The Thursday night before the 2000 election I gave a talk at St. Mary's College, trying to present the Bush and Gore points of view as fairly as I could...
The Thursday night before the 2000 election I gave a talk at St. Mary's College, trying to present the Bush and Gore points of view as fairly as I could...
Q: Have BREXIT and Trump increased the probability of a breakup of the eurozone?
That Britain voted for BREXIT, even under the false pretense of an extra 350 million pounds a week for the health service, is a strong indication that the tide of globalization and integration is not irresistible. That Americans... well, Americans did not vote for Trump--they voted for Clinton. That the quirks of the electoral college have made Trump president-elect is a strong indication that the tide of globalization and integration is not irresistible.
I must take exception to something said earlier today by the very sharp Neville Morley:
Neville Morley: When It Changed: "Unless you do assume that one strand of historical development...
...changes in productivity, or technology, or ideology--is determinative of all the others, then there’s no particular reason to assume that everything will change according to the same chronological pattern...
I think he has gone wrong here. In the past--even in the first half of the nineteenth century--the assumption that there was one principal engine driving the belts and powering the orreries of history was just that: an assumption, and a simplifying and probably badly chosen assumption.
But for the past hundred and fifty years things have been different.
In the "long" twentieth century the pace of economic transformation has been so great as to force nearly every other aspect of history to respond according to the same chronological pattern.
Ah. I see that you have found the first draft of my opening lecture for Econ 115 next semester... https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/804205835543019520 https://t.co/lK82RVQudb
I think whether it is more useful to do the tell of 20th century economic history as the "short" 1914-1989 (as Hobsbswm does) or the "long" 1870-2012 (as I want to) rests on two analytical judgments:
The Kelly Risk Criterion: The intelligent and thoughtful Felix Salmon makes a subtle and interesting error--an error that I would make on at least a monthly basis, had Robert Waldmann not patiently explained all this to me in the winter of 1986.
He discusses Kelly risk analysis. Pushing leverage beyond the Kelly point does not decrease expected return. Rather, it decreases the likelihood of organizational survival, and the chance that you will be wealthy.
If you are acting as one of many agents for a well-diversified principal, you will in general want to ignore the Kelly point and leverage yourself up to the gills.
If your objective is, instead, to maximize your own chances of remaining in the game with boasting rights, you will position yourself at the Kelly point.
Project Syndicate: Missing the Economic Big Picture: BERKELEY – I recently heard former World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy paraphrasing a classic Buddhist proverb, wherein China’s Sixth Buddhist Patriarch Huineng tells the nun Wu Jincang: “When the philosopher points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.” Lamy added that, “Market capitalism is the moon. Globalization is the finger.” With anti-globalization sentiment now on the rise throughout the West, this has been quite a year for finger-watching... Read MOAR at Project Syndicate
Understanding Trump: Even the Good Scenario Is Bad: Q: Are we in Europe misunderstanding Trump?
A: The non-legislative powers of the president are extremely large. Thus the risks of disaster-from-incompetence are quite high--even leaving to one side the chance of a Berlusconi bunga-bunga governance kleptocratic orgy...
Some people do have a more positive view of Reagan than I do. But when I look at Reagan I see:
Democracy Must Be Irresponsible: So Responsible Governance Must Be Undemocratic
When is responsible democratic governance possible? Our classical predecessors would have given a simple answer: never.
Let us suppose that we had been transported to some other branch of the multiverse, along which the Federal Reserve had not held interest rates at zero but had steadily and gradually raised them for the past six years them so that the Federal Funds rate now stood at 400 basis points. What does the economy look like along our branch and along that branch?
Note to Self: Was it Mary Beard who said that, much as she loved to read Tacitus and Suetonius, it was implausible that all the good emperors were those who died in their beds and were followed by their chosen successors no matter how many senators they had killed or poets they had exiled, while all the bad emperors were those who had been assassinated? Were no good emperors ever assassinated? Did no bad emperors ever die in their beds? Thus she tends toward structural rather than accident- or personality-based history...
Hoisted from the Archives: 470 years ago, in 1543, King Henry VIII Tudor of England married his sixth and last wife, Katherine Parr. He also:
A busy king, for one so sick and mad.
