columnists exert a considerable influence on American
> political life.

OK, so here's the problem I have. I agree with you completely that pundits do not wield great (direct) influence. But the notion that even gifted academic economists have *any* direct influence at all on *anything* outside of academia seems much, much weaker to me. I mean, the non-academic readers of academic economics papers would probably be as good an example of a set of measure zero as anything else out there. So I conclude there is no direct influence. As far as indirect influence, there might be some...but not apparently in the current administration, since not even the most conservative economists they can hire are true enough to the cause to be listened to.

What Krugman is stuck doing is not exactly glorious. As I've posted before, all that he really does is crank through a bunch of Modus Tollens like arguments that formally resemble this:


IF
{the Bush administration were interested in the long-run fiscal health of the nation}
THEN
{they would not propose tax legislation that is guaranteed to increase the debt substantially in coming decades.}

# (if P then Q)

The administration DID propose tax legislation that is guaranteed to increase the debt substantially in coming decades.
# (not-Q)

ergo not-P

The Bush administration is NOT interested in the long-run fiscal health of the nation. (not-P)

Now the only hole in something like this for most economists is to suggest that the initial conditional is missing a conjunction (i.e., it's really "IF they were competent AND they were interested...). But this doesn't make the argument any less damning. And, weirdly enough, almost nobody else out there in columnist space ever resorts to actual logic on this scale. I'm not sure why that is.

Posted by: Jonathan King on October 19, 2003 09:34 PM

" 'the guy who admits to merely Googling up topics for his Times' columns'...

" I confess that I don't quite see the sin in this particular action."

I'm not surprised you don't. The claim was made that Krugman is a "careful honest writer", but his own admission of how he works destroys that idea.

Recently he Googled up a false claim about the Marshal Plan attributed to Churchill. And he proceeded to run with it to slam Bush, without bothering to think through the chronology. And his weaselly correction in the next column also calls into question his honesty.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 20, 2003 09:02 AM

Well, no, I'm not surprised I didn't either, since (1) Krugman didn't Google up his "topic", but one minor supporting quote for it; (2) Paul Bremer made the same mistake (must have been Googling himself); (3) No one questions that the Marshall Plan really was spectacularly unsordid; and (4) the mistake has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his argument. Still, when you're as desperate as Patrick obviously is, you grab for anything you can get. So, how about it, Pat? I look forward to your hard-htting denunciation of Bremer for his outrageous dishonesty in this matter.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 20, 2003 11:30 AM

I would suggest it is Bruce Moomaw who is desperate...to change the subject away from his abject failure to provide any supporting evidence for his numerous claims.

Further, Paul Bremer, afaik, has not raised the Marshall Plan as a comparison unfavorable to the current Iraq situation. So any comments about his mis-attribution are irrelevant.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 20, 2003 01:29 PM

Please. What Paul Bremer did was to quote Churchill as calling the Marshall Plan "the most unsordid act in act in history", when that was actually what Churchill said about the Marshall Plan. That is, exactly the same appalling, hideous mistake Sullivan jumps up and down furiously on Krugman for making. So, sauce for the goose...

And I still await your response to any of my other points. In particular, I await your response to Drezner.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 20, 2003 02:15 PM

Uh, that was actually what Churchill said about Lend-Lease (c. 1940-41, before the USA entered WWII), NOT about the post-WWII Marshall Plan.

Posted by: Mark Abbott on October 20, 2003 04:11 PM

Uh, that was actually what Churchill said about Lend-Lease (c. 1940-41, before the USA entered WWII), NOT about the post-WWII Marshall Plan.

Posted by: Mark Abbott on October 20, 2003 04:12 PM

Uh, that was actually what Churchill said about Lend-Lease (c. 1940-41, before the USA entered WWII), NOT about the post-WWII Marshall Plan.

Posted by: Mark Abbott on October 20, 2003 04:13 PM

My apologies for the unintended multiple posts! Online or off-line, my computer's been mighty balky today.

