There are two questions that must be answered in the process of figuring out weather having the government borrow money and spend is a good idea:
What is the money being used for?
How expensive is the money to borrow?
Back in the Reagan-Bush I years--the steep run-up in the debt-to-annual GDP ratio in the 1980s and the first third of the 1990s:
The money was used to rapidly build up the U.S. military to counter the Soviet Union's overwhelming might--an overwhelming might that existed only in the fantasies of the neoconservatives who ran the "Team B" exercise initiated at the CIA by George H.W. Bush.
The money was used for tax cuts for the rich in the hope that increasingly incentivizing entrepreneurship would accelerate economic growth above the pace of the 1970s--a vain hope indeed.
The real interest rate at which the U.S. government could borrow was relatively high--between 3.5%/year and 8.5%/year, and averaging 5.5%/year in the 1980s. Plus there was the fear that as the debt-to-annual-GDP ratio rose further without any strategy for ultimately amortizing the debt, the real interest rate would rise higher. Plus there was the fear that the real interest paid on the debt understated the cost to the taxpayer of carrying it because a high debt would create expectations that inflation would rise--expectations that would require unemployment semi-permanently above the NAIRU to avoid another inflationary spiral.
...thanks to the disastrous consequences of his deep tax cuts, the Wall Street Journal has published an apologia for Brownback.... You know you’re in for a real doozy when Allysia Finley, a member of the Journal’s editorial board and the piece’s author, begins by comparing Brownback’s tax cuts with the 19th-century struggle against slavery. “During the 1850s,” Finley writes “Kansas turned into a battleground for a proxy war between abolitionists and slavery supporters. Today, Kansas has become the flash point in another national debate, this one over government’s role in promoting growth.” Well then. Unlike Brownback, whose theory is that his policies will soon start working )any day now!) but the liberal media is determined to create the impression that they’ve already failed, Finley assures us that Kansas’ tax cuts are working right now...
9 million people living in the Confederacy: 5 million white, 4 million Black.
1.2 million adult white males in the Confederacy. 900,000 served. 75,000 died in battle. 75,000 died of wounds and infections. 150,000 died of disease in camp. 200,000 maimed. 200,000 deserted. 200,000 still with the Stars and Bars at the end.
21 million people living in states that remained loyal to the Union. 2.3 million served--1.9 million white, 400,000 Black (including Blacks from the Confederate states). 90,000 died in battle. 90,000 died of wounds and infections. 180,000 died of disease in camp. 200,000 maimed.
Mobilizing for a total industrial war is a b*tch when (a) your rich have been investing by buying slaves rather than building factories, and (b) nearly half of your population is more likely than not to turn any guns they get against you...
Missouri sent about 140,000 men to the Union, and about 60,000 to the Confederacy...
Thursday, October 23, 2014
1:00 - 2: 30 p.m. ET
Economic Policy Institute
1333 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Note that these are the cities themselves--what lies within the municipal boundaries--not the metropolitan areas:
...published in American Political Science Review and written by MIT political scientists Chris Tausanovitch and Christopher Warshaw. (via Bruce Sterling):
....For sixty years, he was one of my closest friends. My debt to him, both personal and professional, is beyond measure. Despite deep sadness at his death, I cannot recall him without a smile rising to my lips. He was as quick of wit as of mind. His wit always had a point, and was never mean or nasty — though some of the objects of his wit no doubt felt its sting. His occasional humorous articles — such as “The History of Truth in Teaching” — have become classics and demonstrate that had he chosen to become a professional humorist rather than a professional economist, he would have achieved no less fame in the one field than he did in the other. His death has left the world a far less joyful place for Rose and me, as for so many others.
...is compatible with values rooted in our nation's history, among them the high value Americans have traditionally placed on equality of opportunity.... To the extent that opportunity itself is enhanced by access to economic resources, inequality of outcomes can exacerbate inequality of opportunity, thereby perpetuating a trend of increasing inequality.... Society faces difficult questions of how best to fairly and justly promote equal opportunity. My purpose today is not to provide answers to these contentious questions, but rather to provide a factual basis for further discussion.... I will review trends... then identify and discuss four sources of economic opportunity in America.... The first two are widely recognized as important sources of opportunity: resources available for children and affordable higher education. The second two may come as more of a surprise: business ownership and inheritances.... In focusing on these four building blocks, I do not mean to suggest that they account for all economic opportunity, but I do believe they are all significant sources of opportunity for individuals and their families to improve their economic circumstances...
Over at Equitable Growth: Jonathan Chait has an interesting piece on the thought on healthcare policy of the likely future senator from Iowa, Joni Ernst:
...have failed. And yet conservative opposition... has not diminished. If you want to know why this is, listen to... Joni Ernst....
We’re looking at Obamacare right now. Once we start with those benefits in January, how are we going to get people off of those? READ MOAR
Daniel Davies: The World Is Squared--Episode 3: The Greek Calends--A Disquisition on the Nature of Debt: "What is debt?...
...It’s a promise to pay back a specific amount of money at a specific time. Why is it so popular--why do people always seem to end up getting into it? Why, for example, don’t people make more equity investments, buying a share of someone else’s profits and sharing their risks in the way in which Islamic banking is meant to operate?
Over at Equitable Growth: I think Mohamed El-Erian makes two analytical errors:
He argues that a faster American recovery requires that the private sector "decouple even more from Washington" and undertake "longer-term investments... [to] unleash underused resources and expand longer-term potential... [at the] scale and scope... need[ed] to validate the current level of excessive risk-taking by financial markets lest that, in itself, becomes a consequential headwind to economic growth and stability..." This morning's earnings yield is 5.1%. This morning's 5-year TIPS yield is 0.1%. That five percentage-point spread does not suggest a financial market in which demand for risky assets has outrun supply and pushed risky-asset valuations to levels that are inviting a crash and subsequent financial crisis triggered by the potential bankruptcy of institutions with normal equity cushions. And are there an unusually large number of institutions right now with normal or subnormal equity cushions whose business model is to sell unhedged out-of-the-money puts on a large scale, pocket their winnings until the strategy goes bust, and then declare bankruptcy and walk away? I'm watching. I don't see any concentration of such institutions...
