Every Time I Try to Crawl Out, They Pull Me Back in!

You know something?

I hate yelling shows.

No, that is not right:

I HATE YELLING SHOWS!

No, that is still not right:

I HATE YELLING SHOWS!!

Maybe this will do it:

I HATE YELLING SHOWS!!!!

Called on forty minutes' notice, I trot over to the J-School studio to be a talking head on BBC/Newsnight about Fannie and Freddie. I have my talking points ready:

---

The chance that American taxpayers will actually lose any money if Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson decide that Fannie and Freddie need government support is very low:

• The interest payments they have coming in are greater than the interest payments they have going out.
• Their government guarantee is itself a very valuable asset that they have made a lot of money off of in the past and will make more off of in the future.
• They are not even in liquidity trouble--unless they begin to have problems rolling over their discount notes...
• As long as it is generally understood that they are too big to fail, they should not even have liquidity problems--absent a depression that bankrupts many currently-solvent homeowners, that is.

Nevertheless, there is now a risk that Fannie and Freddie will need some form of government support in the next month:

• The situation could require a lot of government-provided liquidity at any moment
• It and might even require more liquidity than the Federal Reserve can provide with its current balance sheet. Either the Fed needs to be given the power to pay interest on reserves immediately--so that it can swap interest-paying reserve deposits for mortgages next week--or this has to become not Fed but Treasury business.

The game the Fed and the Treasury are playing right now is as follows:

• Keep risky asset prices from collapsing...
• So that the flow of savings to finance construction and manufacturing expansion continues...
• So that employment declines in construction and supporting occupations are roughly balanced by employment expansions in export and import-competing manufacturing and supporting occupations...
• So that the economy does not fall into a depression deeper than that of 1982...
• In which case all bets are off

Supporting Fannie and Freddie may be something Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson decide we need to do in order to win this keep-the-economy-near full employment game:

• They are not in the business of rescuing feckless financiers from bankruptcy.
• If their actions do have the consequence of rescuing some feckless financiers from bankruptcy, that is a side effect of their keeping the financial crisis from spilling over and destroying the jobs of millions of Americans.
• To have the government step back in order to teach feckless financiers a lesson is simply not worth destroying the jobs of millions of Americans.
• They are grownups with good judgment and as much experience in this business as anybody.
• They are backstopped by committee chairs--Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--of equally good judgment.

Bernanke and Paulson have asked for additional regulatory authority:

• They should get it.
• Fannie's and Freddie's troubles make it more and more clear that the financial-market deregulation agenda of the late 1990s that Phil Gramm spearheaded was a more serious mistake than almost of any of us realized back at the time...
• There are a bunch of options if push comes to shov:
  • Having the government formally guarantee GSE debt.
  • Having the government provide capital to the GSEs.
  • Having the government guarantee GSE preferred.
  • Putting the GSEs into "conservatorship."
• The moral-hazard worriers in the Treasury will probably favor the last--that option penalizes GSE shareholders in the same way that Bear Stearns and LTCM shareholders and principals were penalized. The cautious will favor the first option, as running the least risk of aggravating uncertainty.

---

In short, I trot over to the J-School TV studio as part of the sober, sensible, bipartisan consensus, intending to carry water for Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson.

And what do I find also on BBC/Newsnight when I get there?

I FIND THAT I AM ON WITH GROVER-FRACKING-NORQUIST!! I FIND THAT I AM ON WITH GROVER-FRACKING-NORQUIST!!! WHO HAS THREE POINTS HE WANTS TO MAKE:

• Barack Obama wants to take your money by raising your taxes and pay it to the Communist Chinese.
• Oil prices are high today and the economy is in a near recession because of Nancy Pelosi: before Nancy Pelosi became speaker economic growth was fine--and she is responsible for high oil prices too.
• Economic growth is stalling because congress has not extended the Bush tax cuts. Congress needs to extend the Bush tax cuts, and if it does then that will fix the economy, and if it doesn't then the economy cannot recover.

I am not paid enough to deal with this lying bullshit. I am not paid enough to deal with Grover Norquist and his willful stream of defecation into the global information pool.

It is as Paul Krugman says somewhere: Grover Norquist's M.O.--George W. Bush's M.O.--the entire Republican Party's M.O. these days is (a) find a problem (i.e., financial crisis and threatening recession), (b) find something you want to do for other reasons unrelated to the problem (i.e., extend the Bush tax cuts), (c) claim without explanation that (b) will solve (a), and so (d) profit--because Peter Cardwell of BBC/Newsnight is too busy being the objective journalist referee of the yelling match to do his proper job and say:

Come, come, Mr. Norquist, are you serious? Your claim to believe that Nancy Pelosi's actions are responsible for the rise in oil prices is risible!

OK. Calm down. Adjust my meds...

Mr. Paulson? Ben? Are you there?

I have been carrying water for the two of you for a year now, as you have tried to do your jobs and contain the ongoing slow-motion financial crisis. Lots of us have been carrying water for you. Now you owe us a favor.

Will you please call John McCain Saturday morning. Call him jointly. Tell him that there is serious public business that needs to be done, and that pseudo-ideologues like Grover Norquist are not helping.

Tell him that unless he can control the swine like Grover Norquist and his ilk who work for him, that both of you are going to, Monday morning:

• announce your support for Barack Obama for president
• announce your change of affiliation from the Republican to the Democratic Party

You owe it. You owe it to me after that TV appearance. You owe it to all of us in the sober, sensible, bipartisan consensus. You owe it to your country. You owe it to the world.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679900/4679986.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1

Comments

[s9]

Good luck collecting on that debt...

[Bloix]

But this is SOP. From "the left" we get a reasonable, moderate, intelligent policy-minded person, from "the right" we get a robotic android noise machine. And on TV, who wins that battle? You were set up. You will always be set up. Your role in life is to be set up.

[Bloix]

But this is SOP. From "the left" we get a reasonable, moderate, intelligent policy-minded person, from "the right" we get a robotic android noise machine. And on TV, who wins that battle? You were set up. You will always be set up. Your role in life is to be set up.

[Bloix]

But this is SOP. From "the left" we get a reasonable, moderate, intelligent policy-minded person, from "the right" we get a robotic android noise machine. And on TV, who wins that battle? You were set up. You will always be set up. Your role in life is to be set up.

[CalDem]

Is Brad listening to Wycleff? that's funny. Is Wycleff generally popular with middle aged economists? we have two of us.

[baileyman]

Uh, Brad,

"There are a bunch of options if push comes to shov:

* Having the government formally guarantee GSE debt.
* Having the government provide capital to the GSEs.
* Having the government guarantee GSE preferred.
* Putting the GSEs into "conservatorship.""

FNM and FRE have two businesses. One is to guaratee mortgages so that they can be traded, providing liquidity to lenders. High public service objective here.

Two is to arbitrage the implied federal guarantee (which shows up in their borrowing costs) through the accumulation of an unrelated investment portfolio, the gains from which can be converted to public market value, and as much of that as possible funneled to management's benefit.

