Site Meter

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Trump says AHCA is "Mean"

One source said Trump called the House bill “mean, mean, mean” and said, “We need to be more generous, more kind.” The other source said Trump used a vulgar phrase to describe the House bill and told the senators, “We need to be more generous.”
I think this "vulgar phrase" baryard metaphor is slang-term-for-reproductive-act-ing idiotic. But I do think the unsurprising news about Trumps constancy is of some relevance. The Senators at the meeting were forcibly reminded that, if they vote for the modified AHCA, Trump will stab them in the back. It will be even more horribly unpopular when its effects are felt than it is now (it's polling 17-25% approval). Trump will denounce the bill if he ever signs it. If a bill passes, his line will be that it was a horrible horrible bill written by "mean" idiots in Congress, but he had to sign it because Obamacare was collapsing. This will make the cost of voting yes even higher than it otherwise would be (and do nothing for Trump who won't convince anyone but his fanatic fans and isn't up for election in 2018 anyway). Of course it is obvious that Trump throws people under the bus carrying the wolves after stabbing them in the back. But a vivid reminder at a critical moment can't hurt.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Boring Comment on Kabaservice

Have I come up with a title less attractive than "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative" ? I certainly don't expect anyone to read this post. Also I advixe against reading it -- it is a waste of time.

I am commenting on this op-ed "The Great Performance of Our Failing President". My first thoughts are that it is too kind to Trump and displays shocking ignorance of history (Kabaservice is a historian who's op-ed harshly condemns Trump). My later thoughts are about me, myself, Robert Waldmann and my reactions to the conventions of the essay (or more exactly the op-ed).

I got stuck for many minutes objecting to this sentence

President Trump won the election in large part because he was one of the few candidates from either party to address terrible problems in the left-behind parts of the country, including the drug epidemic, declining labor force participation rates and the rising cost of health care.

I think it is both appallingly vague and clearly false. Before typing on, I want to start with myself. I understand that the passage is a to be sure passage

1) it's role in the essay is to avoid monotony.

2) The denunciation of Trump is made more interesting by suggesting that promise was betrayed.

3) Kabaservice is trying to prove that he isn't a knee jerk Trumpaphobic by noting some appeal of Trump.

4) Exactly because Kabaservice is conceding a tiny bit to Trump supporters here, he doesn't feel any need to be careful in the claim. It is a concession. It isn't really an assertion he is making in his voice.

As often, I find myself fiercely objecting to a "to be sure" passage. I fear that this would give the impression that I am a rigid doctrinaire extremist (but only if anyone reads my blog posts -- so I'm OK). But I do object. In particular, I object to the convention that assertinos in "to be sure" passages don't have to be both meaningful and accurate. I see no reason to allow meaningless or false claims to be made in any context. To be sure, it may be useful to note invalid arguments before refuting them. However, in that case, I think it is necessary to find and quote someone else making the invalid argument. In any case, one can use the subjunctive. One might argue "one might argue that ..." before knocking down the straw man.

OK back to Kabaservice. I object to the vague words "few" and "address". I think they are used in order to write words which appear to amount to a claim, but which don't actually assert anything. I would really like to ask "how few ? Do you mean fewer than 10 ? How about fewer than 10,000 ? OK I guess the set of "politicians" is not defined (candidates for office ? so not Reince Priebus but including candidates for shcool boards) so do you mean fewer than 1% ? fewer than 10% ? I am quite sure that Kbaservice doesn't mean any of these things. I am quite sure he doesn't mean anything. He wishes to assert that there is something notable about Trump's choice "to address" those problems without making any quantitative claim precise or vague. No number of examples of other policians doing the same refutes the claim, because "few" has no firm meaning.

Now how about "address". What does this mean ? A narrow definition would be to describe with some accuracy and propose a solution or, at lease, a melioration. By that definition, Trump did not address the issues. I'm not even sure he mentioned opiates at all, except for noting the smuggling of opiates over the border. As far as I know, he didn't mention the role of prescription opiates in the crisis. It is central. I don't think he showed any sign of knowing what areas are hardest hit by the drug epidemic. In contrast he, falsely, claimed that the crime rate was at an unprecedentely high level. Of course he didn't propose any plausible solution.

In contrast, Clinton specifically discussed the opiate crisis (noting that she kept hearing about it -- she listened to ordinary people as Trump did not). I'm reasonable confident that her issues page includes reasonable proposals to deal with the problem (and totally sure that I won't check and that almost no one else did).

Clearly Sanders addressed the problem of health care costs. Clinton supported the ACA which actually did a lot about it. As noted in the next paragraph, when elected, Trump supported the AHCA which reduces funding for dealing with drug addiction and massively shifts the burden of health care costs to the non-wealthy.

So how would I rewrite the offending sentence ? I feel the need to try to explain how Trump got elected (I can't help it). I'd note a few things. One is Trump's extreme dishonesty and arrogance helped him. He just promised that he would solve the problems. Honest people feel the need to give some hint of an explanation of how they would fulfil a promise. I think it is clear that a lot of voters are willing to believe promises based on no argument or explanation. I think also that Trump's anger helped him appeal to angry people. Finally, angry people want a change. Only once since 1948 has a party won 3 presidential elections in a row. But I don't think it has anything to do with Trump addressing the issues (he didn't if the word is defined narrowly enough that anyone didn't address the issues) or with Democratic politicians failing to address the issues.

I also object to this ahistorical bullshit.

Mr. Trump also lacks the popularity that allowed presidents like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton to rally the public behind their proposals and compel Congress to go along with them,

Bill clinton never compelled Congress. He tried to compel congress to reform health care and failed. Part of the problem is that he was unpopular. At this point of his presidency Clinton was about as unpopular as Trump is. Later he signed bills which dramatically changed things. But he didn't compel Congress -- they were right wing Republican initiatives. Clinton reluctantly went along with them. After 1994, Congress was leading and Clinton was following. Finally, after failing to compel congress then bending to Congress's will, Clinton became very popular. Claims about Clinton in the passage are all false. Kabaservice is a historian. I am 100% sure he knows they are false. I think he has chosen to repeat the conventional wisdom which he knows to be false.

Reagan did compel congress to cut taxes and increase defence spending. However, that's about it. He also later bent to Congress's will and signed a huge tax increase. He also followed Kemp and Bradley and accepted the 1986 tax reform (after demonstrating that he had no clue about the contents of the draft bill). It is true that he pushed things through congress (with a Democratic majority in the House) during his first years. So the claims about Reagan aren't all false. However, he wasn't especially popular then ( his approval rating declined unusually quickly and Republicans were hammered in the 1982 mid terms). I am old enough to remember. The popularity came later (mostly long after he left office).