El-Erian assumes that Washington can do nothing. That is not true. Washington may do nothing--it probably well do nothing. But it could do a lot. FHFA head Mel Watt has the power to offer every homeowner in America a refi at conforming-loan rates with an equity-option kicker attached to mortgages that do not have the 20% equity cushion or exceed appropriate conforming-loan limits. Federal Reserve head Janet Yellen has the power to do a Paul Volcker and undertake a regime change to the Federal Reserve's operating procedures and so alter the expected and actual future path of nominal GDP. Either or both of those could powerfully jumpstart the economy over the next two years. The FHFA and Federal Reserve regime change options should be on the table. El-Erian should not overlook them...
Mohamed El-Erian: US midterm elections offer limited prospect for economic change: "The main question is not whether the midterms will change the gridlock in Washington...
...that undermines economic growth, accentuates inequalities, and holds back prosperity; it is whether companies and individuals can decouple even more forcefully from yet another 'do-little' Congress.... There is little chance of change in the polarisation and dysfunction paralysing Congress.... The fiscal stance would not be altered to provide for higher and better balanced aggregate demand; supply responsiveness would not be enhanced by stepped-up investments in infrastructure, education, labour market strengthening and other areas that improve productivity; medium-term operational uncertainty would not be reduced by greater clarity on corporate tax reform; and damaging debt overhangs would not be lifted.... For stock markets to continue to prosper, the private sector would have to decouple even more from Washington.... It would require much bigger emphasis on longer-term investments in areas that, notwithstanding the continued shortfalls in Congress, unleash underused resources and expand longer-term potential. And the scale and scope would need to validate the current level of excessive risk-taking by financial markets lest that, in itself, becomes a consequential headwind to economic growth and stability...
Needless to say, he has good reason:
Paul Krugman Plays Ming the Merciless: Gross Gone: "I don’t know anything about what’s been going on internally at Pimco...
I just read the same stories as everyone else. I have, however, written a lot about Pimco’s macroeconomic analysis (which drove its bond-investment decisions). The interesting thing is the Pimco was initially a bond bull, based on the correct understanding that deficits don’t crowd out lending when the economy is in a liquidity trap; but it then went off the rails, with Bill Gross insisting that rates would spike when the Fed ended QE2. I tried to explain why this was wrong, and got a lot of flak from people insisting that the great Gross knew more than any ivory-tower academic. But I knew what I was talking about!
The University of California Press has put out a new edition of Charles Kindleberger's World in Depression early next year.
J Bradford DeLong and Barry J. Eichengreen: New preface to Charles Kindleberger,* The World in Depression 1929-1939*:
The parallels between Europe in the 1930s and Europe today are stark, striking, and increasingly frightening. We see unemployment, youth unemployment especially, soaring to unprecedented heights. Financial instability and distress are widespread. There is growing political support for extremist parties of the far left and right.
Lives lost from Ebola to date are tiny, even in West Africa, compared to HIV, TB, and malaria. Ebola still not (yet) the biggest public health problem in West Africa.
Yes, the epidemic will spread to more countries.
Ebola will not become the biggest public health problem in West Africa unless deaths reach the high seven figures--which they may: it is highly likely that deaths in the six figures are now baked in the cake.
Unless the virus changes dramatically, we are almost surely safe. If you want to worry, worry that influenza or something already airborne will become more deadly, not that Ebola will become airborne.
Those at risk from the Ebola virus are overwhelmingly (a) those who love them and (b) those medical professionals who treat them--you get it from direct fluid contact with symptomatic patients. Thus risks here in the United States are very low. It is scary, but unlikely to be a serious problem here.
Why, then, are risks high in West Africa? The major problem with control is that there is no functioning health system in most of sub-Saharan Africa. Not only are resources poor, but they are uncoordinated. What we really need is a helicopter drop of trained people.
The health system was especially poor in Liberia. You have issues like no supply of gloves to hospitals. Few doctors even to begin. Had the epidemic started in Ethiopia or even Uganda, the probability of it getting out-of-control epidemic would have been much less--Uganda, for example, has excellent hospitals, good supply, competent public health, and even a decent medical school. Just how bad Liberia’s system was should not be underestimated.
Secondary problems in West Africa are that: (1) Ebola can be difficult to diagnose; (2) Ebola is easily transmitted in cultures where people are expected to die at home in non-sterile and non-antiseptic environments; and (3) Ebola is easily transmitted in cultures where people--still infectious--are prepared for burial at home.
The economic cost of Ebola to the countries most affected is and will be immense, in addition to the loss of life.
In general, we are not well-equipped for some types of global pandemics. The advance from years of nothing on AIDS to stopping SARS in its tracks was immense. But it relies on functional organizations--and we did and do not have any such in the affected West African areas.
Nevertheless, it is surprising how unprepared the WHO and international community was for for this kind of emergency. The WHO is a UN organization, and it is a mistake to expect much bureaucratic competence of UN organizations. Nevertheless, the international response should have been swifter and more effective.
The Ebola crisis is eating up resources in West Africa that are desperately needed in other areas of health and society. It's not so much money as people--doctors pulled in from caring for pregnant women to manage Ebola patients, NGOs working on violence reduction in Sierra Leone now counting the dead. Really sad. We are likely to lose most of the health-care professionals in the most severely affected sub-Saharan African countries.
The importance of investing in strong public health infrastructure--which is both massively underfunded and very cost-effective compared with acute care.
Courtesy of Chris Blattman, David Cutler, Ann Marie Marciarille, and others...
Paul Krugman: Those Lazy Jobless - NYTimes.com Last week John Boehner, the speaker of the House, explained...
...People, he said, have “this idea” that “I really don’t have to work. I don’t really want to do this. I think I’d rather just sit around.” Holy 47 percent, Batman! It’s hardly the first time a prominent conservative has said something along these lines.... But it’s still amazing — and revealing — to hear this line being repeated now. For the blame-the-victim crowd has gotten everything it wanted: Benefits, especially for the long-term unemployed, have been slashed or eliminated. So now we have rants against the bums on welfare when they aren’t bums — they never were — and there’s no welfare. Why? First things first: I don’t know how many people realize just how successful the campaign against any kind of relief for those who can’t find jobs has been. But it’s a striking picture.... The total value of unemployment benefits is less than 0.25 percent of G.D.P., half what it was in 2003, when the unemployment rate was roughly the same as it is now.... Strange to say, this outbreak of anti-compassionate conservatism hasn’t produced a job surge.... Why is there so much animus against the unemployed, such a strong conviction that they’re getting away with something, at a time when they’re actually being treated with unprecedented harshness?...