You can add an additional point to your list: guarantee the guarantees, put the US balance sheet behind the agencies' guarantee portfolios. This salutary business can then continue as if nothing happened. But let the rest of it go down. The public will not be the worse for people taking losses on overpriced investments.

Let the debt go to zero. Save the guarantees.

[Maynard Handley]

"To have the government step back in order to teach feckless financiers a lesson is simply not worth destroying the jobs of millions of Americans."

OK. But where's the surtax on the salaries above a certain level of financial professionals? You've already admitted they are feckless.
Fsck, it's not enough that they don't have to pay anything for the services the state provides them (ie the constant stream of real or implied bailouts), they insist on demanding that they get to pay LOWER taxes than the rest of us, most obviously through claiming that their income reflects cap gains. I fail to see how imposing such a surtax will hurt the financial system and all those millions of jobs that we supposedly care so much about.

[jerry]

Have you tried coughing *bullshit* whenever Norquist speaks?

[not feeling very nymous]

You owe it to all of us in the sober, sensible, bipartisan consensus.

Now, who was it who said that another name for bipartisanship was "date rape"? Somebody famous and loathsome, the name's on the tip of my tongue but it's just not coming to me...

[Neil B.]

Norquist doesn't get that raising taxes instead of just putting expenses on debt will actually result in less money going to the communist Chinese? It's the same dilemma thinking about "conservative commentators" - are they really dumb, or malicious, or in a weird ideological bubble that fools even smart people? In any case, the dorky Reasonable media moderators are indeed enabling this madness.

I think the Pelosi and oil bit comes from "opposition to drilling" - but there's already plenty of land open for drilling, and we wonder why oil companies aren't drilling more where they are already allowed to. In any case, it's not a drill or no drill dichotomy. It's often subtle and difficult wondering just where it's worth doing (in various sense of the term) and where not. One thing that may help reduce heating/cooling costs: low-depth "geothermal" power (not the use of way-deep heat to make power, but using the ground from about 8-250 feet as a heat sink.

BTW, watching and listening of course to "The McLaughlin Report" is very fun, and they make the yelling cool. Really.

[Ken Houghton]

not feeling very nymous - It was NOT the Navy, Air Force, or the Marines. Does that help?

BDL - Hank Paulson has a gazillion dollars from raping and pillaging at a major IB and, for the past eight years, has seen his tax bill be significantly lower than his administrative assistant's.

John McCain promises to perpetuate that, while Barack Obama suggests that the spread should become slightly smaller (though still MAJORLY in Paulson's favor).

What Economic Model are you using in which you honestly expect Paulson to work for the good of the country, yet not in his own best interest?

[donna]

Fuck Norgquist. Fuck them all.

They had to seize Indymac. Who the hell is next?

Enough of all this crap -- we need a real economy again already.

[jamzo]

what would cause you to think that you should "carry water" for hank paulson?

[MikeG]

Good on you for staying calm-ish. I certainly feel indebted to your service and logical thinking. Please keep this up in the face of many Norquists.

Watch the clip: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679900?redirect=4679986.stm&news=1&bbram=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1" (starts about 11 minutes in.)

[jerry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlHXT1y4DyA
J Bradford DeLong, Economist, explaining why he carries water for Paulson (and any right minded, free trading, serious orthodox economist.)

If you invest your tuppence
Wisely in the bank
Safe and sound
Soon that tuppence,
Safely invested in the bank,
Will compound

And you'll achieve that sense of conquest
As your affluence expands
In the hands of the directors
Who invest as propriety demands

You see, Michael, you'll be part of
Railways through Africa
Dams across the Nile
Fleets of ocean greyhounds
Majestic, self-amortizing canals
Plantations of ripening tea

All from tuppence, prudently
Fruitfully, frugally invested
In the, to be specific,
In the Dawes, Tomes
Mousely, Grubbs
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!

Now, Michael,
When you deposit tuppence in a bank account
Soon you'll see
That it blooms into credit of a generous amount
Semiannually
And you'll achieve that sense of stature
As your influence expands
To the high financial strata
That established credit now commands

You can purchase first and second trust deeds
Think of the foreclosures!
Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares!
Bankruptcies! Debtor sales!

Opportunities!
All manner of private enterprise!
Shipyards! The mercantile!
Collieries! Tanneries!
Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks!

You see, Michael
Tuppence, patiently, cautiously trustingly invested
In the, to be specific,
In the Dawes, Tomes
Mousely, Grubbs
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!

[Melancholy Korean]

Just remember, Brad, when the revolution comes, the rampaging hoards will go after members of the "sober, sensible, bipartisan consensus," too. Your head will go on the chopping block right next to those of Grover, Phil G, Hank, and Ben. If you don't believe me, check out the comments above.

[Randolph Fritz]

Nah, you know how it works for liberals. They call on us when they've exhausted all their options, we save their asses, and then they throw us away. Why, a little more of this and we might, like, demonstrate or something.

[not feeling very nymous]

Ken: Actually, it was none other than Norquist (see e.g. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist), though I'm sure Dr. Armey echoes the sentiment.

[Unsupported assertions, because this comment section is too small to contain a full historical treatise:] Sober, sensible, well-intentioned people could, in good conscience, see "bipartisanship" as a virtue once upon a time because of a transitory set of circumstances: the strength of the labor movement, and the way the Communist Menace during the earlier part of the Cold War scared the establishment into being on its best behavior, lest its failings be used to make propaganda abroad. The modern GOP is simply a natural result of removing these pressures, and I think by this point we can assume that anyone who is still aligned with it approves of what it has become.

Shorter me: Brad's shrill unholy madness is still too reluctant.

[Model 62]

"...the way the Communist Menace during the earlier part of the Cold War scared the establishment into being on its best behavior, lest its failings be used to make propaganda abroad. The modern GOP is simply a natural result of removing these pressures, and I think by this point we can assume that anyone who is still aligned with it approves of what it has become."

When the Soviet Union collapsed, I recall commenting to Gordon (of that long defunct Pasadena institution called "The Espresso Bar"), that the gloves were coming off.

Gordon said, "And how!"

It's taking longer than expected for the missing gloves to be noticed. Here's hoping it won't be much longer.

[cal]

WHY DIDN'T YOU CALL THE BBC ON IT? WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT HAVING GROVER ON THE SHOW ABOUT A FINANCIAL MELTDOWN IS LIKE HAVING RUDY G. AND NEWT G AND RUSH L. ON A SHOW ABOUT MARITAL FIDELITY.

TAKE THEM ON. MAKE THE SHOW ABOUT WHAT AN A-HOLE GROVER IS. CALL THE BBC ON THE CARPET AND ADMONISH THEM FOR BEING HACKS AND UNPROFESSIONAL. MAKE A SCENE. YOU SURE RANT AND VENT WELL IN PRINT. TAKE THE GUY ON. SAY ON AIR EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE.

[Brian]

Unfortunately, there's little hope of sober economic debate during a US presidential campaign.

[Steve J.]

Well Brad, I have some sympathy for you but it could've been worse. The BBC, as it has done before, could've have an idiot from the Competitive Enterprise Institute on instead of "Bathtub" Norquist.