The passage is ahistorical conventional wisdom. It is shocking that a historian wrote it.

But aside from that, I think the op-ed is an excellent essay.

Thursday, June 08, 2017

My Sources Tell me that in the Closed Session Comey Said he has proof Trump is a Russian agent and a Lizard person

COTTON: “Do you believe Donald Trump colluded with Russia?”

COMEY: “It’s a question I don’t think I should answer in open session.”

Sen Cotton has a degree from Harvard Law, where they didn't teach him to never ask a question unless he knows how the witness will answer.

I don't think Comey is going to tell the committee in closed session that he knows of no evidence that Trump colluded.

I am confident enough that if I were a reporter I would be tempted to fudge a scoop with a made up source.

But you aren't supposed to report that something was said in closed session before the closed session starts.

I know, that's why I am waiting to hit the publish key.

Damnit I flinched.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

I jest McCain't stand all this Sasse talk

I was already worried that I'g starting to like Ben Sasse more than I want anyone to like a conservative Republican when I saw this tweet
Then Josh Marshall wrote this one "I'd almost vote for him just for this tweet" I am genuinely worried. That boy's gonna be dangerous when he grows up.

Friday, May 05, 2017

Totally twitty Chait hate

I admire Jonathan Chait. In particular, I admire his denunciation of those (e.g. Barack Obama) who criticize "some in my party" without naming names. His rule is that if one criticizes an argument, position or view, one should name and quote someone. Otherwise the temptation to debate straw men is irresistable. This fits Chait's general (confessed) inclination to be mean -- he doesn't mind criticizing people by name.

I often think of Chait's rule and, when attemting to enforce it use the phrase "two minutes Chait" (rhymes with "two minutes hate").

His recent post "This Won't end Well for House Republicans" caused me to advocate (in comments) a much more extreme rule. I argue that commentators should never paraphrase or quote indirectly. I think a good rule would be that all references to anything written or said by anyone must be of the form of a direct quotation followed (if necessary) by an argument that the person really means something other that what they apparently just said.

I think that allowing paraphrases and indirect quotations makes the temptation to, say, claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet, irresistable.

My example is Chait himself. He wrote

Nancy Pelosi once said that Congress had to pass the Affordable Care Act in order to find out what was in it. Republican demagogues pretended Pelosi was confessing to having hidden the details of her bill until its passage, but, as anybody who read the context of her remarks could see, that is not what she meant. Pelosi was dismissing the bill’s bad polling as an artifact of public ignorance. The law’s individual provisions were highly popular, and she believed the law, once functioning, would gain public support, because it would help far more people than it harmed.

I commented

Often I bore myself. Here by grinding a very old ax. You are right to criticize Republican demagogues for misleading people about what Pelosi meant. But you misquoted her. According to Matt Yglesias (who I trust because he presents a direct quote with, you know, quotation marks) she said "“We have to pass the bill, so that you can find out what is in it — away from the fog of the controversy.” She was not confessing that she belonged to a group which didn't know what was in it. She was saying that other people (who were attending the " National Association of Counties’ 2010 legislative conference" didn't know what was in it.

Your paraphrase "Congress had to pass the Affordable Care Act in order to find out what was in it." is materially false. You assert that she asserted that Congress didn't know what was in it. She did no such thing. I am honestly disappointed that, when your point is that her meaning was distorted, you used a false indirect quotation which is consistent with the misleading interpretation (and not with your interpretation).

You have a rule that, when you criticize, you name names (and quote quotes). This is a very good rule. I think you should have another rule. When you claim someone said "that" something is true, you should rewrite -- use a direct quotation. The case of Nancy Pelosi who didn't say that Congress had to pass the bill to know what was in it (like the case of Al Gore who didn't claim to have invented the internet) demonstrates to me that indirect quotations and paraphrases have no legitimate useful role in the political debate.

They are often used to mislead (or to lie as in the cases of Pelosi and Gore). Pixels will be killed if you stick to quoting and then interpreting rather than suppressing the exact words and paraphrasing. But I think that you can't be trusted to paraphrase again. I recommend that all political commentators (including you) stick to direct quotations only from now on.

here I add that Pelosi isn't entirely an innocent victim. She was too polite to be accurate. The word "can" implies that her audience couldn't find out what was in the bill even with diligence. I am sure that what she believed was "since you can't be bothered to read the bill (it's only 2000 pages long) and believe Republican lies about it, we will have to pass the bill to force you to find out what is in it". But she is a politician, so she automatically assured people that they weren't at all to blame for their ignorance. Her statement was false. At the time people could find out what was in the bill. It just would require a totally disproportionate effort. The claim that they couldn't (implied by the "can") was a claim that the contents of the bill were hidden, not just long and boring.

That Republicans and "dozens of political journalists who should have known better" argued that she had confessed that the contents of the bill were hidden is outrageous. It is a demonstrable fact that the bill wasn't hidden. The debate over the bill was public and extremely detailed. Only people to lazy to check could believe that the details were hidden. The case demonstrates that "dozens of political journalists" are too lazy to do their jobs.

Similarly, Al Gore's claim "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." was 100% accurate. It does not imply he claimed he invented anything (the word doesn't appear). It does imply that he claims that the internet was originally a US government project funded by Congress & that he was a congressman who took the initiative of pushing for funding. Also that the transition to a new sector of the private economy was managed by a committee chaired by Al Gore.

Now what could possibly be gained by allowing people to paraphrase to, for a hypothetical example, [Al Gore claimed he invented the internet] ? Very few pixels are saved. The meaning is completely distorted. Paraphrases are very useful to dishonest people.

I really think that a direct quotes only (in political debate and commentary) rule would be an improvement.

To Chait I say: "context" my ass, text would have been good enough.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Behind Blue Eyes after the Bill was Killed.

update: OK the bill came back from the dead and has now been approved by 217 representatives. At the moment Ryan isn't the sad man (although he still is fated to be telling only lies). end update.

Thursday, February 02, 2017

Comments on Macroeconmics 1

This is a very closed thread for my students to comment on my course while it is in course. Comments may be posted as anonymous.

Sunday, December 04, 2016

My Advice to Macroeconomists

Take two aspirins and call me in the morning (or maybe in 100 years).