There are, broadly speaking, three kinds of American patriotism. There is Kentucky, which is the standard ethno-linguistic nationalism of soil and blood (think: age of Andrew Jackson). There is Virginia, which is a peculiar form of libertarianism-of-adoption: "we" have come here so that nobody else can boss "us" or those we adopt to become "us" around (think: Thomas Jefferson). And there is New England, which is the utopian nationalism of election: those who elect to come here and help "us" to build utopia are "us", and are very welcome as long as they commit to building the City Upon a Hill.
To no one's surprise, I like the third kind. And here is its root, in John Winthrop's Arabella Sermon:
John Winthrop: From "A Model of Christian Charity": "We are entered into covenant with Him for this work...
Since 2009 the Federal Reserve and other global north central banks have, first hesitantly and enthusiastically, been trying to sacrifice the health of the commercial banking sector in order to keep the life support machines that are keeping the rest of the economy alive going.
In the United States 24% of nonfarm workers were manufacturing workers in 1971.
It's 8.6% today.
Maybe it would be 9% if NAFTA has not been negotiated and if China had not joined the WTO, but maybe it would still be 8.6%--analysts disagree on trade expansion vs. trade diversion here.
When I was working in the Treasury in 1993-5, I was struck by how much it was the case that President Bill Clinton was still the ex-Governor of Arkansas. Thus arguments that would have been powerful and important when directed at a Governor of Arkansas still resonated in his mind. Moreover, it seemed to me that they resonated much more strongly than they perhaps should have, given that he was now not Governor of Arkansas but President of the United States, if they were evaluated purely on technocratic grounds.
A cleaned-up transcript of my part of this Bank-Fund Meeting cycle's panel on "Fiscal Policy in the New Normal":
Moderator: Vitor Gaspar. Panelists: Mitsuhiro Furusawa, Brad DeLong, Bill Morneau, Ludger Schuknecht, Arvind Subramanian
J. Bradford DeLong :: U.C. Berkeley, NBER, and WCEG :: November 17, 2016 :: PIIE
We are highly unlikely to have any—not for the next two years, and probably not for the next four years. Thus the talk I had prepared and the powerpoint I had drawn up two weeks ago are now totally irrelevant.
Let me distinguish between:
Supervulgar Trumpism: Donald Trump will return manufacturing employment to 24% of the nonfarm labor force.
Vulgar Trumpism: Donald Trump will renegotiate NAFTA and China's accession to the WTO. We will not get all or even most of the manufacturing jobs back, but the industries and the communities will be healthy.
Semi-intelligent Trumpism: The U.S. ought to be a high savings capital and manufactures exporting country, like Germany and Japan. Bad macro and trade policies--the Reagan and Bush 43 deficits, keeping the strong dollar policy long past its sell-by date, prioritizing finance over manufacturing--accelerated the decline of manufacturing employment well beyond its proper technology driven pace and eroded our valuable communities of engineering practice.
Should we expect 2017 to be different than 2016 as far as global economic growth is concerned?
As Gian-Maria Milesi-Ferreti said yesterday, it surely ought to be better because it will be unlikely to be as bad as 2016 was for Russia, Nigeria, South Africa, and Brazil. The anti-productivity shock of BREXIT will not have hit the world economy yet, and Mark Carney and company have managed to drop the pound enough that Britain looks likely to see expenditure-switching rather than expenditure-dropping as people readjust their plans as they wonder what the end of the BREXIT imbroglio will be.
Ken Rogoff: "In nine years, nobody will be talking about 'secular stagnation'. I've been debating Larry on this for a year, and I started saying 'in ten years..., and so for consistency I now say 'in nine years...".
This is a wager that the full-employment long-run in which money and its associates are a veil that does not affect or disturb the Say's Law operation of the economy will come not more than 18 years after the shock of 2017--or at least that whatever remnants of the effects of that shock on the business cycle come 2025 will be dwarfed the effects of other business cycle shocks subsequent to now.
I do know from experience that one disagrees with Ken Rogoff at one's grave intellectual peril. But is he correct here? I really cannot follow him to the conclusion he wants me to reach...