[devoman]

Here's another example of Norquist's analytical ability. This is his prediction of what would happen if George W. Bush won the 2004 election:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.norquist.html

[John Emerson]

Brad's post assumes that Bernanke and Paulson are rational human beings with some concept of the public good, and not just mercenary economists.

Economic science has proven that the idea of "public good" is delusional and incoherent. It always leads to free-riding, waste, inefficiency, and lagging growth.

That's what economics is for.

[Whammer]

I think cal has the right idea above, despite the shouting. The inclination to be polite serves us poorly when we're confronted with the sheer unholy despicableness of Norquist ane his ilk......

[SanFranciscoJim]

Wow, that Washington Monthly article has to be one of the funniest things I have read all year.

[Movie Guy]

Brad,

One of your better posts in a long time.

I would be happier if a serious third party effort was purused that would break the childish screaming match between the Dems and Repubs.

As political parties go, what we have right now are two parties including rank and file lacking the seriousness and maturity to conduct themselves in a civil manner and still get the job done. The reality is that the national job isn't getting done on a mulititude of fronts. Every day it is like watching a university food fight and if you haven't noticed, parts of the world can no longer afford their meager meals while the two large American political parties and their memberships are busy spitting on the other little kids. All while the world is on fire, pleading for our help and cooperation to save it from a list of potential disasters - most of which as noted by World Bank's Zoellick are, in fact, man-made.

Ben deserves your support and that of others right now. But then you know that.

---

[Knee-jerk, Cherry-picking Cynic]

Grover Norquist is small enough to drown in a bathtub. An oversize bathtub, but still--

[Knee-jerk, Cherry-picking Cynic]

Grover Norquist is small enough to drown in a bathtub. An oversize bathtub, but still--

[Knee-jerk, Cherry-picking Cynic]

Grover Norquist is small enough to drown in a bathtub. An oversize bathtub, but still--

[Dave J]

You were ambushed. You should have declined the interview -- even after trudging all the way over to the J-school studio. It's that simple. You appeared together with a freak; that diminishes you and the points you wanted to make. If every policy-minded person simply refused to debate with the likes of GN, the airwaves would not be filled with right-wing nutcases. The media need to appear balanced. They would be forced to find reasonable people on both sides.

[Ruth]

The scenario is playing out on any and all fronts the McCain campaign can find, that a problem has a formula for solution, a formula that has been proved a failure over the past two WH terms. Drill ANWR, make tax cuts permanent, free trade, all the total failures are going to be drummed into the listening public because those listening have voted in a crew of idiots twice now, so they can't possibly be capable of self-government. The sad truth is, there are probably enough voters incapable of figuring this out for themselves to keep the disaster chugging along in November of 2008.

[pgl]

Ben maybe - but remember that Paulson works for George W. Bush.

[eb]

Would it help from a strategic standpoint to give Norquist's program a simple, memorable, and repeatable name - "Norquism", maybe - and then hammer on about what's wrong with it? (A "Norquism Watch" or something like that?) But of course not just you - others would need to pick it up. Or would that backfire?

(Some quick searches turn up people using the term "Norquism" but not many, and not all in this context.)

[vtcodger]

***but there's already plenty of land open for drilling, and we wonder why oil companies aren't drilling more where they are already allowed to.*** I'm told that the basic problem is that every drilling rig, and experienced crew, and petroleum geologist in North America is booked into the fairly distant future. There's nothing to drill with. Might not be true. But it's plausible. Why aren't the oil companies building more rigs and training more crews, etc? They remember the 1980s and aren't about to do THAT again. Again, might not be true. But it's plausible.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Next time - ask about the panel?

Paulsen represents two constituencies:

1) Wall Street
2) the Chinese economy

So why carry water for him?

[Cranky Observer]

> The game the Fed and the Treasury are playing
> right now is as follows:
>
> * Keep risky asset prices from collapsing...

I will take Professor DeLong's word for it that all those things are true. But could we please start being honest and including in these lists "* ensure that their mega-dollar friends on Wall Street and LaSalle street keep their money, titles, and power" ? Because that is absolutely part of these bailout schemes.

Cranky

[Bupa]

It is not easy remaining sane in an insane world. But, I advise you to keep on trying.

[bailey]

Thank you for calling attention to what I see has been a HUGE problem for the last 20 years - Way too many of our "World Class" prominent Economists have rationalized way too much and carried way too much water. Perhaps we'd all be better off to cut the financial ties & the quid pro Quos

I, for one, would have preferred to see you exhibit this well deserved & understood frustration back at either the Boskin hearings (in support of K. Abraham) or at the Glass-Stegall hearings (in support of instituting single body regulatory oversight over the financial sector Greenspan was in such a hurry to let loose on the world. Is it fair to say at the time you were busy carrying water?

It's not to late to refocus, BDL. How about starting by asking your tenured cohorts to support changing our farsical Gov't. blessed Economic measuring & reporting of inflation to correlate to some (any) population sampling?

[anne]

"Paulsen represents two constituencies:

1) Wall Street
2) the Chinese economy"

Lie on, lie on, lie on.

[Marshall]

Brad, Brad - just refuse to go on if he is there too. Tell the BBC you won't do yelling shows, and stick to it.

[RCH]

A management consultant friend of mine had an interesting theory, he called it the d*ckhead theory of management. Companies used to pay him to meet all the management and his job was to spot all the d*ckheads. According to the theory d*ckheads are naturally attracted to management and too many d*ckheads tends to make the management make bad decisions. So his job after identifying all the d*ckheads was to have them transferred or demoted so they couldn't do any more damage, and then the company would recover until the management became clogged up by d*ckheads again. I kid you not, he told me that was his way of doing management consulting, and he had clients all over the world for it.

Maybe someone like this needs to work with the Republican party and move all these d*ckheads out of positions of influence before they bankrupt the country. Whenever I hear Republicans talk about tax cuts it reminds me of people in the movie Idiocracy talking about Brawndo and electrolytes.

[syn]

The reality I know is that Gorelick got tens of millions off Fanny and Freddie, Dodd and 0! got sweetheart real estate loans and Rangel holds leases to four rent-stablized NYC apartments(only one of the four leases is legal).

Oh, and the corrupt Wallsteet financial bigwigs (some of whom recently received government bailout for screwing the markets) have given twice the amount of campaign donations to O! than McCain.

That said; isn't it rather silly that America is about the only nation on the planet whose own government restricts access to America's natural resources all the while whining about how the citizens need to ride mass transit so that Go Greenie Snobs can drive their SUVs out to pristine South Hamptons or fly each weekend in their private jets to their second, third and fourth homes (or just from the Caliiiiforneeea state capital to Tinsel Town Beverly Hills)?

Now Economists, do tell, when are the Snobs going to be held accountable for their actions?

[Nescio]

I watched BBC Newsnight yesterday night and I was appalled. I simply can't understand why the BBC Newsnight editors invited Grover Norquist to comment on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation. The guy has simply ZERO understanding of economics. The editors really messed up here. Instead of Grover Norquist, they should have invited Irwin Steltzer or Robert Reich (also UC-Berkeley), who both are frequent guests.