As usual, I want to talk about crude empiricism vs microfoundations. I will argue that we should look at what has been tried in the past and whether it seems to have worked. This means I think we should not just keep our heads to down and to the grind-stone working on microeconomics until we have done it right and only then dare to attempt to advise policy makers. I have nothing against empirical microeocomic research, but I think this question is whether there are macroeconomists who have something useful to say even before the empirical microeconomics research program is completed.

I want to consider an example from another field of research -- aspirin. For all of human history, it has been reported that the roots of willows contain an analgesic. I do mean this literally -- it was reported by Herodotus. The pain killer was purified and named salycilic acid. There were three problems -- its mechanism of action (microfoundation) was completely mysterious, it caused ulcers, and it tasted horrible. The third problem was crucial, but it was solved roughly a century ago by the same reaction which gave us heroin Acetylation. Now we have access to Aceto Salyclic Acid AKA aspirin. Decades later, the mechanism was understood. Aspirin blocks synthesis of a number of molecules collectively called prostaglandins.

Now the research which explained aspirin's effect was worthwhile (well worth the real Nobel prize that was awarded). But there was no reason to refuse to take aspirin and suffer when its side effects were known but its mechanism was mysterious.

The micro (in this case nano) reasearch was useful. It made it possible to develop other non steroid anti-inflamatories. Importantly, it was understood that there were two related moelecules one of which caused inflamation, feaver and tenderness and the other of which caused the stomach and small intestine to releqase mucouse to protect themselves. This scientific research, followed by a massive controlled trial, lead to the availability of Vioxx and over 50,000 deaths.

I think the example is relevant for those who wonder if macroeconomists should stick with tried and true models (not of couse the academic literature dominatinng tried and false models) for a good long while.

Of course the old Keynesian models have their empirical failures. Such as ... uhm well not the stagflation of the 70s which was consistent with the expectations augmented Phillips curve used by the old Keynesians throughout the 1960s (starting with Samuelson and Solow 1960) but, well there was the failure to consider the hypothesis that there is Ricardian equivalence which is implied by almost all mroe modern models and supported by no data of which I am aware at all.

Well I am sure that there must have been something badly wrong with those models which were abandoned before I took my first economics course.

But seriously, I know of no difference between using those models and using aspirin in the 1960s.

Buchanan Smith and Krugman

Mark Buchanan and Noah Smith discuss what is wrong with Macroeconomics.

I think it is best to just click and read, but I particularly like two points

Buchanan: ... In 20-plus years writing about science, I've studied research in physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, anthropology and always found, after looking closely enough, that the models people use in these fields are usually well-motivated, make basic logical sense and get rejected if they don't fit the facts very well. Macroeconomics has been the one exception.

and

Smith: ... I think the biggest problem with macro is that models never get thrown in the trash. Researchers pump out theory paper after theory paper, most of which contradict each other. Sometimes we see a big, spectacular event like the 2008 crisis, which just couldn't happen in any of the popular, dominant, or Nobel-winning models. But then macroeconomists just pull some obscure 20-year-old paper off the shelf and say "Of course macro can explain this." Macro theory is sort of like a big collective effort to cover all the bases, not to find which models really work and which don't.

So if people criticize macro by saying to add this or that feature, they’ll do what you ask. But the papers will just sit on the shelves, and when it comes time to make policy, people pick and choose the theories that suit their preconceptions.

I do think that Smith makes a very important point. It is what he discussed (brilliantly do click this link) here "We will continue using this falsified theory to 'organize our thoughts'" and what I had in mind when I typed "benchmarks" (twice).

As Noah notes, the problem is fundamental. Macroeconomists act like scientists -- we develop hypotheses, infer testable predictions, test them, reject them and then come up with new models which fit the data which rejected the old hypothesis. But the rejected hypothesis becomes a model and then a benchmark model and many macroeconomists

"keep treating it as if it were true. So ... will continue to make highly questionable policy recommendations. The fact that this theory is such a simple, clear, well-understood tool - so good for "organizing our thinking", even if it doesn't match reality - will keep it in use long after its sell-by date.

On the other hand, i don't think macroeconomists have attempted to cover all bases. Smith fears that any data which contradict the benchmark model used to "organize our thinking" and to make confident policy recommenations can be reconciles with some off the shelf macro model which is put right back on the shelf as soon as people stop pointing at those data. He is right that this is what macroeonomists do. However, we have not covered all bases. I think it is easy to find stylized facts which are not consistent with any macro model in the literature. I think it is important that Noah knows lots of troublesome facts are just ignored. He wrote "Sometimes we see a big, spectacular event like the 2008 crisis, which just couldn't happen in any of the popular, dominant, or Nobel-winning models." The point is that the dodge is only required when the failure of all the popular models is "spectacular".

I really want to focus on a hint of an interesting debate between Smith and Krugman here in

Recently, more top macroeconomists are taking a hard look at the data to figure out how consumers and companies really behave -- for example, how businesses make decisions about setting prices and hiring or firing workers.

[skip]

Note that this is the opposite of what a lot of macro critics are suggesting. Some, like Paul Krugman, advocate the use of very simple, old models, which are easy to use and interpret (especially in times of crisis). Others suggest tossing out the idea of individual decision-making as the foundation of macro models.

Noah concludes that Smith is right "The biggest challenge right now for macro is to move toward more realistic micro, using data as a guide. "

But there is a problem. Not all economists are macroeconomists. IO economists have tried to study how firms set prices and labor economists have tried to study labor demand. A practical form of Smith's proposal would be that macroeconomists should use the actual results of micro research and not microfound on decades old theories which have been rejected by the data. However, the actual proposal is that macroeconomists should first beat microeconomists in their own fields and then build macro models on the newly secured battlefield. Importantly Noah doesn't argue that there are perfectly good models of price setting in the empirical IO literature and macroeconomists just have to adopt them. Instead he proposes that we start to attempt to do empirical IO. But people have been working on that for decades. They aren't as numerous as macroeconomists, and they haven't made as little progress, but the history of that field doesn't suggest that the questions could be answered soon if they were just asked.

In constrast, Krugman's proposal is no good, because ... why ?

I wrote "an interesting debate," but not, I think, a fundamentally important debate. There is no reason why macroeconomists can't work on empirical microeconomics while also using old Keynesian models for forecasting and policy advice. Now one might argue that it would be better not to give advice until we have decent models based on empirical microeconomics. This would be true if macroeconomists forecasts were reliably worse than those of non-economists (indeed I am glad that Prescott who said that the then current problems were no big deal in early 2009 and Lucas who claimed to know that public investment couldn't cause increased nominal aggregate demand are not actively contributing to the policy debate).