Things to reread and chew over:
Whether Thomas Jefferson's vision of the future of America was coherent was unclear then and remains unclear now.
Jefferson, like most of his founding-father contemporaries, was steeped in one version of classical history: Roman history as a morality play. Jefferson and many, many of his revolutionary peers assumed that yeoman farmers--Cincinnati--were the only possible social class that could maintain a free republic. They all believed that Rome was a great, free Republic because of its fiercely-independent farmers who nevertheless loved their city and would--like Cincinnatus--drop their ploughs and instantly take up their swords to defend (and conquer), and then return to their ploughs after the war was over.
November 14, 2016 at 11:34 PM in Economics: Growth, Economics: History, History, Moral Responsibility, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (Wednesday) Economic History, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (31)
Fiscal expansion now is really a no-brainer:
What's the downside?
Stephen Cohen and J. Bradford DeLong (2016): Concrete Economics: The Hamilton Approach to Economic Policy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press) http://amzn.to/2fJnSEe | Keynote
As of now, an estimated 2.2 million vote edge for Hillary Clinton...
And that's without adding in the effects of 2nd Jim Crow voter suppression...
The big stories of last Tuesday are two:
Big Story: Hillary Rodham Clinton won the vote--more Americans chose her for their leader than chose Donald Trump.
Big Story: The electoral college failed to do its proper democratic job for the sixth time in 58 elections--and a 10.6% failure rate is much too high.
Anybody who does not focus on those two big stories is not being your friend.
Well, that was a very interesting election night...
Our failure in 2000 to introduce into the running code (as opposed to the specification document) of our constitution that electors switch votes so that the national popular vote winner wins the electoral college cost us dear in 2000, and may cost us even more today...
You may ask: How is one to judge what to do in such times? The answer is clear: As one has ever judged. Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and another among Men. It is a human's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house. What would have been good policy yesterday would still be good policy today. What would have been bad policy yesterday would still be bad policy today. So we play our position.
I therefore set forth seven principles that should govern good technocratic fiscal policies that promise to enhance America's societal well-being :
Well, that was an interesting election night...
Back in 2000 we had a chance to establish the principle in the running code of our constitution (as opposed to the specifications document) that electors switch so that the winner of the national popular vote becomes president. In fact, back in late October 2000 I was pushing that: I argued that if Al Gore won the electoral college but not the popular vote, he should direct his electors to vote for George W. Bush because the long run stakes at risk were too high for it to be wise to do otherwise.
We did not do that in 2000--to our great cost then, and perhaps to our greater cost now.
Must-Read: Why I reacted badly to journalists who asked me to analyze Trump's economic plans. The first, last, and only correct thing to say was that there never was any coherent plan. To say anything else was to try to normalize the unnormalizable. Everyone who wrote as if there was a plan should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Here Alan Cole gets it... less wrong than most. He is still trying to normalize the unnormalizable. But he is honest about how difficult it was for him to attempt the task:
Alan Cole: _On Twitter: "This is my 407th (and, I expect, final) day covering Donald Trump's tax proposals for @taxfoundation...
...Here's what we've learned:
Three excellent pieces on how the media has failed us--and failed us worse this election cycle than ever before: Brian Buetler, Todd Gitlin, Jurek Martin.
By the way, I disagree with Buetler in one important dimension. When Brian says "there is no shortage of journalists and outlets in this industry with a lot to be proud of...", he is lying. There is a great shortage. That is why Brian needs to come up with a list--a shortlist--of journalists and outlets to whitelist:
Brian Buetler: [Shame on Us, the American Media]: "There is no shortage of journalists and outlets in this industry with a lot to be proud of...
In 2000 Supreme Court Justices William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas decided the presidential election by casting their five votes in a lawless exercise that they then forbade ever being used as a precedent. In this election Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Joseph Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas are once again casting votes--enough, it looks like right now, to give North Carolina to Donald Trump:
Michael DeLong: The Attack on Voting Rights:
In 2013, by a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a couple of key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Section 5 of the Act required certain state and local governments to get federal approval before they could implement any changes to their voting laws, and Section 4(b) contained the formula that determined which areas had to get approval. The formula was based on the areas’ past records of discrimination in voting.