[AlanDownunder]

At http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7503109.stm the BBC asks: "Are you affected by the issues in this story? Are you an employee? Have you deposited money with IndyMac? Send us your comments using the form below."

I used the form and posted this:
========================================================================
Am I affected by the result of crazy doctrinaire US deregulation and its catastophic impact on the world economy? Of course.

I recently heard a BBC interview with US Dem John Edwards. The insistent 'devil's advocacy' that echoed fantasyland GOP propaganda - nonsense that should never have been dignified by BBC repetition - was outrageous. Now there's this:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/07/every-time-i-tr.html

Please get real. You owe it to the world not to carry water for maniacs by mindless uncritical 'he said she said' pseudo-balance. Do not, by interviewee selection and 'even-handed' interviewing, equate reasonable learned interviewees with rabid ideologues in the public mind on matters of such critical importance as the danger of world financial collapse and what could be done to avert it.

Please confine your selection of interviewees on serious matters to serious adults. There's enough difference of opinion among them without wheeling in crazies and polluting the discourse. The BBC just intimated to the world that Grover Norquist and Brad DeLong have equal connection with reality. That intimation was a travesty of the truth.

[Paul Mason]

Hey Brad, everyone. I am the reporter on BBC Newsnight whose report preceded your discussion. I will raise the points you make here with my bosses. You should have been told you were discussing with Mr Norqist. We, in general, don't like shouting shows either. I will link your comments to my Newsnight blog.

[ScentOfViolets]

Leaving aside the fact that there is a huge wealth disparity between those in the top 10% and the rest of us, and leaving aside the fact that there are other taxes besides income taxes, the fact remains that those paying 60% of the income taxes are receiving 90% of the benefits doled out by the government. If you have the $80 lunch, and I have the $20 one, and I still have to spot you five dollars to cover your bill, it seems hardly appropriate for you to say that you paid for 80% of 'our' lunch.

[ScentOfViolets]

Leaving aside the fact that there is a huge wealth disparity between those in the top 10% and the rest of us, and leaving aside the fact that there are other taxes besides income taxes, the fact remains that those paying 60% of the income taxes are receiving 90% of the benefits doled out by the government. If you have the $80 lunch, and I have the $20 one, and I still have to spot you five dollars to cover your bill, it seems hardly appropriate for you to say that you paid for 80% of 'our' lunch.

[ScentOfViolets]

Leaving aside the fact that there is a huge wealth disparity between those in the top 10% and the rest of us, and leaving aside the fact that there are other taxes besides income taxes, the fact remains that those paying 60% of the income taxes are receiving 90% of the benefits doled out by the government. If you have the $80 lunch, and I have the $20 one, and I still have to spot you five dollars to cover your bill, it seems hardly appropriate for you to say that you paid for 80% of 'our' lunch.

[ScentOfViolets]

Leaving aside the fact that there is a huge wealth disparity between those in the top 10% and the rest of us, and leaving aside the fact that there are other taxes besides income taxes, the fact remains that those paying 60% of the income taxes are receiving 90% of the benefits doled out by the government. If you have the $80 lunch, and I have the $20 one, and I still have to spot you five dollars to cover your bill, it seems hardly appropriate for you to say that you paid for 80% of 'our' lunch.

[ScentOfViolets]

Leaving aside the fact that there is a huge wealth disparity between those in the top 10% and the rest of us, and leaving aside the fact that there are other taxes besides income taxes, the fact remains that those paying 60% of the income taxes are receiving 90% of the benefits doled out by the government. If you have the $80 lunch, and I have the $20 one, and I still have to spot you five dollars to cover your bill, it seems hardly appropriate for you to say that you paid for 80% of 'our' lunch.

[Scott Wood]

For the record, Carter appointed Volcker in '79. Reagan re-appointed him in '83, and appointed Greenspan in '87.

[s9]

[the answer, I think, is that the thing was put together in half an hour, and changing out of the Obama for president t-shirt, getting the satellite link, dealing with feedback problems, etc. was overwhelming...]

Paul Mason writes: "You should have been told you were discussing with Mr [Norquist]. We, in general, don't like shouting shows either."

If you knew enough about Grover Norquist to consider him a candidate for appearing on a show like this, then you absolutely MUST HAVE KNOWN he is a clown. What good on Earth could you have possibly been thinking to do by inviting Brad DeLong onto your clown show?

Give us one reason not to think that the reason you didn't tell Mr. DeLong that he would be appearing next to Grove Fracking Norquist is that you knew he would refuse if you did.

[sm]

Stop being polite. Don't extend professional courtesy where it's not deserved. I'm not talking about Norquist -- I'm talking about the other water carriers. Say everywhere the kind of things you say here. You have tenure, don't you?

[Oskar Shapley]

It was not that bad. You should be prepared for situations like this.

The proper way to handle guys like Norquist is first point out his *motivation* and then optionally challenge the argument.

You should have pointed out that he's the "cut-taxes" fanatic with a hammer in his hand who sees all problems as nails. That would be enough.

Eventually, you can deal with his argument as if it had some merit.

[Ken Houghton]

not feeling very - I've seen the quote used by GN, but Paul Glastris in The WashMo "credited" it to Armey: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0406.glastris.html

Need I remind that jerry's YouTube link and song is followed immediately by...A Bank Run?

[KingTaco]

The economic parts of the post are sensible, though I'm not sure the blame for the situation lies with '90's deregulation', as the post suggests.

The political rant leaves a lot to be desired, and in all honesty, get over yourself. Most notably, ALL 'brief segment' political shows are 'shouting shows', and have been since time began. Huffing how you were ambushed!!!! is silly, 'talking points' programs are not the home to long, sober discussions, that's why they are 'talking point' shows. Each political side has it's own behavioral patterns, and this post is typical 'Saintly Left, Evil Right' hocus-pocus. The saintly, reasonable Left is always correct, yet sadly too tender and wonderful for it's own good, allowing the evil Right to drown them out. 'Bipartisan' somehow always means 'Republicans who side with Democrats'. Also don't ever complain about dishonest spinning in a post where you state the Chris Dodd has shown 'good judgment'.

[Bloix]

Actually, Cal has it right. You don't talk to Norquist. You don't talk about the questions. You talk to Paulson about Norquist. Every time it's your turn, you say, "now this is exactly what's wrong with news coverage. You are extending valuable air time to a partisan shill with no substantive knowledge. Why do you do it? Why do you fail your audiences so badly?" Then you'll never be invited back and you can go about your business.

[CSTAR]

Off topic, somewhat.

From this morning's WSJ INTELLIGENT INVESTOR column:

"Exactly 10 years ago, the Standard and Poor's 500 stock index was at 1164; it closed Friday at 1239. That's an annualized average return of 0.63%. At that rate it wll take you 111 more years to double your money in the stock market"

Of course Nyquist is a complete idiot and you are entrely right to complain about this nonsensical pairing.