Dean Baker: Influencing the Debate from Outside the Mainstream: Keep it Simple: "If people working outside of the mainstream of the profession are going to have any impact...
...on economic policy debates in the United States it is essential that they understand the forum in which the debate is taking place. This is not a contest of ideas where the best arguments and evidence win out. If we are talking about a debate within the economics profession, think of debating the morality of abortion with the pope in front of the College of Cardinals. That is pretty much what it is like to try to challenge any of the main precepts of economics within the economics profession.
Q: How much of regional variation in real health-care (Medicare) costs is due to the fact that some regions have sicker populations than others?
A1 (micro): If we examine how much sicker people in different regions are, and multiply the difference in average sickness by how much extra treatment sicker people get on average, we get an incremental regional R2 ~ 0.1: an extra 10%-points of the regional real cost variation can be accounted for because some regions are sicker than others.
A2 (macro): If we just regress regional real costs on some plausible indicator of regional average sickness, we get an incremental regional R2 ~ 0.5: an extra 50%-points of the regional real cost variation can be accounted for because some regions are sicker than others. READ MOAR
Every day I get down on my knees and thank The One Who Is that I did not, back in 1982, and thereabouts sign up for the Republican team--as a liberal, technocratic Republican. I could easily have done it: Democrats back were as likely as not to be philosophically opposed to market-based mechanisms. Those of us of a neoliberal bent who back then thought that often market-based mechanisms were the best means of achieving social-democratic ends were not as unwelcome in the Democratic Party as it stood at the end of the 1970s as reality-based technocrats are in today's Republican Party. But it was clear in the early 1980s that the Democratic Party's activist base were not about to start slaughtering the fatted calf for us--let alone the ring, sandals, merriment, and best robe part. Besides, back then the Democratic Party's deformations back then seemed to be something that smart economists could help fix. The Republican Party's deformations back then, not so much.
Daniel Kuehn administers the smackdown:
Daniel Kuehn: Facts & Other Stubborn Things: Kuehn Smackdown Watch: Bastiat Edition" "Brad DeLong thinks that Bastiat would be a modern liberal...
...(I had said the other day that he likely would be a libertarian but that Smith, Jefferson, Locke, Paine, etc. were classical liberals that would very plausibly be left-liberals today). I think he makes a good case. I've discussed many of the passages he presents to make the claim here, and I think they are important for libertarian fans of Bastiat especially to be aware of. And anyone that's followed the blog for a few years know that I think most modern invocations of the broken window are God-awful and that Bastiat's understanding of general equilibrium is far more sophisticated and closer to people like me or Krugman who make important distinctions between stocks and flows (wealth and income) in arbitrating the effects of, for example, a disaster.
I would only say this in my defense (because I still think he would be more of a libertarian, simply due to the center of gravity of his commentary): he would certainly be more of a libertarian in the vein of Hayek of the Constitution of Liberty or Law, Legislation, and Liberty than a libertarian like Bob Murphy (for example).
Should be good:
Stephanie Kelton, Joseph Haslag, Mike Shanin: The Economy: Does More Government Help or Hurt? | Kansas City Public Library:
How much does the government really know about people’s wants and needs? And is there a clear market failure that policy can address? A back-and-forth expression of conflicting views spills into this event featuring Stephanie Kelton, chair of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Department of Economics, and University of Missouri economics professor Joseph Haslag, who will discuss the government’s proper role in the economy and take audience members’ written questions. Mike Shanin, who leads the weekly roundtable of conservatives and liberals on KCPT-TV’s Ruckus, will moderate.
Co-sponsored by the Jobs Now! Coalition and the Show-Me Institute.
Over at Equitable Growth: John Mearsheimer is only one of a surprising number claiming that the current crisis in Ukraine is predominantly the U.S.'s, and NATO's, and the Ukraine's fault:
John Mearsheimer: How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis: Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: "The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility...
...The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement.... For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president--which he rightly labeled a “coup”--was the final straw.... Realpolitik remains relevant--and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border....
Soviet leaders... and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise.... The first round of enlargement... 1999... the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. The second... 2004... Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Moscow complained bitterly.... The alliance considered admitting Georgia and Ukraine.... Putin maintained that admitting those two countries to NATO would represent a “direct threat” to Russia.... READ MOAR
The extremely thoughtful Adrianna Macintyre looks down the Mississippi:
Adrianna Macintyre: GAO slams HHS over Arkansas’s Medicaid expansion budget: "On Monday, the Government Accountability Office issued a report...
...taking HHS to task for failing to assure budget neutrality in Arkansas’s Medicaid expansion, which uses Medicaid dollars to fund enrollment in private plans through the state exchange. Excerpted....
HHS did not ensure budget neutrality. Specifically, HHS approved a spending limit for the demonstration that was based, in part, on hypothetical costs—significantly higher payment amounts the state assumed it would have to make to providers if it expanded coverage under the traditional Medicaid program—without requesting any data to support the state’s assumptions.... The 3-year, nearly $4.0 billion spending limit that HHS approved for the state’s demonstration was approximately $778 million more than what the spending limit would have been if it was based on the state’s actual payment rates for services provided to adult beneficiaries under the traditional Medicaid program.
Ian Millhiser: Gov. Bobby Jindal’s Bizarre Scheme To Stop His Own Education Plan By Suing The Obama Administration: "Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) actively pushed for [the CommonCore] 2012 law...
...Recently, however, Jindal decided that he actually opposes Common Core, although he’s not been successful in convincing White, the state education board or the state legislature to join him in opposition. So Jindal... is suing the Obama Administration in federal court. If you are confused, you should be. Louisiana’s decision to embrace Common Core standards was... made by Louisiana state officials and Louisiana state lawmakers. One of them was Bobby Jindal....
The Obama Administration... administer[s]... programs... which offer money to states... [in the] Common Core.... The crux of Jindal’s lawsuit, however, is that the grant programs... violate the Constitution and federal law because they force Louisiana to enter into an entirely voluntary program that it did, in fact, enter into voluntarily.... This claim... is false...
