Good morning.
- Memory eternal … and film.
- A prayer.
- A punchlist for those being laid off.
- Considering man and the primate.
- Did you notice?
- Pakistan … quoth Richard, “It has nuclear weapons, corruption, poverty, extremism, a terrible financial situation, a government that’s just come in that’s not very strong, and it is in a location that is absolutely essential in terms of dealing with Afghanistan.” Read on.
- Uhm … OK. Not my cup of tea.
- Christ the King … which means next week is Advent in the West … how soon we forget, the East started “Advent”, i.e., the Nativity fast, two weeks ago.
- Sex and violence?
- Some things for which thanks are given.
- The history of a (bad?) idea.
- Mr Obama proposes returning to the New Deal … after all it worked poorly the first time, right?
- Mr Holder and Mr Rich … still awaiting an apologetic from the left I guess.
- Neglect for St. Basil the Great?
- Heh, a smart-alec saint … or quoting Homer can get you killed.
- A book and a conversion.
- Crafty recycling.
- A homily on change.
- Duh.
Mr Obama proposes returning to the New Deal … after all it worked poorly the first time, right?
No, it worked well. See Krugman explaining it to George Will.
JA,
I think Krugman has exhausted his credibility … but that raises an interesting point. How do non-credibility-exhausted economists view the New Deal?
I think Krugman has exhausted his credibility
How so?
How do non-credibility-exhausted economists view the New Deal?
I don’t know, who do you consider non-credibility-exhausted?
JA,
A first place to look:
I’ll look further.
JA,
I should note that that article did express notions to the contrary, i.e., that the New Deal did help the recovery.
The New Deal included the NRA which was basically a screwed up attempt to limit competition and directly manage markets. (Big companies would divide the market between each other, price competition would be discouraged so wages wouldn’t have to be cut etc.) It was horrible economics and had already nearly died by the time the SC found it unconstitutional. When historians debate the New Deal they probably include both deficit spending & schemes like the NRA.
I notice Mark made a positive assertion, that Krugman has no credibility. This is somewhat remarkable given that he has just been awarded the Nobel Prize but ok, even Prize winners can be wrong. But when asked to back up his assertion by JA, Mark provides us with nothing. He gives us a BS survey that says economists think the New Deal might have lengthened or deepend the Great Depression but he can’t tell us why, he can’t tell us whether the New Dealish policies Krugman advocates are the ones those economists think made the Depression worse or were the ‘provisos’ that the economists thought were good aspects of the ND.
In the meanwhile, it appears all aspects of Bush economics have been refuted. As far as the stock market is concerned, we are back to 1997 or earlier. GDP isn’t going to be much better and the # of jobs in the economy are likewise far behind. After the world blows up we hear that one of the most notable critics of Bush is the one with no credibility!
Boonton,
I’d observe that Krugman’s Nobel was awarded for work he did, I think in the 70s. I say, he now has no credibility because he (and his reputation) is now as just the partisan hack.
And I said I’d look into it further so back off about not getting into details. Geesh.
As for “Bush economics” and “being refuted”, there’s this book you should look into, The Black Swan … you may have heard of it.
As I said you’ve presented no evidence that he has no credibility and actually can’t even explain why he has no credibility. And why does being a partisan make one uncredible? This seems to be the Bill Kristal idea where everything that happens in the political process is ‘normal’ and if you are strongly objecting to something it’s because your unhinged or because you’re inexplicable partisan.
Perhaps he was highly partisan against Bush because Bush was an exceptionally bad President. Perhaps your inability to see that this is a very reasonable position that has only been reinforced by recent events is a mark of your partisanship and unhinged status?
Mark,
According to your excerpt from the wikipedia article, a majority of economists think the New Deal helped the economy. Is your point just that some (“a substantial minority”) disagree? If so, ok. I just think the majority is correct on this one.