It is not a sensible criticism of Krugman. I think it is clear that old Keynesian models are useful, beceause they give better forecasts and conditional forecasts than the judgment of non economists.

I have nothing against empirical micro research. Trying to understand price setting, hiring, firing and sayving decisions is worthwhile as pure social science in any case. But the idea that macroeconomists should be microeconomists for a while (how many decades ?) ignores that fact that policy makers are making horrible mistakes, and that (some) macroeconomists have reliably warned in advance that they are mistakes.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

God

I am an atheist, but I try to be open minded. Also, I am drunk out of my mind. So I am going to discuss what I think God Migh Conceivably Be if He/She or It Existed.

I do not claim that the evidence supports atheism. It is a faith, just as religions are faiths. Those with no faith are agnostics.

Howeever, I think it is proven beyond all doubt that there is no God who is Benevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. The world is not ideal. St Augustine says there must be evil because there must be free will, because agents without free will lack something or other. I don't believe we have free will. But in any case, Hurricane Katrina sure didn't have free will. Things which clearly don't have free will act in a way which is morally wrong. Any God that might exist has no excuse for earthquakes and such.

For decades, I have lived off the fact that some behavioral economist put my name on 4 of their articles, so I must focus on this omniscience business. Could God be benevolent and omnipotent but ignorant and confused ? Give me a break. I don't believe in rational expectations any more than I believe in God, but the most idiotic and irrational deity has to understand that earthquakes hurt living things and that rocks don't enjoy the relief of their tension.

OK so we have to look at benevolence and omnipotence. Oddly, I actually believe in a benevolent God. I call him The moral Law (his friend call him morla). This is the embodiment of all that is good. Unfortunately, the moral law is not omnipotent or indeed potent at all. It tries to tell us what we should do, but can't get the words out because it (sadly) has no tongue (or lips or teeth or lungs or voice box).It sreams things which should be obvious (such as don't vote for Trump you moron) but its screams are silent.

Sometimes (such as on the morning of November 9 2016) I wonder if their might be two deities. The totally utterlessly powerless moral law and the Omipotent Nasty Bastard Who is Just Fucking with us. Now I must admit that This Divine Asshole has a Sense of Humor. If I wanted to Humiliate the USA, I wouldn't havde done such a Bang Up Fucking Impressive Job.

This means, that, if I had a religion, I would be Manichaen.

Their view as I understand it from Gibbon and just making it the fuck up is that there are two extemely powerful beings Ohrmazad (who forgives spelling errors) and Ahriman (who is gonna get me even if I spell His Name Right cause he got no clue about incentives).

Ohrmizad is very good. The Other Guy is a bad Guy Who created this vale of tears while Ohrmizad wasn't looking. This theology reconciles the idea that there is a benevolent deity with the plain fact that shit fucked up and bullshit.

In my view, the Creator of the Universe (who might be the One God if we are unlucky) has a Sick and Twisted Sense of Humor. I think that He created us to find the ultimate abyss of idiocy. Our purpose is to become so idiotic that it is not conceivable (even for an Omniscient but Really Nasty God) to think of anything more idiotic.

I fear that once we have achieved utter idiocy, the Universew will have serve His Purpose and cease to exist. So to those who ask me if I am worried about having a hangover tomorrow, I say, what makes you think there will be a tomorrow. Can you describe a possible idiocy which hasn't occurred some time since November 7 2016 ? If you can, I'll plan for the future. But I can't, so I will have another drink.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Marking My Beliefs To Market

One of the many admireable things which Brad DeLong does is to mark his beliefs to market. I decided to do a bit of that. I realize that one very hard step is to find the markable beliefs. I decided to google [prediction site:rjwaldmann.blogspot.com] and got a few (including that Kerry would win in 2004).

Usually I use the word to refuse to make a prediction (especially after 2004) but I found a few.

1) UK violent crime

Kevin Drum has written a lot about the lead causes crime hypothesis. I believe it was proposed by someone at the EPA in the 1990s a very few years after the peak of the US murder rate. I consider myself an early supporter (about as early as Drum even if much less industrious).

In April 2008, I predicted that the UK violent crime rate would peak some time around 2008 http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.it/2008/04/get-lead-out-in-freakiest-bit-of.html

I just googled and found that it peaked in around 2006 or 2007

I'd say the prediction worked out pretty well.

2) TARP cost

Again and again, I predicted that the CBO forecast cost of TARP was higher than the expected cost of TARP and that the forecast would be reduced. I think the first time I did this was September 18 2010

Again and again I was right. The books were (roughly) closed with a reported non cost of over $15 billion of profit.

This predition worked out pretty well too.

3) PPIP cost

On a much more minor issue, I predicted that the Public Private investment Partnerships wouldn't coast the US government, and in particular the FDIC, much money. This is interesting mainly because I challenged Joe Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and (I just learn) Jeff Sachs. The books have been closed. The Treasury made a positive return of $ 3.9 billion. The rate of return was vastly greater than the rate the Treasury pays. Even assuming the 3.9 was earned all at the end the return would be 3.9/18.6 after 5.5 years so an annual rate of 3.5% compared to the Treasury 5 year rate of oh around zero.

4) Hmm turns out I predicted that Marco Rubio would not be the GOP nominee.

5) Huh it seems I predicted that George Bush would offer to nominate Patrick Fitzgerald to the Supreme Court and that he did in fact do so. Either or both of my prediction and this alleged Fitzgerald e-mail might be jokes.

à 6) Effectiveness of Quantitative Easing. This is tricky, because while I actually became a tiny bit known as a skeptic (I was actually interviewed by a journalist once) I flinched and said Abenomics had worked. Also I tended to argue that QE based on purchases of risky assets would work better than QE based on purchases of long term bonds. I think my first foray into QE skepticism was this on February 26 2011 . See also this. But I tend to claim some success. I am pretty sure I was relatively skeptical of QE. There were critics who thought it would work too well and cause hyperinflation, but I am fairly sure I was fairly far out towards the most extreme position of saying it wouldn't have much effect. This not really stuck to prediction is working out rather well.

Marking My Beliefs To Market

One of the many admireable things which Brad DeLong does is to mark his beliefs to market. I decided to do a bit of that. I realize that one very hard step is to find the markable beliefs. I decided to google [prediction site:rjwaldmann.blogspot.com] and got a few (including that Kerry would win in 2004).