I'm going to call this debate--from six and four years ago--for me. I do think I was right then. But even were I to concede that I was not right then about what "economics" was in its essence, I believe I can convincingly make the case that I am correct now:
November 07, 2016 at 01:11 PM in Economics: History, History, Long Form, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (BiWeekly) Honest Broker, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (3)
Sam Wang: Is 99% a Reasonable Probability?: "Three sets of data point in the same direction:
- The state poll-based Meta-Margin is Clinton +2.6%.
- National polls give a median of Clinton +3.0 +/- 0.9% (10 polls with a start date of November 1st or later).
- Early voting patterns approximately match 2012, a year when the popular vote was Obama +3.9%.
Based on this evidence, if Hillary Clinton does not win on Tuesday it will be a giant surprise.
This is the kind of story that I remember Nate Silver and his http://fivethirtyeight.com doing right over and over again in 2012 and 2008. Take the model--a very useful poll-aggregating model, even with what I regard as its unhelpful Bayesian frame--and use it as a springboard for a really smart, really high quality moderately-deep dive into some aspect of the situation that can be illuminated by the data.
Paul Ryan had a choice: he could have shaped his future political career as the sensible Republican Speaker who had moderated Democratic policy initiatives and made Washington work. Or he could have shaped his future career as another raving loony nutcase who strove to the last to try to make Donald Trump President, get caught between the millstones of the Teabaggers to his right and deserting moderate ex-Republicans and the demographics to his left, and be ground to dust.
Paul Ryan has chosen:
Paul Ryan: The Choice Facing America: "Hillary Clinton... has offered no new ideas...
Let us dispel with the fiction that today's Republican Party, with a primary-voting base that can nominate a Trump, and an establishment of office holders, donors, and apparatchiks that can fall in line behind him, is not an existential threat to America:
Brendan Nyhan: @BrendanNyhan: "Trump's pivot wasn't to the center...
...but to a new divide in American politics that would fundamentally change the party system if Republicans adopt it. Reminder: Not a word of this is conservative. Trying to shift axis of conflict to cosmopolitanism vs. race-inflected version of nationalism:
It is, once again, time for me to think about Ken Rogoff's hypothesis: his claim that right now the world economy as a whole is depressed because we are in the down phase of a debt supercycle--dealing with a debt overhang.
I have never been able to make enough sense of Rogoff's perspective here to find it convincing.
I should, however, warn people that when I fail to see the point of something that Ken Rogoff has written, the odds are only one in four that I am right. The odds are three in four that he is right, and I have missed something important:
The divide between Democrats and Republicans in the United States in 2016 is best conceptualized as a divide between those who think that an America in which black, brown, yellow, red, etc. people vote is great, and a place in which they have a great deal to gain; and those who think that an America in which black, brown, yellow, red, etc. people vote is no longer great, and is a place in which they have something--maybe not a great deal if they do not have much, but something--to lose.
Let me start with the very sharp Francis Wilkinson's argument that the ressentiment driving the Republican Party today is not class-based--is not the result of the economic disappointments and difficulties suffered by the white working class over the past generation--but rather extends all the way up the income ladder:
Matthew Yglesias: @mattyglesias: "I think one driver of different views on the "economic anxiety" meme is how much of this stuff you get on a daily basis:
October 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM in Economics: History, History, Long Form, Moral Responsibility, Obama Administration, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (BiWeekly) Honest Broker, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Across the Wide Missouri, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (12)
October 29, 2016 at 05:30 AM in Economics: History, Economics: Inequality, Economics: Macro, History, Long Form, Moral Responsibility, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (BiWeekly) Honest Broker, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (9)
I have long thought somebody should go through and annotate the 2012 Mitt Romney: Full Transcript of the 47% Secret Video. So I will now do it. XXXI pieces, from soup to nuts, below the fold:
October 28, 2016 at 01:02 PM in Economics: Growth, Economics: Inequality, Economics: Macro, Long Form, Moral Responsibility, Obama Administration, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Strategy, Streams: (BiWeekly) Honest Broker, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Across the Wide Missouri, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (1)
The most interesting thing is how certain Mitt Romney was--and, if we can trust Mitt Romney, John Whitehead was. He was certain that the U.S. was on a path to rapidly become "Greece". Why? First, Romney says, because President Obama "would not talk about reforming Social Security or Medicare."