One that the intelligent and eminent Justin Fox got wrong, not so much at the time but prospectively. The bad actors had a great deal of influence on policy after September 2009…
From the archives: five years ago:
Paul Krugman tells how economists got it all wrong: the one big issue I have with the piece is that, while economists certainly got lots of things wrong before the crisis (as did almost all of us), many members of the profession have acquitted themselves pretty well since things turned really ugly last year. Krugman goes on and on about the "freshwater" economists (at the Universities of Chicago, Rochester and Minnesota) and their crazy ideas about perfect markets. But what's telling is that the hardcore freshwaterites have had almost no impact on economic policy for the past year—neither in the Bush months or the Obama ones. Sure, Nobelist Ed Prescott, a former freshwater economist who now teaches in Phoenix and thus should probably be described as a no-water economist, made the statement that:
"I don't know why Obama said all economists agree on [the need for a stimulus bill]," Prescott said. "They don't. If you go down to the third-tier schools, yes, but they're not the people advancing the science."
Unless you believe that pretty much anyplace other than Arizona State University is a third-tier school, this is patently untrue, evidence of the extreme isolation of the remaining true believers in rational expectations and real business cycles and other such elegant but profoundly unhelpful macroeconomic theories developed since the 1960s.
Over at Equitable Growth: My four biggest intellectual mistakes over the past decade--and all four are huge--are:
My belief from 2003-2007 that the serious threat to the American financial system came from universal banks that had used their derivatives books to sell lots of unhedged puts against the dollar rather than universal banks accepting lots of house-value puts without doing any due diligence about the quality of the underlying assets.
My fear from 2008-2010 that although nominal wages were downward-sticky they were not that downward-sticky and we were on the point of tipping over into absolute deflation.
My confidence in 2009-2010 that the major policymakers--Bernanke, Obama, and what turned out to be Geithner--both understood how to use the ample monetary, fiscal, banking, and housing finance tools at their disposal to effectively target nominal GDP and understood the urgency of doing whatever it took to return nominal GDP to its pre-2008 growth path.
My failure to even conceive that "Washington" starting in 2010 could possibly be sufficiently happy with the pace of recovery that serious measures to further boost demand would vanish from the agenda.
(1) and (2) and (3) I have written about elsewhere. Today we have a piece of (4) to deal with--why do so many people prioritize low-pressure economy policies that they regard as the only safeguard of hard money over economic recovery? Paul Krugman constitutes himself the συμποσιαρχ, decides that we will be drinking κρασί ακρατος, and poses the question: READ MOAR
OK. It's time to try to pull everything together on the Red States, the Republican Party, ObamaCare, "repeal and replace", and starting at the top of the evil tree and hitting every branch all the way down...
Let's start with a catch from Austin Frakt last January:
Austin Frakt: These two tweets tell you all you need to know about the politics of health reform: January 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm: Two of Avik Roy’s tweets yesterday...
...pertaining to the recently released Senate GOP health reform plan (the Patient CARE Act [of Burr (R-NC) Coburn (R-OK), and Hatch [R-UT) and discussion thereof, are very revealing.
@matthewherper: @Avik it still seems to me that this is going to hit a lot of voters harder. Even if it makes economic sense.
@Avik: .@matthewherper By repealing and replacing Ocare, the plan is more disruptive than it needs to be. But repeal needed for Right viability.
And, of course, it had no right-wing viability at all even so.
...But not only was Hamilton more progressive for his time, he has lessons for our response to climate change. Two hundred years ago, Alexander Hamilton was mortally wounded by then Vice President Aaron Burr in a duel at Weehawken, New Jersey. Their conflict, stemming from essays Hamilton had penned against Burr, was an episode in a larger clash between two political ideologies: that of Thomas Jefferson and the anti-Federalists, who argued for an agrarian economy and a weak central government, versus that of Hamilton and the Federalists, who championed a strong central state and an industrial economy.
$423 billion over the next decade if the red states continue to reject Medicaid expansion. This won't be enough of a cash shortfall to send the red states into a near-permanent recession or stagnation--it's only 0.5% or so of gross economic product over the next decade. But it will hurt, and hurt a lot: the right multiplier to apply here is the Moretti long-run geographic multiplier of 6, which means that economic activity in red states in a decade will be 3% less and in blue states 1.5% more than in the baseline.
Richard Mayhew: Rejecting free money is expensive: "Forbes Magazine is using little words to explain to its readers...
...that hospitals in states that are rejecting Medicaid Expansion are hurting:
Over at Equitable Growth: Over in Yurp:
Paul de Grauewe: "[European policymakers] are doing everything they can...
...to stop recovery taking off, so they should not be surprised if there is in fact no take-off. It is balanced-budget fundamentalism, and it has become religious. We know from the 1930s that if everybody is trying to pay off debt and the government then deleverages at the same time, the result is a downward spiral. The rigidities in the European economy have been there for ages. They have absolutely nothing to do with the problem we face today...
Mario Draghi said differently at Jackson Hole last weekend. READ MOAR
John Maynard Keynes (1926): The End of Laissez-Faire } "Panarchy - Panarchie - Panarchia - Panarquia - Παναρχία - 泛无政府主义: I The disposition towards public affairs...
...which we conveniently sum up as individualism and laissez-faire, drew its sustenance from many different rivulets of thought and springs of feeling. For more than a hundred years our philosophers ruled us because, by a miracle, they nearly all agreed or seem to agree on this one thing. We do not dance even yet to a new tune. But a change is in the air. We hear but indistinctly what were once the clearest and most distinguishable voices which have ever instructed political mankind. The orchestra of diverse instruments, the chorus of articulate sound, is receding at last into the distance.
H.G. Wells: “It seems to me that I am more to the Left than you, Mr Stalin”: "In 1934, Wells arrived in Moscow...
...to meet a group of Soviet writers. While there Stalin granted him an interview.... His deferential conversation was criticised by J M Keynes and George Bernard Shaw, among others, in the New Statesman.
Wells: I am very much obliged to you, Mr Stalin, for agreeing to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation with President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to ask you what you are doing to change the world...