Usually I use the word to refuse to make a prediction (especially after 2004) but I found a few.

1) UK violent crime

Kevin Drum has written a lot about the lead causes crime hypothesis. I believe it was proposed by someone at the EPA in the 1990s a very few years after the peak of the US murder rate. I consider myself an early supporter (about as early as Drum even if much less industrious).

In April 2008, I predicted that the UK violent crime rate would peak some time around 2008 http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.it/2008/04/get-lead-out-in-freakiest-bit-of.html

I just googled and found that it peaked in around 2006 or 2007

I'd say the prediction worked out pretty well.

2) TARP cost

Again and again, I predicted that the CBO forecast cost of TARP was higher than the expected cost of TARP and that the forecast would be reduced. I think the first time I did this was September 18 2010

Again and again I was right. The books were (roughly) closed with a reported non cost of over $15 billion of profit.

This predition worked out pretty well too.

3) PPIP cost

On a much more minor issue, I predicted that the Public Private investment Partnerships wouldn't coast the US government, and in particular the FDIC, much money. This is interesting mainly because I challenged Joe Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and (I just learn) Jeff Sachs. The books have been closed. The Treasury made a positive return of $ 3.9 billion. The rate of return was vastly greater than the rate the Treasury pays. Even assuming the 3.9 was earned all at the end the return would be 3.9/18.6 after 5.5 years so an annual rate of 3.5% compared to the Treasury 5 year rate of oh around zero.

4) Hmm turns out I predicted that Marco Rubio would not be the GOP nominee.

5) Huh it seems I predicted that George Bush would offer to nominate Patrick Fitzgerald to the Supreme Court and that he did in fact do so. Either or both of my prediction and this alleged Fitzgerald e-mail might be jokes.

à 6) Effectiveness of Quantitative Easing. This is tricky, because while I actually became a tiny bit known as a skeptic (I was actually interviewed by a journalist once) I flinched and said Abenomics had worked. Also I tended to argue that QE based on purchases of risky assets would work better than QE based on purchases of long term bonds. I think my first foray into QE skepticism was this on February 26 2011 . See also this. But I tend to claim some success. I am pretty sure I was relatively skeptical of QE. There were critics who thought it would work too well and cause hyperinflation, but I am fairly sure I was fairly far out towards the most extreme position of saying it wouldn't have much effect. This not really stuck to prediction is working out rather well.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Podhoretz

John Podhoretz who wrote

"What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?"[7]

John Podhoretz (July 25, 2006). "Too Nice to Win? Israel's Dilemma". New York Post. Retrieved April 7, 2007 http://nypost.com/2006/07/25/too-nice-to-win-israels-dilemma/

Just tweeted "@robertwaldmann @jbarro I think you assume I'm a jerk, which basically means you're a jerk." https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/797620322468065280

To assert is not necessarily to assume. I assert that someone who lamented the surviaval of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 is a jerk. I don't think this assertion is a mere assumption. I don't think that my assertion that John Podhoretz is a jerk is evidence that I am a jerk.

I favor civility and oppose genocide, but, having been forced to choose between those two values by genocide advocate John Podhoretz, I sacrifice civility.

In any case aside from the fact that it is too kind to call an advocate of genocide a jerk, the original point was that J Barro tweeted the following @ "@jpodhoretz I don't think it's at all clear that Dems have settled on obstruct-and-deligitimize. "

My allegedly jerkish claim was that J Podhoretz responded to the election of Barack Obama by attempting to deligitimize Obama and by advocating obstruction.

Friday, November 11, 2016

The Washington Post's Brilliant (and Ruthless) Editorial Choice

Today the Washington Post opinion section demonstrated that The Wall Street Journal has employed a complete total idiot.

"Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. She can be found on Twitter at @AsraNomani."

Ms Nomani's explanation of why she voted for Trump begins

"I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare. The president’s mortgage-loan modification program, “HOPE NOW,” didn’t help me."

Ms Nomani is a Muslim immigrant, Donald Trump refused to answer a question about whether Muslim non citizens should be allowed to enter the USA.

It is very clear that she voted against Clinton and didn't think much at all about the candidate whom she and tens of millions of others elected. I had thought that the Wall Street Journal news pages if not the opinion pages is excellent. But now I understand that they hired a reporter wh is totally incapable of practical rational thought.

I guess I will stick with the Washington Post and New York Times. So Fred Hiatt scored bigly.

Monday, October 31, 2016

Long Term Effects of Comeygate ?

I assume the reader is familiar with the furor related to the letter sent by FBI director James Comey to Rep. Joshua Chaffetz (Rep. Utah (in this case Rep. stands for reprensible)).

I am wondering about what effects it will have after November 8th. There has been a good bit of discussion of how anything including the words "e-mail" and "Clinton" is bad for Democrats. Many guess that Hillary Clinton will, nonetheless, be elected president (I stress that I have never made any prediction related to that possibility and have *not* jinxed anything). Some suggest that the nothing burger will affect down ballot elections.

I am wondering about the long term effects in the hypothetical case that Clinton becomes President (I make no prediction one way or the other regarding this eventuality). It is very clear and alarming that some of the people insanely dedicated to getting a Clinton are FBI agents. I guess this isn't really surprising.

I am wondering (and hoping) that the Clinton haters have gone too far. FBI director James Comey has been very widely denounced. For two days the story line has been "US government employees abuse their offices in their efforts to get Clinton). I think it is possible that the conventional wisdom will be that Clinton persecution is a serious national problem. I wonder if this might be very very useful to the hypothetical second President Clinton.

What Happened to the 4th amendment ?

The FBI now has a warrant to read e-mails sent and received by Huma Abedin which are stored on a laptop which she shared with Anthony Weiner.

Kevin Drum asks what took them so long and strongly suggests that someone at the FBI wanted to make sure that the investigation was opened and not closed before the election.

"If the FBI knew about these messages weeks ago, they could easily have gotten a warrant and begun looking at them."

I think it is clear that someone (not the director) at the FBI has deliberately used his or her position there to influence the election at the expense of the alleged public interest in investigating Abedin e-mails. I'd say this is a clear violation of the Hatch act and that after being fired, this person should be investigated for possible criminal liability.

But there is something which isn't clear at all to me.