But could you explain why you carry water for Bernanke and Paulson? Why are you carrying water for anybody that defends the current systematic robbery of contributors to the privatized retirement system? Isn't it time you did some YELLING in protest?

[James Smith]

From you first paragraph:
"As long as it is generally understood that they are too big to fail, they should not even have liquidity problems--absent a depression that bankrupts many currently-solvent homeowners, that is."

How will the affect of increased heating oil prices impact the Northeast homeowner this winter?

Is this the final straw?

[John Emerson]

Fuck off and die, King Taco and Syn.

That's the appropriate level of civility for discussions of this type. It leaves something to be desired with regard to persuasiveness and intellectual content, but it defines a solid attitudinal baseline.

[christopher Fay]

do you think we'll make it to november 2008?

[Z]

Well, if you want more TV coverage, you could always snap and bite the other guy's head off. Go into a nice, profanity-laden rant about how their playing politics is destroying America and be sure to question their patriotism in a few good soundbites.

It would get attention, at least :-)

[Movie Guy]

No...

[Neil B.]

Noisewater, the kind of tax figures you and others bandy around showing how much the top bracket pay are highly phony because they focus on standard income taxes. (BTW, I can't find the first post of yours about top 10% paying 60% of taxes IIRC I swore I saw earlier, and wanted to respond to here; what happened to it?) If we take all taxes into account (shouldn't we?), that includes sales taxes which are paid disproportionately by common wage earners, FICA which "you get back" (maybe) but is still a tax, etc., the the proportion of income is very close, around 30% or so total. OK, maybe you didn't know that, since you likely picked it up from the sort of "information" source that is designed to deceive, often with that very task of covering for the plutocracy.

But even that misleading figure just show how much the top bracket sucks up income compared to everyone else. One fallacy in your complaint is a common logical "fallacy" although it's too simple-minded to be fully forgiven as a simple honest mistake. That fallacy is, that in order to encourage something or stimulate it, the more the better. In the past say fifty years or so, our economy did fine lots of the time. People invested and companies grew, but the fraction going to the top was less than now (and than in the Gilded Age, etc.) IOW, they don't need *as much* as they are getting now to consider it worthwhile. Consider for example CEO pay. Do they really need hundreds times more than their average worker to "do a good job"? Why? They used to do fine making proportionately much less. Not only that, their pay is not a true market pricing decision for the following deep but simple logical reason: the people paying them are a committee using the company's earnings to provide the salary. Those board members aren't *using their own* scare money to purchase, in a zero-sum market allocation of money they could use to buy other things instead. Hence, if they decide on $20M/y" it isn't 20M less they have to buy other things with. Who pays? You and me, some combination of the customers, employees, and the shareholders. If you're wondering, why don't the shareholders rebel, well: they have the same problem with "democracy" that nations have: How do you pick the candidates themselves, to keep it from being just another slate of goons put up by powerful elites, forcing a miserable LoTE dilemma.

Another problem is, the rewards for speculating etc. are so high that more and more investors are getting into that sort of thing, not investing in start up and growth of actual productive business. We could change that by getting rid e.g. of the "Enron loophole" that creepy McCain adviser and Enron scandalee Phil Gramm promoted, give a tax break (like initial deduction, not tax break when selling) to initial capital investment but not to mere trading (it does no useful good), etc. BTW, if anything shows that McCain is phony and not really a "straight shooter" etc, it's his association with Gramm. Just search out his background.

As for taxes, I don't think it's like paying for a service and you assume like most conservatarians that the "distribution" part should be taken for granted when we start talking about "re"distribution. First, we could consider it being like "reverse interest" that the government charges for the benefit of using the commonly agreed on money supply. But also there's the original justification of the property/resource claims that private "estate holders" exercise (like, even if I grant Lockean labor-mixing privileges, why should it be taken for granted that the estate holder owns minerals under the surface? For doing what to begin with?) The public granting recognition, ironically through governments, then carries with it the understanding of a quid pro quo of taxation for the common good. (BTW how and ironically, other than by government imposed rules would there be a universal acceptance of property lines if we could independently claim the boundaries we thought we deserved, again not clearly defined what the ancient "first owners" did to deserve them anyway and of course, rarely passed down in peaceful succession.) My favorite argument thought, is the one based on intellectual property rights of civilization itself. Because each person couldn't even have learned language, math, science, etc., without all that the world's civilization did millennia before, each person literally owes their success back to society as a sort of payment for use of intellectual property.

PS: Mention of this thread at WaMo sure seems to have pulled in commenters! That's great, and BTW the commenters there are the cleverest and sharpest (not counting this place of course) around.

tyrannogenius

[KingTaco]

"Fuck off and die, King Taco"

You stay classy now, John Emerson!

Also, I can't believe I showed up in an internet comment section with a fairly even-handed criticism, and got a boorish response! When did this sort of thing start happening? Its just like the article, with Brad Delong showing up to a 'talking points' show and finding, unbelievably, that it was actually a partisan barking session.

A less-than-intellectual 'talking points' program and rudeness on the internet, two terrible firsts apparently. This only happened because I'm so smart, fair, and nice, and my opponents are evil charlatans! Oh cruel world.

[RW]

"I read a book once on fiat inflation during the period of the french revolution and the same kinds of shennangans (sic) were pulled. There was political pressure to allow things that were considered financially irresponsible at the time, there were even people screaming that it was wrong and had been done before and caused trouble. Same as now. As they say, nothing new under the sun."

"As they say" of course means Ecclesiastes, a wise man who's points are difficult to contend, but assuming you are recalling this book on 'fiat inflation' during the French Revolution correctly then you should realize it is not very good history and probably a rather a long way from "Same as now:" Inflation in the old cost-push sense was absolutely crushing French workers _before_ the revolution and by 1789 the average wage-earner was spending 88% of his income to feed his family; the harvest failure of that same year became a tipping event that pushed the country over the brink into chaos but France had already been experiencing a series of economic/financial crises for several decades before 1989 caused primarily by ill-considered wars, royal mismanagement and increased govt. indebtedness....

...hmmmm, come to think of it that does indeed sound somewhat familiar, but it had nothing to do with 'fiat' unless one means to imply by that that the outcome could have been different if different choices had been made.

In any case assuming the conclusion in an argument is rarely valid and the final collapse of the Franc during the revolution probably had less to do with monetary exigencies than it had to do with attempting to feed those suffering from malnutrition while also fighting to prevent the return of the nobility whose relentless economic rent-seeking had caused them to suffer.

[Neil B.]

Another reason why taxation should not be treated as like a voluntary purchase of a "service": When libertarians said to me, "Taxation is theft"! I would reply, "Then so is rent!" Government and property are both claims of control made by different sorts of entities. Neither can really get the why and the justification off the ground (for particular places, even if the overall concept can be), and both are "fascist" in that sense. Whether on "someone's ranch" or in "some peoples' country", I am told there's someone/s who rule that plot of land and can make rules for me, ask me for money or I must leave or be punished, etc. (And BTW, it makes more sense to say "The French" in effect "own" the land they have occupied for centuries, with that sort of continuity and presence, than somebody "owns" a little plot of land that I have no clue to the origination of rights to. "It makes more sense", not a mere preference of mine.) Hence, the people through their government decide to charge "rent" for staying in the nation and using its currency, the use of the intellectual property of basic function I mentioned earlier, protection, etc. I will grant the destructiveness of enormous tax rates, like 70%, but there is no reason the charge should be a fixed amount as if buying a product.