Posted by: Mark Abbott on October 20, 2003 04:38 PM

Is there a specific name for Patrick Sullivan's annoying style of misdirection in argumentation? It resembles the press secretary disease, and whatever the hell it is Andrew Sullivan tries to do, but isn't quite either.

Posted by: Jason McCullough on October 20, 2003 05:21 PM

Yeah, Mark, you're right (in all three repetitions). My goddamn propensity for making embarrassing slips of the tongue using my fingers remains -- what I THINK I've typed turns out to be different from what I actually typed. (And, by the way, it ain't your computer -- it's DeLong's fershlugginer blog system.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 21, 2003 12:30 AM

Pundits matter. Editorial boards matter. Its all about controlling the public mind and the elite mind.
Ask yourself why the AEI, Heritage and Cato institutes exist.
Who founded them?
Who funds them today?
What do their members consistently advocate?

It is nothing less than setting the terms of the Publics understanding of the issues of the day. To set our understanding of the issues of the day so that we feel that that the necessary solutions can only be found in the policies of the Right.
The only permissible solutions are:
Deregulation
Tax cuts
States Rights
Vote Republican

Krugman sticks out because he successfully shatters the Right wing concensus. His columns are nothing less than a guide back to more balanced interpretation of reality.

The criticism about Krugmans effectiveness is unecessary in my opinion. The Times Column is out to reach the elite mind. Those 20 year olds in the Ivy league who normally would fall into the Republican consensus. Krugman can not dominate the public mind, he can only point the way for others to repeat his themes.

Posted by: Scott McArthur on October 21, 2003 09:11 AM

Jason, there is a specific name for what you do on these comments sections. Whining.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 21, 2003 03:55 PM

Bruce, have a clue. As Mark Abbott has pointed out Krugman was wrong about the Churchill quote, he is apparently totally ignorant of what really happened post WWII, and he misrepresented to import of the WaPo story about Iraq.

So, I have answered you idiotic points. It's not my fault those answers went over your head.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 21, 2003 03:58 PM

No, Pat, you haven't:

(1) Bremer was equally wrong about the Churchill quote.

(2) PK didn't utter a word about Truman's delay in implementing the Marshall Plan being excusable; he accused Bush of engaging in wholesale cronyism which Truman didn't when he DID get the Marshall Plan going.

(3) He DID misprepresent the Post article -- as do you when you say (on the "Fred Barnes" thread just below) that Bush "moved quickly to solve the electricity problem. What the Post article actually says is that (A) the Administration either idiotically underestimated or deliberately misstated the costs of reconstructing Iraq's electrical system by a little matter of 2500 percent; and (B) that after discovering their mistake, they deliberately concealed it and failed to act on it for months while things quickly went more and more to hell in iraq. Now, THAT'S competence and honesty.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 22, 2003 01:29 PM

No, Patrick, you didn't:

(1) Bremer made the same mistake about the Churchill quote.

(2) Krugman didn't utter a word in that column to excuse Truman's delay in getting the Marshall Plan started. What he did say was that the Plan, once it was started, had tremendously less cronyism in it than Bush's Iraq reconstruction.

(3) He did indeed "misrepresent the Post article" -- as do you when you say (in the "Fred Barnes" thread just below) that Bush "moved quickly" to solve Iraq's electricity problem. What the Post article DOES say is that (A) the Administration, before the war, either idiotically underestimated or deliberately lied about the costs of reconstructing Iraq's electricity network by a little matter of 2500%; and (B) that, for months after the war ended, they both failed to correct their mistake and deliberately covered it up while Iraq went rapidly to hell. Now, THAT'S competence and honesty. (Nor is the Post article Krugman's only source -- by a long shot -- for accusing the Administration of cronyism in awarding reconstruction contracts.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 22, 2003 01:37 PM
Post a comment