I don't understand how that was possible let alone easy. I vaguely recall the phrase "probable cause": It doesn't seem to me that the fact that Huma Abedin uses e-mail is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Last I checked e-mail was not banned. The fact that they sought a warrant means the FBI agrees that they can't read the stuff on that hard disk which was written by Abedin or to Abedin without a warrant. How can they obtain probable cause to believe something about what was written without reading any of it ?

Comey said that the Abedin related data on the hard disk "appears to be pertinent": How can one describe the appearance of something when one is not allowed to look at it ?

I stress that among the things that Abedin may have written which the FBI must not read without a warrant is the following text ".gov". I don't think they can obtain any evidence that any of the e-mails is work related without a warrant. I also don't think the FBI should have been granted a warrant without presenting evidence that at least one of the e-mails is work related.

I see no way to reconcile the decision of some judge with the 4th amendment.

Needless to say, I am not a lawyer.

Orrin Kerr is a lawyer (and a conservative). His post is worth reading.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Schadenfreude and the New York Times

I very much enjoyed the recent columns on the current status of conservatism by David Brooks and Ross Douthat. I don't have anything useful to write, because (as frustratingly usual) I have nothing useful to add to Paul Krugman's post. So I will write a useless post.

Briefly, Brooks and Douthat agree that Conservative's have lost their way

"Eventually a path for conservative intellectuals will open.

But for now we find ourselves in a dark wood, with the straight way lost." Ross Douthat

"Trump demagogy filled the void.

This is a sad story." David Brooks

I agree with Krugman that "both deserve credit for taking a critical look at their team."

I think there is now a consensus among the New York Times opinion staff. The two token conservatives just wrote that they agree with the rest of them. Note that "nytimes" appears in the three urls but the blog post nor either column includes the word "York". This shows the genuinely impressive elitist arrogance of the New York Times staff. All three present the current state of opinion among the New York Times opinion staff as the current state of informed opinion.

On Brooks I note only three things. First he really lead with his chin when he wrote

"I feel very lucky to ... The role models in front of us were people like ... Irving Kristol ..." and later " conservative opinion-meisters began to value politics over everything else." Did he really not know that Krugman would respond by typing "'the accounting deficiencies of government'" among other things ? Even sticking with the same nuclear family, he could have written "Gertrude Himmelfarb" instead of "Irving Kristol". Note that Brooks considers himself to be part of the conservative intellectual elite. I don't want to think what rhetorical errors he things non elite conservatives make.

Second Krugman referred to Brooks as "David" in his blog. I don't recall that happening before. I think it is an olive branch.

Finally Brooks wrote both "The very essence of conservatism is the belief that politics is a limited activity, and that the most important realms are pre-political: conscience, faith, culture, family and community. " This is extremely offensive (so no olive branch from me). That can only be the essence of conservatism if it is not shared by non conservatives. If Brooks's sentence means anything, it asserts that non conservatives think that politics is more important than "concience, faith, culture, family and community." That claim comes close to libel. Of course Brooks doesn't mean that. He doesn't mean anything. He correctly describes that vaguely related difference between non conservatives and conservatives later

For years, middle- and working-class Americans have been suffering from stagnant wages, meager opportunity, social isolation and household fragmentation. Shrouded in obsolete ideas from the Reagan years, conservatism had nothing to offer these people because it didn’t believe in using government as a tool for social good.

Believing or "not believing in using the government as a tool for social good" is the actual difference between non-conservatives and conservatives which Brooks incorrectly describes in his outrageous implied insult of non-conservatives. I don't think that it makes any sense to call Brooks a conservative -- he just plays one on TV. He can only claim to be conservative by dividing people into Leninists and "conservatives." I don't think he has ever even tried to explain how he can claim that, to name two examples, Paul Krugman and Hillary Clinton don't embrace his "essence of conservatism".

I think Brooks is reduced to justifying his claim to deserve to keep his excellent job with the following syllogism "conservative thinkers have something useful to contribute. I am a conservative thinker. Therefore I have something useful to contribute": I don't think he has (or can) present an argument for either of the first two claims in the syllogism. I don't think he's even trying anymore.

Douthat is marginally more interesting. He is very openly elitist: the frankness of "the pyramid that is modern American conservatism has always been misshapen, with a wide, squat base that tapers far too quickly at its peak.

The broad base is right-wing populism, in all its post-World War II varietals: Orange County Cold Warriors, “Silent Majority” hard hats, Southern evangelicals, Reagan Democrats, the Tea Party, the Trumpistas. The too-small peak is the right’s intellectual cadres," is bracing.

His column is based to a large extent on the words "populism" and "managerialism". He abuses both.

First he discusses only right wing populism. This makes it possible for him to identify populism with right wing populism and write "the toxic tendencies of populism, which were manifest in various hysterias long before Sean Hannity swooned for Donald Trump." leaving out the qualifier "right-wing". The claim is technically true. If it just so happens that all those hysterias were right wing it isn't necessary to note this fact. But Douthat should ask himself if he can think of analogous widespread left wing hysterias. I don't think they occurred. Not all 9-11 truthers support and are praised by Donald Trump. But those on the left are an isolated fringe. There are fairly large numbers of extremely angry leftists (black lives matter and occupy wall street) but their claims of fact are supported by overwhelming evidence and their policy proposals are reasonable. A solid majority of US adults have left of center populist views -- they support higher taxes on the rich and more generous entitlements. These people clearly have strong suspicions (for example that the GOP focuses mainly on serving its rich donors). But that belief is not paranoid hysteria. It is a fair summary of the available evidence. As noted by Krugman, neither Douthat nor Brooks even discuss the issue. I think that Douthat would have two separate problems. First, Krugman explains how conservative commentators could remain prominent even if they have nothing useful to say, but second, because the widespread but non hysterical egalitarian populist views demonstrate that populism isn't as prone to toxic tendencies as Douthat asserts.

I object more srongly to Douthat's use of "managerialism". First it is pretentious jargon -- Burnham wrote a long time ago and few people remember him. I think that Duthat should replace "managerial" with "informed". I think that is what he means. It is an insult to managers to call university professors "managerial" (n my experience, this is also true of professors of business management). Most managers in the USA are middle managers of private sector corporations. That's not the managerial class Douthat has in mind. He makes it clear that he means "three generations after Buckley and Burnham, the academy and the mass media are arguably more hostile to conservative ideas than ever, and the courts and the bureaucracy are trending in a similar direction." Note that somehow the mass media has been redefined to exclude Rush Limbaugh and Fox News). Note that senators, representatives, governors, and Kochs are not included among the managerial elite. He isn't referring to the powerful or the rich. Of course he is thinking of the New York Times opinion staff and complaining that he has lost all the water cooler debates for years. But he should at least try to define a large important group which is "more hostile to conservative ideas than ever."