As for Krugman, being partisan doesn’t make one a hack. He’s been right about everything since the crisis started. (Before the crisis, he was correct about the housing bubble, but didn’t realize how much it would affect the rest of the economy.) Republican economics really don’t work, Krugman’s and the Democrats’ since Clinton’s economics really do.
If Krugman were a partisan hack, he’d be against free trade. But he’s not, because he’s a legit economist.
Boonton,
Being a partisan means one has one more variable outside of the material to filter out. If I’m trying to understand something I’m not going to go first to a person who is grinding a particular axe on a regular consistent basis.
Perhaps I should see what Friedman, Hayek and Mises had to offer on the New Deal. How would that strike you? They also all have Nobel prizes I believe.
JA,
Why? (that is why do you think the majority is right on this one)
What do you mean “right on everything since the crises started?”
If Clintonesque economics “really” work why was the last time the economic indicators faltered badly was at the tail end of Clinton’s term?
Democrats are against free trade in princple!?
And please, point to me the flaws in Mises and Hayek work if they are so obvious.
Feel free to consult them as well. Keep in mind they too are known as partisans!
Boonton,
They shilled for a political party? Can you indicate anything that demonstrates, say, Hayak (or even the more unlikely candidate) Mises as a political partisan?
Why? (that is why do you think the majority is right on this one)
Just look at unemployment and GDP during the New Deal. The numbers speak for themselves.
What do you mean “right on everything since the crises started?”
I was thinking mostly of his (and most other non-right-wing economists’, as far as I can tell) original insistence that we get equity in the bailout. Paulsen eventually came around to this idea, but only after a couple of weeks. Krugman was also right about Lehman, and Paulsen was wrong.
If Clintonesque economics “really” work why was the last time the economic indicators faltered badly was at the tail end of Clinton’s term?
I’m not saying “Clintonesque” economics are perfect — I mean he kept Greenspan on, famously — just that they are better than the Republican alternatives.
Democrats are against free trade in princple!?
There’s a strong protectionist movement on the left as well as the right. See Edwards, John.
And please, point to me the flaws in Mises and Hayek work if they are so obvious.
I’m not an economist, I just can’t find any measure at all under which the economy does better under Republicans than Democrats. Specifically, I think Democrats can and do change their minds when the data change, while Republicans steadfastly hold to some heuristics (trickle-down economics) that not only don’t work now, but have never worked.
JA,
Your numbers on “recovery and GDP” need the counterpart numbers of recovery in the absence of the New Deal which we of course do not have.
You blame the recession starting at the tail of ’99 on Greenspan?
Huh? So what? I’ve been looking for a non-ideologically located view of the New Deal. How is economic performance and party related to that question?
Mises and Hayek are not known really in any way I think as “Republican” economists. If anything Libertarians (and free market people) turn to their work, but neither of them I think can be claimed as partisan in any way. On Friedman … I’m less certain in that manner, but that’s largely because I’m less familiar with his work.
Your numbers on “recovery and GDP” need the counterpart numbers of recovery in the absence of the New Deal which we of course do not have.
We do not have the luxury of double-blind studies in economics, unfortunately. What we do have is history which shows that the New Deal was correlated with economic recovery. I think the burden of proof is on those who argue the New Deal did not help.
You blame the recession starting at the tail of ‘99 on Greenspan?
Economists say the recession started in 2001. You were probably confused by the Bushies trying to pin it on Clinton. It may be that Clinton should have done more to prevent the tech bubble from happening or bursting so quickly, but that’s really tangential. The main point is that income growth does much, much better under Democrats and that Republicans are ideologically opposed to things that make sense (regulation, progressive taxation, public works spending in times of need, etc.)
They shilled for a political party?
You can only be a partisan for a political party? Regardless if this is your claim you can’t claim it for Krugman. He was highly critical of Bush but he has also been highly critical of protectionists, esp. Democratic ones (and Ross Perotism). What evidence do you have that Krugman shilled for a political party?