If you try to make sense of what Romney is saying, it is:
October 28, 2016 at 10:47 AM in Economics: Finance, Economics: Macro, Long Form, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (BiWeekly) Honest Broker, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Across the Wide Missouri, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (2)
The roots of growth: Brad DeLong examines a study that places the origins of the Industrial Revolution in fifteenth-century Europe.
A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy
Joel Mokyr Princeton University Press: 2016.
What is modern economic growth? Going by the best available measure (it might be more honest to say 'guess'), today's average material living standards and economic productivity levels are some 20 times what they were in the agricultural era (about 6000 BC to AD 1500). And the efficiency with which humanity uses technology and organization to transform resources into useful commodities is currently growing at 2% per year — perhaps 100 times the rate common before the Industrial Revolution... Read MOAR at Nature
Mitt Romney and "Those People": Reading Ta-Nehisi Coates Weblogging: Ta-Nehisi Coates:
No One Left To Race-Bait To: Dave Weigel points out the difference between the covert racism of a young cagey Pat Buchanan in the days of the Southern strategy, and overt racism of the pariah Pat Buchanan banished to Fox News…. Calling the first black president a "drug dealer of welfare" is… Buchanan deploying symbolism. The problem is that the world has changed, and this is precisely the kind of rhetoric that would end a presidential candidacy today.
October 27, 2016 at 07:32 AM in Economics: History, Economics: Inequality, History, Moral Responsibility, Obama Administration, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Across the Wide Missouri, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (0)
I have long thought somebody should go through and annotate the 2012 Mitt Romney: Full Transcript of the 47% Secret Video. So I will now do it.
Part XVII: 47%!:
And now we come to the famous--and revelatory--47% passage. The number "47%" seems to play a very strong role inside Romney's brain. It is, respectively:
What appears to have happened to Romney is that three briefings, each of which referenced 47%, each of which he only half-understood, have collided inside his brain and formed themselves into a Monstrous Regiment named "47%" that threatens America.
The first briefing, I presume, was about the partisan polarization of America's electorate these days. People told Romney that the Democratic base was solid. 1984 was the last time that a Democratic presidential candidate wound up with less than 46% of the two-party vote. Romney has absorbed this briefing. Thus he is focused on rallying the base and winning the middle. He has been told not to go after the Democratic base and he has internalized it:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him.... My job is not to worry about those people...
The phrase that is supposed to follow here is "in the context of this campaign: I won't win their votes". And then Romney is supposed to follow that with: "But, of course, I will be President of the United States of America. As President, I will care deeply about them and strive to help them learn to live better lives..."
The problem is that Romney feels that he has to explain why the Democratic base comprises of 47% of the electorate. And so he reaches into his brain for another briefing about the 47%:
These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years...
Now we all know that, of the 47% who "pay no income tax", 10%-points of them are elderly and retired: they are more likely to be in the Republican base than in the Democratic base. We all know that 28%-points of them are paying payroll taxes, but because they are not making much money their notional income tax burden is covered by their EITC: a message of cutting payroll taxes would connect, but that's not what Romney means by "our message of low taxes".
But Romney has been badly briefed. His brain jumps from what was supposed to be an argument that the 47% did not benefit directly from the principal Republican policy proposal of cutting the top-bracket tax break to a belief that the 47% pay no taxes to a belief that they are moochers and takers. And then he is off and running with his description of the Monstrous Regiment of the 47%, the people who are...
...with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...
And so he washes his hands of them: social scum, unworthy of his time and attention, unreachable:
My job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives...
What was supposed to be a riff about how the electorate is polarized, the race will be close, and he is focused on putting his effort where it will do the most good to win the votes he can realistically win--that riff has turned into something else, something ugly, something very revealing about Mitt Romney and his view of the world.