Sitting next to Lord Skidelsky in the Sala Maggioranza of the Italian Treasury (after they turned off the air conditioning, I took off my tie when he took off his jacket) impelled me to reread his Keynes biography.
And, after rereading, I find that I cannot improve on what I wrote about them three years ago: my thoughts then were totally enthusiastic and totally adulatory. And my thoughts are the same now. (I haven't yet reread volume three). In his first two volumes, Skidelsky gives us John Maynard Keynes's life, entire. And he does so with wit, charm, control, scope, and enthusiasm. You read these books and you know Keynes--who he was, what he did, and why it was so important. READ MOAR
Over at Equitable Growth: The Setup:
Let's start with Paul Krugman, who made me aware of this ebook by writing:
Paul Krugman: All About Zero: "Way back in 2008 I (and many others) argued...
...that the financial crisis had pushed us into a liquidity trap... in which the Fed and its counterparts elsewhere couldn’t restore full employment even by reducing short-term interest rates all the way to zero.... In practice the zero lower bound has huge adverse effects on policy effectiveness... [and] drastically changes the rules... [as] virtue becomes vice and prudence is folly. We want less saving, higher expected inflation, and more.... Liquidity-trap analysis has been overwhelmingly successful in its predictions: massive deficits didn’t drive up interest rates, enormous increases in the monetary base didn’t cause inflation, and fiscal austerity was associated with large declines in output and employment.... READ MOAR
Paul Krugman: Inflation OCD: "Brad DeLong... falls short...
...trying to attribute it to bad models or just finding it incomprehensible.... There’s something deeper at work here.... Clinging to beliefs that have been wrong, wrong, wrong for so long--beliefs that would have cost you money if you acted on them--and remember, Eric Cantor, the lost white knight of the Reformicons, did in fact do just that--shows that there is some underlying reason those beliefs are a necessary part of the right-wing identity.
Deron Lee: Why one editor won't run any more op-eds by the Heritage Foundation's top economist: "'I won’t be running anything else from Stephen Moore'...
...So says Miriam Pepper, editorial page editor of the Kansas City Star.... Pepper’s no-Moore stance comes after her paper discovered substantial factual errors in a recent guest op-ed by Moore, the chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. The episode serves as a cautionary tale for editors navigating the disputes of rival policy advocates.... The Star ran a piece by... Paul Krugman.... The column named Moore as one of the “charlatans and cranks” who have influenced policymakers at all levels to enact low-tax, supply-side economic policies—with ruinous effects, according to Krugman.... Pepper told me, “I was contacted by Moore’s people saying they wanted to run a response.” In the interest of fairness, she agreed.
Brad DeLong (2006): Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Augusto Pinochet, and Hu Jintao: Authoritarian Liberalism vs. Liberal Authoritarianism Jamie K. at Blood and Treasure writes:
Blood & Treasure: Hayekian dictatorship: Greg Grandin in Counterpunch sings of Friedman, Hayek, Pinochet, and someone closer to home:
Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian émigré and University of Chicago professor whose 1944 Road to Serfdom dared to suggest that state planning would produce not "freedom and prosperity" but "bondage and misery," visited Pinochet's Chile a number of times. He was so impressed that he held a meeting of his famed Société Mont Pélérin there. He even recommended Chile to Thatcher as a model to complete her free-market revolution. The Prime Minister, at the nadir of Chile's 1982 financial collapse, agreed that Chile represented a "remarkable success" but believed that Britain's "democratic institutions and the need for a high degree of consent" make "some of the measures" taken by Pinochet "quite unacceptable."
So, as I said, just as I finish writing up my virtual office-hour thoughts on a framework for organizing one's thoughts on Friedrich A. von Hayek and twentieth century political economy, along comes the esteemed Lars P. Syll with a link to an excellent piece I had never read on the same thing by Equitable Growth's Fearless Leader Bob Solow.
It has been my experience that disagrees with Bob Solow at one's peril: not only has he already thought about and found reasons to object to your objection, but if you go further and find a reason to object his objection of your objection, he has already thought of a very good objection to that as well.
Solow sees a good, technocratic, information-theory focused economist Hayek, and a bad political pamphleteer Hayek. Solow sees the real Hayek as being the Good Hayek. He sees the Good Hayek as more moderate than Milton Friedman--committed to some level of professional technocratic economics guiding a social-insurance state providing basic incomes, implementing Pigovian taxes, enforcing standards and quality, and aggressively breaking-up monopolies. It is, Solow thinks, the Bad Hayek who is the problem. And the Bad Hayek is not the real Hayek, for the real Hayek had "not meant to provide a manifesto for the far right..."
I, by contrast, see not two but three Hayeks: the good Hayek, a bad macroeconomic business-cycle Hayek, and a profoundly problematic political-economy Hayek.
The Good Hayek was, I think, very very good--much better than Solow allows. Papers in mechanism design and information theory written forty and fifty years later are footnotes (often unacknowledged footnotes) to the Good Hayek.
The Bad Hayek was, I think, very very bad. To claim that the market economy exhibited large business-cycle fluctuations only because of policy errors produced by the existence of central banks (and, sometimes, because the potential availability of a lender of last resort allowed private bankers to engage in fractional-reserve banking) was just batty: contrary to all sound theory and all empirical evidence. Only an astonishing imperviousness to both thinking deeply and looking at the world could allow clinging to such a dead-ender position. Yet Hayek did. And his epigones do.
The Political Economy Hayek is, as I said, highly problematic. First of all, there is the dodging and weaving. Here is Hayek writing to Paul Samuelson:
I am afraid and glancing through the eleventh edition of your Economics I seem to have discovered the source of the false allegation about my book The Road to Serfdom which I constantly encounter, most resent, and can only regard as a malicious distortion.... You assert that I contend that 'each step away from the market system towards the social reform of the welfare state is inevitably a journey that must end in the totalitarian state' and that 'government modification of market laissez-faire must lead inevitably to political serfdom'.... How anyone who can just read my book in good faith can say this when ever since the first edition I say right at the beginning... 'Nor am I arguing that these developments are inevitable. If they were, there would be no point in writing this. They can be prevented if people realize in time where their efforts may lead...'