BTW, even private sellers could charge more for the same product to those they thought could pay more. Our custom of having a single price just listed on goods and services is just that. It isn't a logical or even moral necessity, and truly free sellers could indeed, and many would, ask some people to pay more than others and see if they could get away with it.

tyrannogenius

[Neil B.]

King taco, you have my sympathies. I like the great intellectual debates here and at e.g. Washington Monthly, but there is just too much indulgence in foul talk. Many have bought into the cheesy idea that because this is "the Internet", somehow the tenor and sort of language need not stay bounded by the old decency traditions of say, letters (and articles) in Time magazine or the NYT. I think it should have stayed clean, except for occasional outbursts for "effect" (more effectual precisely because not the usual thing!) Sadly, Brad enables that to some extent by using some spicy language himself, but that isn't the same or as bad as saying such things to other commenters.

[Walt]

King Taco, you are an idiot, not unlike Grover Norquist. The man knows nothing about nothing. These are serious times: the worst-case scenario here is that the entire US mortgage market will seize up (I have trouble believing I'm even typing those words). If Grover was in charge, we'd probably end up with Communist Revolution. Of course, since the BBC is foreign, what do they care? But for us Americans, we have better things to do than listen to Grover's desperate attempts to remain relevant.

[dweb]

When McCain can line up 300 economists who he claims support his contention that he can balance the federal budget in four years (oops, make that eight years) by ending the war in Iraq in four years (oops maybe make that eight years...no let's try ten....oh hell 100) cutting taxes, wiping out earmarks and giving more money to defense, then your chances of actually debating with someone who actually understands the economy and can argue about it from a true intellectual standpoint, even with a conservative perspective, is just a few microns short of absolute zero. All they have on the bench are the Grover Norquists.

Every contention Grover has ever made about how GOP policies would create the next paradise on earth are in the crapper and yet the BBC calls him up....not because he really believes it himself but because he is "controversial," and that is what they want...not expertise...controversy!!

[John F.]

I feel your pain. However, why not address up front the most serious rejoinder to your talking points, namely that the slippery slope towards nationalization of our mortgage industry is just a small step away?

[AllenM]

I remember when Brad used to whack on me and imply I should be consigned to the loony bin for some of my predictions. Um, dollar drop, housing crisis.
Check.

But arguing with Grover frickin Norquist?

Brad, you should have just started laughing. That would have driven him around the bend.

There is no logical response to a useful idiot.

Good luck with the next administration, I suggest you start reading Rex Tugwell's account of the first 100 days again with an eye towards expedient and necessary emergency powers.

At this rate *somebody's* got to do it.

And soon.

[jerry]

To KingTaco, to Brad DeLong, and to the usually wonderful John Emerson, a Time article and a FARK Thread about that article just for you (and us all.)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1821646,00.html

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3730895

Personally, I like FARK's comment style. Sheer rude chaos, diverse opinions, and out of it often comes surprising insights, witty commentary, and an appreciation for free speech for all. It's a food fight that often turns into the best of seminars. Plus, there's foobies (and weeners).

[jerry]

The comments are the best parts of teh Intart00bs. It's the only place to find the Cranky Observer near as I can tell....

[malabar]

Thanks Brad and all you "bipartisan consensus" including Bob Rubin, Easy Al, Hankie Pankie Paulson and Bennie and the Jets - that gave us repeal of Glass Steagall, NAFTA and unprecedented leveraged speculation including Enron, SPVs, SIVs, CDOs - all in the name of the goodness called "free market capitalism", "global trade", "deregulation" and "risk adjusted capital".

No one needed to have a big name PhD or cavort in the Manhattan and DC cocktail circuit to know that the "bipartisan consensus" of the corporate and political luminaries who made billions of dollars of bonuses on fraudulent financial performance would make even the reddest communists blush as you scream for already raped and pillaged middle class Americans back stop your yachts, Gulfstreams and Hamptons homes. And if we don't provide bailouts to billionaires the financial system will collapse? Yeah right! Is anyone calling for the seizure of those ill-gotten gains? Nooo!

How about some grand jury investigations of what Bob Rubin, Easy Al, Helicopter Ben, and the supposed regulators at the Fed, SEC, OTS, OFHEO, FDIC as well as all those billionaire CEOs at FNM, FRE, LEH, BSC, GS, C, LEH, WB, DSL, FED, WM, CFC, etc knew and when during the speculative bubble from 1998 on? And while we are at it lets also look into the nexus between Wall Street and the politicians that have been happy to allow the pigs to gorge at the taxpayer trough.

The "bipartisan consensus" is all about privatization of profits and socialization of losses. We've all seen this movie many a times before. Thanks for carrying water for the country club boys. Bill Clinton did that and look what it got him - impeachment but with $100 million in the bank now - I'm sure he's back in the good graces.

[MattY]

The monetary independence that Ben wants is going to be partly share with foreign monetary authorities. It would be a welcome devolution of power from congress.

[John Emerson]

Really?

"Fuck off and die" isn't classy?

I was misinformed. I'm so embarrassed.

The Time Magazine letters page is an ideal model of rational discourse? I shall go there for instruction forthwith.

And you get over your own self, King Taco, you whiny but "fairly even-handed" bastard.

[Robert Waldmann]

Brad I am very impressed that you can't escape from appearing on TV (hey you never even owned a TV). I might add I first saw you on TV on "It's Academic" (very impressive). I am very very impressed with the quality of your notes with 40 minutes warning.

Did you have any warning that you were on with Norquist ? did you have your max with wifi ?

Now If I were on TV with Norquist and he misbehaved I would have done the following

1) Mr Norquist, you clearly have no understanding of macro-economics. Why don't you stick to what your good at like laundering money for Jack Abramoff (I don't mean committing the felony of money laundering. I have no proof you did that. Just using ordinary English in the ordinary way)

And

2) Did your friend the indicted Islamic Jihad member Sami Al-Arian tell you that ? Oh and why did you arrange a photo op for then Governer Bush and that suspected Islamic terrorist ?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Sami+Al-Arian++indicted&btnG=Google+Search

and

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/11/news_pf/Floridian/Friends_in_high_place.shtml

way less than 5 minutes with google.

YOu don't have to threaten Bernanke and Paulson. He can be made radioactive with a google.

[Flyover Country observer]

These denizens of Rome-on-the-Potomac, Babylon-on-the-Hudson, and Sodom-on-the-Bay sure know how to shovel the billingsgate at each other as their world crumbles around their ears. When they show up shopping for provisions in the hinterlands, they better come with hard money in their purse, because their Federal Reserve Notes, AAA rated ABS bonds, and bearer bonds won't cut it as acceptable tender, nor their Euros, Yen, Yuan, or other fiat currency notes. We already have enough TP to last a lifetime.