I believe that group would be the people who know and deal with facts which don't concern them personally (everyone deals with facts in our ordinary lives). Basically, I think the problem noted by Douthat is that conservatives have lost all the debates in which arguments must be supported by facts or logic. He has decided to define the people who know the relevant facts (and are honest) as "the overclass" because defining knowledge as class is a way to discredit it.

I think it is possible to remove these problems by always adding "right wing" to "populism" and replacing "manager" with "subject matter expert" and "managerial" with "of subject matter experts". The insinuation that those who have rejected conservatism are acting as a class is a cheap rhetorical trick (and just another sign that, if you want a recent example of the typical defects of Marxist thought, you should read a contemporary conservative).

In his "to be sure" passages, Douthat writes some positive things about one conservative and some conservative thought. These assertions are completely unconvincing.

Consider the wonderful internal contradiction in "in reality political conservatism’s leaders — including high-minded figures like Paul Ryan — turned out to have no strategy save self-preservation." Douthat asserts that Ryan is "high-minded" and has "no strategy save self-preservation". He doesn't claim that Ryan used to be high-minded then changed. He doesn't admit that those who thought that Ryan was high minded were deceived by transparent flim flam. He admits that he and many others were totally wrong about Ryan but won't admit that Krugman and Jon Chait were right all along. I think that the absurd intellectual error can be eliminating by adding as single word replacing "high-minded" with " alledgedly high-minded". The extremely charitable might also accept "apparently high-minded".

Douthat also wrote

Partial revolutions there were. Free-market ideas were absorbed into the managerial consensus after the stagflation of the 1970s. The fall of Communism lent a retrospective luster to Reaganism within the foreign policy establishment. There was even a period in the 1990s — and again, briefly, after Sept. 11 — when a soft sort of social conservatism seemed to be making headway among Atlantic-reading, center-left mandarins.

I have noted that the claim that stagflation demonstrated any errors of earlier non-conservative economic thought is based entirely on lies. It is true that the boldly lying right managed to promote right wing economic ideas. The claim about "luster" is even farther from illustrating a claim in which evidence turned out to support conservative's claims. I am old enough to remember that, in the 70s and 80s the conservative position was that the USSR and communist movements were much stronger than non-conservatives admitted. It turns out that non-conservatives were totally wrong, because they came to close to agreeing with the claims of conservatives. I have no idea what "soft social conservatism" Douthat has in mind.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Benchmark II

I wrote a post on Benchmarks which got some attention.

I defined a benchmark model as a model which we do not think is a useful approximation to reality but " which we wish to use only by contrasting it with models which we think might be useful approximations to the truth."

I'm not going to read my old post and might repeat things here.

I argued that the choice of benchmark models is not at all innocent and that economists' choice of benchmarks can affect economic outcomes.

My claim is that a chosen benchmark might give the incorrect impression of a consensus, and that non specialists are especially likely to mistake the choice of a benchmark for a scientific discovery.

I will discuss two examples of assumptions made just to benchmark which I think are dangerous. First most macroeconomists have agreed to treat technology as exogenous. I think this particular choice helps explain Paul Romer's extreme irritation with the profession. Second, most macroeconmists have agreed that long run forecasts are best made using a neoclassical model without frictions. This means that the macroeconomic discussion is about the optimal model of convergence to a given long run which is given by assumption and not analysis or evidence. This provoked Roger Farmer to be almost as harsh as Paul Romer (by the way reading that Farmer post is a much better use of your time than reading this post).

First I would like to use these two examples to describe benchmarking, that is to ask why assumptions may become conventional (almost universal) even if they are neither plausible a priori or supported by data.

It is obvious that technological progress is the product of human efforts and doesn't fall out of the sky (like genuinely exogenous meteors). There is a separate sub-field of macroeconomics called growth economomics which attempts to understand and explain the long run. The benchmark model used by business cycle macroeconomists (that is most macroeconomists) is based on the assumption that this literature reached it's epitome, zenith, optimum and telos with the Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans model in the 1960s (see above "irritation" and "Romer").

I think that it is standard to assume exogenous technology and convergence to a unique Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans balanced growth path for three reasons.

1) Business cycle macroeconomists want to focus on the business cycle. There is an agreement to divide the macroeconomic research program into growth theory and the rest of it. People who focus on the rest of it gain the ability to understand each other by agreeing to use the same model of long run growth. They (we ?) agree on Ramsey Cass Koopmans for the sake of discussion of topics other than long run growth.

2) It is almost impossible to model technological progress. If one can Understand how things are invented and predicting what will be invented, one had beter be an inventor than an economist. Here technological progress is exogenous to our models, because we don't think we can model it. So either we give up or treat it as given.

3) It is hard to evaluate models of the long run, because there is a shortage of non-overlapping long runs. The empirical literatures are very different with different data sets, techniques and necessary but not convincing assumptions. The long run evidence must all mostly concern events which occured long ago or far away. Even if economists were convinced that this evidence is relevant to first world macroeconomic policy makers, we wouldn't be able to convince the policy makers.

Now the three explanations of why we benchmark are three arguments for not taking those shared assumptions seriously. They are what we all say about things we don't think about, don't understand and don't observe.

Unfortunately, they are also the questions on which macroeconomists appear to agree. The assumption that technology is given is almost always made. It is almost always assumed that the long run expected values of (properly scaled) variables are unique and not affected by macroeconomic policy. This happens because macroeconomists do not want to talk about the causes of technological progress or the determinants of long run outcomes.

This means that (as stressed by Farmer) that natural rate hypothesis of unemployment is accepted by default. It is also assumed to be valid here in Rome where unemployment has been much higher in the past 4 decades than it was before.

More generally, it is generally assumed that macroeconomic policy can't affect the long run values of real variables. This means that macroeconmists tell politicians than far sighted statesmen will focus only on price stability, because the real variables will take care of themselves. This means that policians who don't trust themselves (or especially each other) will impose that exclusive focus as a rule.

So we have a European Central Bank with a single price stability mandate, and a Stability and "Growth" pact which forbids fiscal stimulus.