And here is Hayek writing a new forward for The Road to Serfdom in the mid-1950s:
Six years of socialist [i.e., Labour Party] government in England have not produced anything resembling a totalitarian state. But those who argue that this has disproved the thesis of The Road to Serfdom have really missed... that the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change... necessarily a slow affair... not over a few years but perhaps over one or two generations.... The change undergone by the character of the British people... can hardly be mistaken... Is it too pessimistic to fear that a generation grown up under these conditions is unlikely to throw off the fetters to which it has grown used? Or does this description not rather fully bear out De Tocqueville’s prediction of the 'new kind of servitude'?... I have never accused the socialist parties of deliberately aiming at a totalitarian regime.... What the British experience convinces me... is that the unforeseen but inevitable consequences of socialist planning create a state of affairs in which, if the policy is to be pursued, totalitarian forces will get the upper hand... (I)
But we also have:
The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born... (II)
Yet, in 1956:
The most serious development is the growth of a measure of arbitrary administrative coercion and the progressive destruction of the cherished foundation of British liberty, the Rule of Law.... [E]conomic planning under the Labour government [has] carried it to a point which makes it doubtful whether it can be said that the Rule of Law still prevails in Britain... (III)
And, as Paul Samuelson wrote:
The Hayek I met on various occasions--at the LSE, at the University of Chicago, in Stockholm (1945), at Lake Constance-Lindau Nobel summer conferences--deﬁnitely bemoaned progressive income taxation, state-provided medical care and retirement pensions, ﬁat currencies remote from gold and subject to discretionary policy decisions by central bank and treasury agents.... This [is] what constitutes his predicted serfdoms... (IV)
To say the least, there is a difficulty in figuring out what the Political Economy Hayek believed. Solow takes the real Hayek to be (II) and regards (I), (III), and (IV) as line wobbles from the Bad Hayek that he, Solow, will overlook. But the Bad Hayek is not just "in the text": the Bad Hayek seems to me to be well-nigh omnipresent except when Hayek is playing the injured party in front of a social-democratic audience. I think you are more likely to find the Real Hayek in the "shut up and be glad you were born" passage in The Mirage of Social Justice:
While in a market order it may be a misfortune to have been born and bred in a village where... the only chance of making a living is fishing... it does not make sense to describe this as unjust. Who is supposed to have been unjust?--especially... if these local opportunities had not existed, the people in question would probably never have been born at all... [for lack of] the opportunities which enabled their ancestors to produce and rear children... (V)
And that in fact those who do not shut up and be grateful are guilty of moral fault, as in The Political Order of a Free People:
By the slogan... 'it is not your fault'... the demagoguery of unlimited democracy, assisted by a scientistic psychology, has come to the support of those who claim a share in the wealth of our society without submitting to the discipline to which it is due. It is not by conceding 'a right to equal concern and respect’ to those who break the code that civilization is maintained... (VI)
And then there is the (missing) letter from Hayek to Thatcher, apparently urging that Thatcher go all Pinochet-medieval on Neil Kinnock and Arthur Scargill, that elicited this reply:
The progression from Allende's Socialism to the free enterprise capitalist economy of the 1980s is a striking example of economic reform from which we can learn many lessons. However, I am sure you will agree that, in Britain with our democratic institutions and the need for a high degree of consent, some of the measures adopted in Chile are quite unacceptable. Our reform must be in line with our traditions and our Constitution. At times the process may seem painfully slow. But I am certain we shall achieve our reforms in our own way and in our own time. Then they will endure. (VII)
Why, then, do I call the Political Economy Hayek just "problematic" and not "evil"? Because I think there are some passages of great value in The Constitution of Liberty and in the three-volume Law, Legislation, and Liberty. But it is, I think, important not to pretend that the Bad Hayek elements were some kind of anomaly
While Solow is much easier on Hayek than I would be, he is much harder on Milton Friedman. For Solow, it is Milton Friedman who is the real Mephistopheles here. It is Friedman who over and over again would frame the issues as freedom vs. socialism, when actually the issue is "which of the defects of a 'free', unregulated economy should be repaired by regulation, subsidization, or taxation? Which... tolerated... because the best available fix would have even more costly side-effects?" It was Friedman whose "rhetoric... irrelevant or, worse, misleading, or, even worse, intentionally misleading... made... [the] policy discussion more difficult to have... [and] did the market economy a disservice."
I disagree: I see Friedman and Hayek as being equally willing to call social democracy "socialism", and equally likely to see it as corrosive of individual freedom.
But I see Friedman as being much more moderate than Hayek--not just in terms of being a true social and personal libertarian, not just in having a more sophisticated view of social insurance, but also having both a belief in democracy and education as well as a willingness to (sometimes) mark his beliefs to market that Hayek definitely lacked. When stabilizing the growth of the money supply did not produce the smooth aggregate demand path that Friedman had expected, he changed his mind--and became a big advocate of quantitative easing...
The key paragraphs from Solow:
Robert Solow (2012): Hayek, Friedman, and the Illusions of Conservative Economics: "A Review of Angus Burgin...
...The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression.... There was a Good Hayek and a Bad Hayek. The Good Hayek was a serious scholar who was particularly interested in the role of knowledge... [but] also knew that unrestricted laissez-faire is unworkable... monopoly power... better-informed actors can exploit the relatively ignorant... distribution of income... grossly unequal and... unfair... unemployment and underutilized capacity... environmental damage... the Good Hayek’s attempts to formulate and to propagate a modified version of laissez-faire that would work better....
The Bad Hayek.... The Road to Serfdom was a popular success but was not a good book.... Hayek’s implicit prediction is a failure.... The source of their alarm was not the danger from Soviet communism or Nazi Germany, but rather the... New Deal here and the Labor Party there... ameliorat[ing] and... revers[ing] the ravages of falling incomes and rising unemployment.... Lionel Robbins... Friedrich von Hayek... Frank Knight... Jacob Viner... Henry Simons.... What seems off-key (at least now, at least to me) is that they all felt themselves to be in a struggle between free markets and collectivism (or socialism) with no possible intermediate stopping point....
This apocalyptic tone survived into the period dominated by Milton Friedman... the language of the Tea Party Hayekians.... In 2004, Friedman told The Wall Street Journal that, although the battle of ideas had been won, 'currently, opinion is free market while practice is heavily socialist'. The point to keep in mind is that 'socialist practice' includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the certification of doctors, and the public schools.... Of course for those of us trying to live on this planet, the issue is... between an extreme version of free markets and effective regulation of the shadow banking system, or between an extreme version of free markets and the level and progressivity of the personal income tax....