[christopher Fay]

The scales were balanced by Norquist and Delong. Delong holds up Paulson as a reasonable competent administrator.

Fat chance, Why isn't he the courtier of Wall St and the Chinese? He's in China figuratively every weekend. And Bernanke, one academic calling another academic competent. The classroom was left long ago. What did he do in his first year as Fed hed? And in 2007 when the American insolvency crisis heated up he spent the year saying it was contained.

If we want to talk about reality based economics what about Roubini's idea to let the risk takers handle the blow; the plan can be let the debt holders first feel the pain.

[sk]

The thing is - you are a water carrier for the system as a whole - you'll lie and lie and lie again to the vox pop to keep this Ponzi scheme going. Raising your opponent's insanity does not demonstrate your sanity nor your attachment to the truth.

You deserve all you get - 'cos you play the game.

Me - I go short - until its financially incorrect to do so.

-K

[Damian Cano]

So how come the guys who run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are paid so much? If they are the lender of last resort, chartered by the gov., shouldn't they be civil servants on a GSA pay schedule (or at least their pay be closely commensurate? Isn't it the case that nobody has to sell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, borrowers come to them? And didn't the head of Fannie Mae make obscene bonuses based on "performance:" performance that was manufactured from doctored books? Why isn't he in jail? Who gave him a pass?

[RCH]

I read an interesting book recently on what causes banking crises. The author had a surprising answer to the problem. Apparently nearly every time the problems have been caused by some brilliant young people who find a new way to game the system, often hurting the company who hires them as much as the economy. His solution was to watch all the new up and comers and what they are doing, and catch them before they do so much damage. Of course companies like Lehman and Bear Sterns should have been doing this, but they have been caught before and owe their problems more to their own employees than their management. People will always find a loophole in regulations and too much regulation to stop this damages the economy as well. So his solution was to look more carefully at whatever is new and making lots of money, and assume the worst.

[Neil B.]

But RCH, the employers look the other way precisely because they know the amoral young rakes will rake in the cash with their scams, and "our" governments will pile the bailout on the taxpayers instead (usually) of punishing the guilty.

[Charles]

Maybe I missed something.

Where is the line in which Brad DeLong says, "I don't do monkey shows" and walks out of the studio?

You know, Brad, it's time for academics to start acting like leaders. Asking John McCain to rein in Grover Norquist is about as realistic as... well, it's ridiculous.

[mere mortal]

Dr. DeLong, your obligation in this matter was to tell the BBC's audience, via the interviewer, that their program had no interest in being informative (evidenced by their decision to invite Grover Norquist) and that the producers of the program clearly held their audience in contempt.

You should have told them that they were engaging in journalistic malpractice.

And you could have taken that opportunity to wonder why, oh why don't they have a better press corps, even in Jolly Old.

[jerry]

"Where is the line in which Brad DeLong says, "I don't do monkey shows" and walks out of the studio?

You know, Brad, it's time for academics to start acting like leaders. Asking John McCain to rein in Grover Norquist is about as realistic as... well, it's ridiculous."

That's a very good point. Especially since you are chair of an economics major, you do have a role as leader. I have long been critical, even in the comments at this blog, of the Deans of the J-Schools for failing to lead and to speak out against FOX Journalism and Murdoch Journalism and the WAPO and MSNBC and any of our craptacular Journalismic villagers.

[Joyful Alternative]

Neil B., we're getting a geothermal heat pump installed in our "new" house. Sure would be nice if there were some sort of subsidy for the $18,000 cost.

[PickledShark]

At least it was the BBC, any viewer watching with a semblecnce of intelligence should wonder what the hell expiring capital gains tax cuts in 3 years have to do with GSE balance sheets. You did a good job of calling Chuckles on his clown show, if only they queued up the Benny Hill music and muted his mic it'd have been perfect.

[Chad]

Brad, you kicked his ass. Being willing to go on there and tell people they are flat out wrong and can then back it up, that's what America needs. Why can't we get it on US television versus from BBC on the internet? Before if you decide that you are above doing it, then we definitely won't get it.

If smart people are going to sit idle by and not make the arguments, then the Grover Norquist's of the world are going to be free to do as they please.

[Neil B.]

Brian Macker, you (I've gotten used to this) just don't get the concept.
First, I didn't use the idea that nations were like a property owned by the people as a whole "to justify vile conquests and occupations of the French." I was validating their collective "ownership" of their own ancestral lands (going back thousands of years mostly, being much more legitimate than Americans' occupation of other people's lands during the past few hundred years! That wasn't "vile"? - why not? Is it for racial reasons, the morally protectionist chauvinism of your own culture (I don't know where you're from)? It always used to crack me up when Ayn Rand used various sophistry to blow off complaints that aboriginal Americans had their land taken by settlers and ironically the settlers' government.) By definition then, "conquest" and "occupations" wouldn't be validated by a peoples' dominion over lands that reasonably are "theirs." (That of course does not have to correspond to "recognized national boundaries", and often doesn't. What then?)

Your statement "In some cases, rent is not even rent, as with the Irish tenant farmer system. Rent cannot honestly be called rent unless the person renting has a legal avenue to own. Otherwise it's just serfdom." shows both lack of understanding of my point as well as (presumably, unintentionally) bemusing irony. Ummm, where does this "legal avenue to own" come from anyway, especially "in the first place"? My whole point was to critique the taking for granted that property claims are "real" and government claims aren't. You can't just reiterate the attitudes and framings that are being criticized, you have to defend them. The existence of conventions in language don't prove material points either, and that varies from culture and language anyway. I say, a "legitimate" government acting under the consent of the people (not just any government) has real privileges akin to what property owners claim, why not? Libertarians can't just announce that "owners" do and governments don't, that is a case that need to be *made* (and likely, can't be without contradiction for reasons I already explained, also google for my legendary thread "The Foundational Problem of Libertarian Theory" and at http colon//groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/browse_frm/thread/49121d5f9ac7b1b8/15a2f83ac620cabc?lnk=st&q=fundamental+problem+of+libertarian+theory#15a2f83ac620cabc)

Did you note the irony in your saying, "legal avenue to own"? Where the heck do you think "legal avenues" come from, and who decides and how do they decide? It's the government. Why shouldn't we consider the domination of property owners to be "serfdom" - why the Hell should I have to accept their unlimited authority? At least I can vote the "landlords" in government out if I don't like them, why can't I vote out property owners if I don't want them telling me what to do? And simply appealing to custom or the fallacy of semantic conventions doesn't prove a damn thing.

I often throw this at libertarians: What if the US government had "kept" the Louisiana Purchase? (which "we" bought from the French, who stole it from the Indians - now *there's* a case of "vile conquests and occupations of the French.") What if it didn't parcel it out to property squatters/claimants, then I suppose the whole damn thing would just "belong to the government"? - then why not say, the government never really fully relinquishes control over any land at all in its borders?