I think the effects of these policy choices have been horrible. I also think that at least part of the blame belongs to macroeconomists who wanted to focus on something else and neglected to warn policy makers that their agreements for the sake of argument weren't a scientific consensus.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Hillary Clinton's Tweet About Rape

Hillary Clinton tweeted

Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton

Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. http://hrc.io/SexualAssault

2:09 AM - 23 Nov 2015

This is evidence that human intelligence will be buried because it has created it's own grave digger -- Twitter. I will attempt a close reading of the tweet. I think it is generally miss-interpreted.

The widespread interpretation (sorry no links) is that everyone who claims to be a survivor or sexual assault deserves to be believed. This would be a crazy proposal. Without qualification that means deserves to be believed by police, prosecutors and jurors. This would give each of us the power to send each of us to prison for years whenever we pleased.

But that isn't what Clinton wrote. "survivor" is not the same as "person who claims to be a survivor". Taken literally, Clinton said that people who tell the truth deserve to be believed. This is a truism. It does not imply that it is humanly possible to provide every truth teller with the belief he or she deserves. We may honestly not know that a true claim is true.

Total literalism makes the statement a truism. The widespread intepretation which goes beyond the dictionay definitions of words makes it an insane proposal.

I think the literal interpretation is more plausible. It would make no sense to tweet "Everyone who accurately claims to be a survivor of sexual assault deserves to be believed" since that goes without saying. It would make sense to write "Everyone who accurately claims to be a survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," because the support doesn't automatically and effortlessly follow from the belief.

I actually think that Clinton was presenting a goal knowing it can't be fully achieved. There is no way to believe every accurate claim of assault and disbelieve every inaccurate claim. We cant always know.

Trump's Lies about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's Sexual Misconduct and Alleged Sexual Misconduct

Donald Trump went there (as we all knew he would eventually). After being caught on tape boasting about his sexual assaults, Trump claimed that he was lying (plausible) and that Bill Clinton actually did it (including rape). Together with the 22nd amendment will certainly prevent the re-re-election of Bill Clinton, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the 2016 Presidential election. Trump regularly tries to claim that is accusations against Bill Clinton are relevant, because Hillary Clinton was a very nasty enabler who attached, shamed, humiliated and threatened the women with whom Bill Clinton conducted himself badly.

I have been concerned that reporters have reported that accusation against Hillary Clinton without writing whether it is supported by any evidence. I have also wondered if I missed something back in the 90s when I wasn't such a US political news addict. I have now concluded that Trump's accusations are completely unsupported by any evidence at all. It isn't surprising that Trump would make convenient claims of fact based on zero evidence. It isn't even surprising that journalists report slanderous claims without noting that they are false.

But, before going on, I must stress that I consider this another gross journalistic failure. I think reporters should have a rule that they just don't report accusations without independently chekcing the evidence. I do not think minimal journalistic standards are met when they quote Trump's accusations without any discussion of whether they are supported by any evidence. I am absolutely sure that many people are convinced that it is generally agreed that Hillary Clinton attacked some woman with whom Bill Clinton had sex or whom Bill Clinton harrassed. This is an accusation which I have read many times.

Only in the past day and only by deliberately looking have I found some fact checks. Trump claimed “Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims.”. I know of no case in which he named the women whom he claimed were attacked by Clinton. I assume they are among the set of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Katharine Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. I know of no claims by Trump about the time or content of the alleged attacks, threats etc. I think a challenge for fact checkers is to add enough to the totally vague abstract accusations to make them checkable.

I will try to guess what Trump might have had in mind. Of course I don't really think he had any specific claim in mind, I think he just found it convenient to accuse Hillary Clinton.

1) This seems to be the closest to a hint of some evidence -- yesterday Juanita Broaddrick said that Hillary Clinton threatened her. In the past she has described this alleged threat in some detail

Soon after, Broaddrick says, she ran into Hillary Clinton at a political rally Broaddrick had promised friends she would attend. Hillary shook her hand and thanked her for everything she had done for Bill. To Broaddrick, the gesture felt like a threat to stay silent.

Same link as above (and by the way Jonathan Cohn and Ryan Grim's whole post is well worth reading (unlike this one))

That's it (as far as I know). Hillary Clinton is accused of shaking Juanita Broaddrick's hand and thanking her. Really. As far as I know her claim is the strongest evidence in favor of Trump's accusation. This is absolutely exactly nothing. It sure doesn't fit the standard definitions of "bullied", "attacked", "shamed" or "intimidated."

Other efforts to understand what the hell Donald Trump might have in mind (and what he wants us to believe) were made by Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee working over time at the Washington post quote and check Trump

“Hillary Clinton attacked those same women, attacked them viciously.”

They don't seem to have any firm guess as to what specific claim he would make if pinned down (which he won't be). The phrase "those women" implies at least Broaddrick, Willey, and Jones. However, the only case they even consider is Lewinsky (who has never accused Bill Clinton of assaulting or harassing her).

One of the interviews that Clinton’s critics have pointed to is a Jan. 27, 1998 interview on the Today Show, saying it showed Clinton was discrediting allegations by then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

[skip]

“I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this, they have popped up in other settings,” Clinton told Matt Lauer. “This is the great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

[skip]

at the time of the interview, Lewinsky also denied there had been a relationship. Her lawyer had submitted an affidavit on Jan. 12 from her saying she “never had a sexual relationship with the president.”

so Hillary Clinton allegedly discredited Lewinsky by claiming (incorrectly) that Lewinsky had not committed perjury.

Note that the utterly absurd accusation that "Clinton was discrediting accusations by ... Monica Lewinsky" before Lewinsky made such allegations is still being discussed. It is completely 100% ridiculous, but it seems to be the best "Clinton's critics" can do (I definitely trust Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee to be tough on Clintons).

They link to a full fact check by Michelle Ye Hee Lee here She gives the accusation that Hillary Clinton “savaged their dignity and shamed them,in an advertizement by a pro-Trump PAC three Pinocchios. The only evidence actually related to Hillary Clinton that the add presents is the interview which aired while Lewinsky was still denying having had sex with Bill Clinton. The accusation that by saying Lewinsky told the truth when under oath, Clinton "savaged" her "dignity" is utterly totally absurd.

The rest of the claims are about “The Clinton effort." Note the absense of a first name before the "Clinton." Here the claim is that Hillary Clinton is responsible not only for her husband's actions but also for the actions of his aids and advisors.

The accusations against Hillary Clinton are clearly unsupported by any evidence and utterly contemptible. The more important point is that they are frequently reported without any mention of their groundlessness, which is despicable journalism.