THE GOOD HAYEK... had not meant to provide a manifesto for the far right.... There is no reason to doubt Hayek’s sincerity in this (although the Bad Hayek occasionally made other appearances)... [that] Knight and moderates such as Viner thought that he had overreached suggests that the Bad Hayek really was there in the text....
In the spring of 1947, with a grant from the Volker Fund of Kansas City, who were the Koch Brothers of their time, Hayek was able to bring together... thirty-nine colleagues... the Mont Pèlerin Society... [which] Burgin... endows... with more significance than it ever really had.... They... could not agree on... the permissible, indeed the desirable, deviations from laissez-faire?... Good answers are available, and many of them involve government intervention.... The inability to agree about this sort of thing, or even to face up to it, seems to have dogged the MPS.... Maybe the main function of the MPS was to maintain the morale of the free-market fellowship....
Leadership... passed... to Milton Friedman... different in style and, to some extent, even in ideology.... As his ideas and his career evolved... he moved in a different, almost opposite, direction, toward a cruder government-can-do-no-right position, certainly not given to ethical worries or even to economic-theoretical fine points.... Under Milton Friedman’s influence, the free-market ideology shifted toward unmitigated laissez-faire. Whereas earlier advocates had worried about the stringent conditions that were needed for unregulated markets to work their magic, Friedman was the master of clever (sometimes too clever) arguments to the effect that those conditions were not really needed, or that they were actually met in real-world markets despite what looked a lot like evidence to the contrary. He was a natural-born debater: single-minded, earnestly persuasive, ingenious, and relentless....
Friedman’s... most important work... consumer expenditure... important and useful... anticipated in much less satisfactory form by James Duesenberry, and Franco Modigliani developed a similar and in some ways more satisfactory theory.... But monetarism... has not proved to be tenable analytically or empirically. His Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960 (written with the late Anna Schwartz), while highly interesting, is not a towering intellectual achievement.
Burgin... attaches a lot of importance to the respectability conferred on the political right by the ideas of Hayek, Friedman, and the others.... I would not disagree, but... Thatcher profited from an ill-judged miners’ strike and, as Lyndon Johnson famously remarked, the passage of the Civil Rights Act lost the Solid South for the Democratic Party for at least a generation.
For a serious modern reader, the rhetoric is irrelevant or, worse, misleading, or, even worse, intentionally misleading.... The real issues are pragmatic. Which of the defects of a 'free', unregulated economy should be repaired by regulation, subsidization, or taxation? Which of them may have to be tolerated... because the best available fix would have even more costly side-effects? To the extent that the MPS circle made that kind of policy discussion more difficult to have, it did the market economy a disservice.
Over at Equitable Growth So, as I said, just as I finish writing up my virtual office-hour thoughts on a framework for organizing one's thoughts on Friedrich A. von Hayek and twentieth century political economy, along comes the esteemed Lars P. Syll with a link to an excellent piece I had never read on the same thing by Equitable Growth's Fearless Leader Bob Solow.
It has been my experience that disagrees with Bob Solow at one's peril: not only has he already thought about and found reasons to object to your objection, but if you go further and find a reason to object his objection of your objection, he has already thought of a very good objection to that as well.
Nevertheless... READ MOAR
Just as I finish writing up my office-hour thoughts on a framework for organizing one's thoughts on Friedrich A. von Hayek and twentieth century political economy, along comes the esteemed Lars P. Syll with a link to an excellent piece I had never read on the same thing by Equitable Growth's Fearless Leader:
Robert Solow (2012): Hayek, Friedman, and the Illusions of Conservative Economics "The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression By Angus Burgin (Harvard University Press, 303 pp., $29.95) JUST AS I WAS wondering how to start this review...
...along came the Sunday New York Times Magazine with a short article by Adam Davidson with the title “Made in Austria: Will Friedrich von Hayek be the Tea Party’s Karl Marx?” One Tea Party activist reported that his group’s goal is to fill Congress with Hayekians. This project is unlikely to go smoothly if the price of admission includes an extensive reading of Hayek’s writings. As Davidson remarks, some of Hayek’s ideas would not go down well at all with the American far right: among them is a willingness to entertain a national health care program, and even a state-provided basic income for the poor.
Over at Equitable Growth: Larry Kotlikoff strikes Robert Waldmann speechless:
Robert Waldmann: Should Economists Be Honest or Civil? "Kotlikoff offers Krugman this advice...
...I think public intellectuals, like Paul Krugman, have a responsibility to act like grownups in speaking with the public. If they start calling people with different views “'stupid', they demean themselves and convey the message that name calling rather than respectful debate is appropriate conduct.... What I’m writing about is not Paul Ryan. I’m writing about the level of national discourse. No one, and I mean no one, deserves to be called stupid.
Brad DeLong has already pointed out that Krugman did not call Congressman Ryan stupid. What Paul was really saying is that the Republican fiscal policy wonk was a con artist.... READ MOAR:
Over at Equitable Growth: One way to conceptualize it all is to think of it as the shape of a river:
The first current is the Adam Smith current, which makes the classical liberal bid: Smith claims that the system of natural liberty; with government restricted to the rule of law, infrastructure, defense, and education; is the best of all social arrangements.
This first current is then joined by the Karl Polanyi current: Polanyi says that, empirically, at least in the Industrial Age, the system of natural liberty fails to produce a good-enough society. The system of natural liberty turns land, labor, and finance into commodities. The market then moves them about the board in its typically disruptive fashion: "all that is solid melts into air", or perhaps "established and inherited social orders are steamed away". But land, finance, and labor--these three are not real commodities. They are, rather, "fictitious commodities", for nobody wants their ability to earn a living, or to live where they grew up, or to start a business to be subject to the disruptive wheel of market fortuna. READ MOAR:
Over at Equitable Growth: Coffee yesterday with Peter Gosselin. Back in the day, when he worked for the Los Angeles Times he was one of the very very very best reporters covering American healthcare and related subjects. Then he was Tim Geithner's speechwriter. Now he is doing something at
And at coffee he put me on the spot. He asked me what big thoughts I had about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
So I stammered something relatively incoherent...