Like so many, you think I "just don't understand" your philosophy in ignorance. No, instead I understand it and the background issues only too well.

tyrannogenius ♪♪♪

[RW]

Neil B./tyrannogenius: You have more patience than I (or a greater fondness for twitting); the narrow funnel through which libertarian/Austrian devotees attempt to force the entire world is not particularly interesting either as an ideal or as an adequate explanation for major societal change and when it is argued arrogantly and tendentiously what little interest it might stimulate simply vanishes entirely (OTOH David Hackett Fischer's account of inflation in his book, "The Great Wave," is genuinely thought provoking).

This is perhaps the steep slope DeLong knew he faced when he realized he had been paired with Norquist: There was not only no possibility of changing an opponents mind there was no possibility that the same topic could be discussed; everything would be reduced to endless and ultimately static 'framing' -- even Sisyphus would have to shake his head at the task since he at least may have experienced some relief at being able to move the rock before it punished him by returning to its previous place.

That aside the irony of self-declared lovers of liberty arguing in favor of radical title as an inalienable right does not escape those who are aware of its roots in the allodium of all land under the Crown and Church; e.g., English common law fully supported British Royalty's God-granted claim on all N. American lands until the sun went out.

But the problem of demonstrating title origin recalls to mind that amusing riff on a Louisiana 'land grab' that used to make a law or toastmaster text here and there before gravitating to the Internet (Snopes gives several versions including this rather short one at http://tinyurl.com/y6b35u but w/ the spelling of the state corrected):

A Louisiana attorney, hired by a New York firm to trace the abstract of a deed, went back to 1803, the year Louisiana was purchased from France. Then the firm wrote the lawyer that he would have to trace the ownership of the land further back than that. In due time he did so, reporting by letter as follows:

"Dear Sirs: I traced your deed back to 1803. Here it is complete. As you probably know, Louisiana was purchased from France in 1803; France had acquired Louisiana from the Spanish as the result of a successful war against the Spaniards. The Spaniards acquired Louisiana as the result of the explorations of an Italian named Columbus. Columbus was financially backed by Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain. They were given permission for Columbus's expedition by the Pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ. Christ is the Son of God. God made Louisiana!"

[Minnesota Mom]

Why were you called to do the interview 40 minutes before the show? How many other "name brand" economists had they called before they got down to you on the list, and by the time they got to you they realized they had to "hide the pig"? So they didn't tell you and you didn't ask.

Next time inquire as to who'll be representing the opposing viewpoint. If you are ambushed simply answer the first question this way, "I didn't know you'd be setting me up by putting an extremist on the other side of this debate. This interview is over for me."

Stop feeding the idiots in the media.

[Robert Waldmann]

Motivated by Aaron (whose comments seem to have disappeared) I watched the video. Brad you were awesome (no need to bring in Abramoff and Al-Arian although it would have been fun). In particular your blog post does not make clear that you got the line that Norquist is foloowing the entire Republican Party's M.O. these days [which is] is (a) find a problem etc. out on the air albeit the UK air. Since Norquist made no effort to link his demand for the extension of tax cuts to the stated issue (the FMs) it should be obvious to any viewer of normal intelligence that he was doing exactly what you claimed he was doing.

It is worth noting that although you use the word "shout" neither you nor he shouted. It is also worth noting, for those who trusted and didn't verify by clicking the link, that Norquist did not pretend to stick to the topic. He argued against doing anything for the FMs on hard core pro-market lines with populism sauce. You argued that that would lead to a loss of confidence in the financial markets and cause a severe *epression (I don't think you earned the letter d). He changed the subject, partly because he always wants to advocate tax cuts but mostly because he knows that he can't debate you on the stated topic.

I think you are irritated with yourself for not getting the Nancy Pelosi and the price of oil line out, but you pushed hard against very strict time limits.

My only remaining penultimate suggestion is that, in a replay on US TV, on the last question you should just said "no ... Stalin ... Mao" and then gone back to attacking Norquist. For the UK, you were perfect. You came off as knowledgeable and serious and concerned about economic confidence.

You were also wise not to mention the other standard supply sider M.O. which is to decide when policy shifts occurred based on the business cycle. The best example until the video clip was someone's claim recently that the Clinton boom was due to a tax cut (in 1997). Norquist's claim that it happened on November 2006 surpasses that. It is totally standard. For example, I believe they claim that the key to the surprising end to the longest Post wwII period of employment decline was Bush's third tax cut forgetting the first two. Now talking about the bogosity of searching for break points is way above the heads of TV audiences even BBC audiences, so better not mentioned.

My final suggestion is to say "Oh I didn't know that I would get a chance to talk to Mr Norquist. So Mr Norquist, did anyone from Karl Rove's office ever contact you to find out whether an individual, firm or other organization had given money to one of your organizations ?" I read on the we somewhere that, when a businessman called the Bush White House asking to meet someone, Ralston would say that she is getting back to him then contact Norquist to ask if the individual or his firm had given the standard sufficient amount of money to "GOPs black bag for almost open bribery" or whatever it's officially called. The call the person back andand only if Grover's answer was yes, arrange a meeting. I'd guess he'd dodge the question and would say "I notice that Mr Norquist didn't answer my question so I assume that the rumors I heard that his true role in Washington is to serve as a cutout for borderline legal bribes are accurate."

Then the complaint to the BBC is that they are treating a cog in a criminal machine as a legitimate contributor to debate. The case that Norquist should not be welcome in polite non-criminal society is very strong. It is not based on the dishonest M.O. which you effectively denounced.

[mint_tea]

ROFLLMAO. Oh man, your facial expressions at the idiocy propounded by Norquist were *priceless*. You were really great though.

I just remember your rant about the futility of engaging in a panel discussion with a bunch of clowns, and I can't stop laughing.

[a]

"As long as it is generally understood that they are too big to fail, they should not even have liquidity problems--absent a depression that bankrupts many currently-solvent homeowners, that is."

So I guess Brad is saying that a depression ("worse than 1982"?) is low probability? I ask, How low?

IMHO it seems that the powers that be (and this includes mainstream economists, who are applauding this kind of bail-out) are simply playing double or nothing with ever higher stakes, just because they have nothing to lose by doing so. But we as Americans will lose out at their incredible risk-taking, as what would only have been a severe recession turns into a depression *far* worse than 1982.

[bartkid]

Brad,
In future, if you submit yourself to such similar torture, please calmly, after Mr. Nordquist's talking points litany, use the words so eloquenty used by Special Counsel Joseph Welch:
"You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

[macheath]

Long ago, before he was alleged BBC material, I found myself on a cable show with Grover to debate flat taxes. I had my little talking points already (including my favorite Adam Smith--the real one--quotes in favor of the rich paying more), but Grover proceeded to yell and lie about how the IRS was criminally conspiring to steal people's money. Exactly the same M.O. Brad describes here. Grover is vermin, and the only sad mystery is why he would ever get called to discuss a real issue. Answer? All of these shows want the yelling--they are all sliding downhill in a vain pursuit of ratings and attention.

[Sheldon]

"....and that pseudo-ideologues like Grover Norquist are not helping."

What's that supposed to mean. Seems like he is the real deal as far as ideologues are concerned. Nothing psuedo about it.