The NYT Gives Track Records on the Oil Spill, Why Not on the Housing Bubble?
|
|
|
Thursday, 05 August 2010 04:16 |
|
In a discussion of the impact of the BP oil spill, the NYT qualified the estimates of the size of the spill from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by telling readers that: "NOAA is the same agency that devised the early, now-discredited estimate that the well was leaking only 5,000 barrels a day, one reason some people distrust the new report."
This is useful information for readers, since the fact that the agency had previously been off by a factor of ten in its earlier estimate of the size of the spill might suggest something about its competence and/or its integrity. This is relevant to the credibility that should be assigned to new estimates from the agency.
In the same vein, it would be appropriate to report on the failure of individual economists or organizations, like Harvard's Joint Center on Housing, to notice the $8 trillion housing bubble, when discussing the current views on the housing market and the economy.
(Only one link allowed per comment)
 |
For the oil spill, there's one universal understanding of how it mechanically happened, but for the housing bubble there's at least ten competing explanations believed by the public that will linger forever.
That's why many who benefitted from the bubble are still benefitting in the wake of its bust and why Baker is still like a lone wolf economist among a few others who predicted the bubble, now trying to remind the public how we got here.
Credibility matters least when large numbers of unaccountable "experts" who wildly miss predictions from incompetence or willful ignorance, nevertheless retain sufficient power to maintain their occupational position. At worst they just move sideways into an obscure position or retire with full benefits.