Now, however, I have had a chance to regroup. I have had an opportunity to bring some things that were barely or unconscious into the full light of reason. So I would like to try to do a better job...
Ten points: READ MOAR
As a former Senior Treasury Official, I know the first rule of Treasury Secretaryship:
You do not, you never, you NEVER, you NEVER NEVER NEVER announce that Tax Policy is going to visit or revisit any relatively-technical issue until you have a plan, and that the first statement you make about the plan is the announcement of the plan--with a declaration that, if the plan is legislative, the law will be retroactive to the date of the announcement and, if the plan is administrative, that the plan will go into effect now.
This, from Jack Lew (and Barack Obama), is highly unprofessional:
Julie Hirschfeld Davis: Obama Weighing Options to Stop Corporate Tax Flight "The Obama administration is weighing plans to circumvent Congress...
...and act on its own to curtail tax benefits for United States companies that relocate overseas to lower their tax bills, seeking to stanch a recent wave of so-called corporate inversions, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said on Tuesday. Treasury Department officials are rushing to assemble a broad array of options that would “change the economics of inversions,” Mr. Lew said. Options are still being developed.... The action comes in the face of a recent increase in United States companies reaching deals to reorganize overseas, creating an explosive political issue that Mr. Obama has seized on to talk about a lack of “economic patriotism”...
This ain't rocket science, people. You've had a good year to think hard about how to do the job and 5 1/2 to do on-the-job-learning.
Step up your game...
Over at Equitable Growth: The extremely sharp and hard-working Neil Irwin has a nice piece that gives his answer:
Neil Irwin: Why Is the Economy Still Weak? Blame These Five Sectors: "The economy keeps underperforming...
...producing around $800 billion a year less in goods and services than it would if the economy were at full health, and as a result millions of people aren’t working who would be if conditions were better. But why?... To get at an answer, we needed a more basic question: What would the economy look like right now if it were fully healthy, and how is the actual reality... different?... A handful of sectors, including housing, government spending and spending on durable goods, are at fault for the continuing underperformance of the American economy.... Six of 11 sectors we analyzed are doing fine... consumer spending on services... spending on nondurable goods... Business spending on intellectual property.... READ MOAR
No, Larry Kotlikoff, Paul Krugman does not think Paul Ryan is stupid. Paul Krugman does not write that Paul Ryan is stupid--he writes that Ryan "is a con man... his budgets were sold on false pretenses... magic asterisks claiming huge but unspecified savings from discretionary spending and huge but unspecified revenue gains from closing loopholes he refused to name."
This is worth this week's smackdown...
Larry Kotlikoff: Paul Krugman: Stop Calling People Names: "Paul Krugman [has] a responsibility to act like [a] grownup...
...If they start calling people with different views “stupid,” they demean themselves and convey the message that name calling rather than respectful debate is appropriate conduct.... None of we economists know anything for dead sure.... A key job economists have is to explain the different views we have about how the economy works before explaining why we prefer our view. Simply saying “You’re wrong, I’m right, and, furthermore, you’re stupid for not agreeing with me.” is something you’d expect from a child, not a grown up and certainly not from a columnist for the New York Times who sports a Nobel Prize.... I’m sorry, but Paul Ryan is not stupid.... I’m very proud to call Paul Ryan my friend even though we don’t agree on everything and even though I voted for President Obama twice...
I read this, and my first reaction is: did Larry Kotlikoff read?
Over at Equitable Growth: I have been meaning to pick on the very sharp and public-spirited Jeff Faux since he wrote this seven months ago:
Jeff Faux: NAFTA, Twenty Years After: A Disaster:
New Year’s Day, 2014, marks the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Agreement created a common market for goods, services and investment capital with Canada and Mexico. And it opened the door through which American workers were shoved, unprepared, into a brutal global competition for jobs that has cut their living standards and is destroying their future. NAFTA’s birth was bi-partisan—conceived by Ronald Reagan, negotiated by George Bush I, and pushed through the US Congress by Bill Clinton in alliance with Congressional Republicans and corporate lobbyists....
NAFTA directly cost the United States a net loss of 700,000 jobs.... And the economic dislocation in Mexico increased the the flow of undocumented workers into the United States.... By any measure, NAFTA and its sequels has been a major contributor to the rising inequality of incomes and wealth that Barack Obama bemoans in his speeches.... The agreements traded away the interests of American workers in favor of the interests of American corporations.... NAFTA’s fundamental purpose was... to free multinational corporations from public regulation in the U.S., Mexico, Canada, and eventually all over the world.... The 20th anniversary of NAFTA stands as a grim reminder of how little our political leaders and TV talking heads—despite their crocodile tears over jobs and inequality—really care about the average American who must work for a living...READ MOAR
Buy it. Buy it now. Buy three and give two away...
Rick Perlstein: The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan
Very brief preview:
Rick Perlstein: "To me, Reagan’s brand of leadership was what I call 'a liturgy of absolution'....
...Who wouldn’t want that? But the consequences of that absolution are all around us today. The inability to contend with climate change. The inability to call elites to account who wrecked the economy in 2008. The inability to reckon with the times when we fall short.... When Samantha Power is chosen to be ambassador to the U.N.; she’d written a magazine article in 2003 in which she wrote American foreign policy needed a 'historical reckoning' for crimes 'committed or sponsored'. That’s the kind of reckoning we were having in the 1970s, with the Church committee. Marco Rubio brought this up in her confirmation hearing and asked her for examples of the crimes, and the response was that America is the greatest country in the world and has nothing to apologize for. So that’s where we’re at today.... He believed strongly that moderates had no place in the Republican Party.... Pundits then and now believed the problem for Republicans was an inability to broaden their base. Reagan always insisted on the opposite..."
Over at Project Syndicate Ten years ago we had ridden the bust of the internet bubble, picked ourselves up, and continued on. It was true that it had turned out to be harder than people expected to profit from tutoring communications technologies. That, however spoke to the division of the surplus between consumers and producers--not the surplus from the technologies. The share of demand spent on such technologies looked to be rising. The mindshare of such technologies looked to be rising much more rapidly. READ MOAR at Equitable Growth