October 27, 2016 at 07:20 AM in Economics: Growth, Economics: Inequality, Moral Responsibility, Obama Administration, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Across the Wide Missouri, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (1)
Michael M. DeLong and James Bradford DeLong
Beating America's Health-Insurance Monopolists: The Need for Competition--and the Need for a Recognition of the Need for Competition
With the coming of the Affordable Care Act to the United States, the importance of effective and successful antitrust enforcement in health insurance greatly increased. As Berkeley economics professor Aaron Edlin puts it, the competitor "I'm just not going to buy this" is always there, and is a competitor that no firm can either collude with or buy. But the Affordable Care Act requires that individuals purchase health insurance. It thus creates for a monopolist a vertical demand curve--meaning that the monopoly profits that can be earned through a monopoly or shared through collusion are enormous, and the consequent harm to consumer well-being is enormous as well.
And so in 2015 the insurance companies Anthem and Cigna and Aetna and Humana decided, both sets, to try to see what they could do: Could they merge? Could they reduce the number of private national health insurers from five to three, with consequent increases in market power and rents extracted?
I have long thought somebody should go through and annotate the 2012 Mitt Romney: Full Transcript of the 47% Secret Video. So I will now do it.
Part VIII: Asking for Advice/National Bankruptcy:
Here it is very clear: Mitt Romney has been listening to the wrong economists. It is not clear whether John Whitehead actually said any of the things Mitt Romney attributes to him. It is clear that--no matter who is theoretically signed up as Romney's economic advisors--nobody who actually understands what a liquidity trap is at all had been let in to brief him on the Federal Reserve, on why it was doing what it was doing, on the sources of demand for Treasury debt, or on the difference between the short-run fiscal situation (in which austerity was unhelpful) and the long-run (in which intertemporal budget balance is essential) in a time of secularly low interest rates.
The wall of the fact-free bubble was very thick indeed in the Republican Party in 2012. And it has only grown thicker since:
Romney: With that introduction, I'm going to turn to you for counsel, advice, or questions. Policy questions. Wanna talk about tax policy? Or political questions? How I win? Please.
October 25, 2016 at 04:56 AM in Economics: Macro, Moral Responsibility, Obama Administration, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Across the Wide Missouri, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (0)
The appearance of "Niall Ferguson" in my inbox stream as the posts from October 2012 flow across reminds me that I have a very serious point here that has not gotten sufficient attention.
To some degree this is my fault:
So let me try again. It is, I think, an important story.
It involves more than just a (flawed and failed) attempt by Niall Ferguson to feed tainted red bigotry meat to a California audience he did not understand.
It also involves bad-faith intellectual debate and intellectual history from von Hayek and Schumpeter, who thought it a good use of their time to misrepresent and slander a recently-dead man who was a greater economist than either of them could ever hope to be.
And it involves Gertrude Himmelfarb. I am not sure whether Gertrude Himmelfarb was simply misled here by trusting Schumpeter and his History of Economic Analysis as an authority on technical economic areas that she could not follow, or whether she is also a bad intellectual historian actor here. She certainly cuts off Keynes's "Puritan fallacy" quote at a very suspicious place if it is the first...
October 24, 2016 at 02:46 PM in Economics: History, Economics: Macro, History, Long Form, Moral Responsibility, Philosophy: Moral, Political Economy, Politics, Streams: (BiWeekly) Honest Broker, Streams: (Tuesday) Hoisted from Archives, Streams: Across the Wide Missouri, Streams: Cycle, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink | Comments (5)
Dylan Byers @DylanByers: Honest Q: People are aware that RCP poll aggregate also predicted 49 of 50 states in 2008 & also missed Indiana, right?
Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight: .@DylanByers: We have a lot of readers because we use data to cut through the drivel that you obsess over. Not because we make predictions.
BGrueskin @BGrueskin: It's hardly a fair fight when @fivethirtyeight takes on @DylanByers
J. Bradford DeLong @delong: @DylanByers Honest Q: Are you really unaware that RCP's Obama up by 2.4% in Ohio right now is the same reality as Silver's 75% Obama chance?
Dylan Byers @DylanByers: @delong that was exactly my point, brad
J. Bradford DeLong @delong: @DylanByers that not your point. Your point was coffee-drinking NPR types would be shocked to learn that many think Silver highly overrated
"I now know it is a rising, not a setting, sun" --Benjamin Franklin, 1787