Gingrich, who, sure enough, reprised his food-stamp assault, telling reporters that “an honest discussion about dependency doesn’t mean you’re a racist.” But what about a dishonest discussion?
Heh indeed.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Why Romney Chose Ryan
I've got it ! Finally figured it out. Romney knows that he is considered aloof, arrogant, self absorbed heartless and cold, in short a bad listener, while Obama is a Harvard Law Review President, Chicago law teacher regular guy you can have a bear with. Why, why asks Romney is he considered a better listener than me ?
Then he had a bright idea and called to his aid (I don't remember the aid's name but hell neither does Mitt). "Aid Aid Can you find someone in the USA with even bigger ears than Obama ?"
Then he had a bright idea and called to his aid (I don't remember the aid's name but hell neither does Mitt). "Aid Aid Can you find someone in the USA with even bigger ears than Obama ?"
World's Tallest Midget
Paul Ryan is the Republican who has described their plans in most detail, he is the worlds most brilliant math wiz who doesn't believe in addition, he is he worlds most sincere flimflam man.
William Saletan has won the ruthless competition to be the first Very Serious Centrist Ryan praiser specifically criticized by Paul Krugman. Krugman's main point is that a well made campaign narrative absolutely requires that there be demagogues and serious policy analysts on both sides. Ryan has a larger number to lie ratio than any other top Republican (all due to the numerator). So he is cast in the role. It's like trying to find someone to play Tarzan at an all girl school.
But I have a creeping suspicion that Saletan's claim is not as diametrically opposite from the truth as it seems. I haven't checked (and will *not* read Saletan to for the sake of the journalistic non standards of a blog which almost no one reads) but I suspect that what Saletan wrote might be technically true. If he said that Ryan's "plan" isn't quite as pure hot air as that of any other *republican* he might be right for all I know (again no checking).
Fortunately, I don't have to read Saletan to find an example as even the liberal Boston Globe does it. Outsourced to Charlie Pierce
More frank about tradeoffs than any other Republican. Smarter than any hammer. Better looking than any warthog.
William Saletan has won the ruthless competition to be the first Very Serious Centrist Ryan praiser specifically criticized by Paul Krugman. Krugman's main point is that a well made campaign narrative absolutely requires that there be demagogues and serious policy analysts on both sides. Ryan has a larger number to lie ratio than any other top Republican (all due to the numerator). So he is cast in the role. It's like trying to find someone to play Tarzan at an all girl school.
But I have a creeping suspicion that Saletan's claim is not as diametrically opposite from the truth as it seems. I haven't checked (and will *not* read Saletan to for the sake of the journalistic non standards of a blog which almost no one reads) but I suspect that what Saletan wrote might be technically true. If he said that Ryan's "plan" isn't quite as pure hot air as that of any other *republican* he might be right for all I know (again no checking).
Fortunately, I don't have to read Saletan to find an example as even the liberal Boston Globe does it. Outsourced to Charlie Pierce
The presence on the national ticket of Ryan, whose budget proposal goes farther than that of any other Republican in sketching out the tradeoffs necessary to make the sharp spending reductions many in the party seek
More frank about tradeoffs than any other Republican. Smarter than any hammer. Better looking than any warthog.
Get Your Stories Straight Guys
Jerry Markon has some interesting news about Paul Ryan blueeyed square jawed Mr Smith goes to Washington with a laptop earnest [non]wonk's wonk.
Ryan accepted nearly $60,000 in contributions from businessman Dennis Troha and his family, records show. Troha was later indicted on campaign finance charges over an Indian casino he sought to open.
[skip]
Ryan agreed to call the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was reviewing environmental impact studies. “He stated that his constituents are in favor of the application,” according to an e-mail written by a bureau staffer and obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which wrote extensively about the Ryan-Troha relationship.
In a 2006 interview with the newspaper, Ryan described the call as a routine inquiry on behalf of a constituent and said he was “neutral” on the casino project. But Troha said Ryan “made it very clear to me” that he opposed the project and felt it was “not appropriate” for the district.
Ryan accepted nearly $60,000 in contributions from businessman Dennis Troha and his family, records show. Troha was later indicted on campaign finance charges over an Indian casino he sought to open.
[skip]
Ryan agreed to call the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was reviewing environmental impact studies. “He stated that his constituents are in favor of the application,” according to an e-mail written by a bureau staffer and obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which wrote extensively about the Ryan-Troha relationship.
In a 2006 interview with the newspaper, Ryan described the call as a routine inquiry on behalf of a constituent and said he was “neutral” on the casino project. But Troha said Ryan “made it very clear to me” that he opposed the project and felt it was “not appropriate” for the district.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Wish I'd Typed That
Ryan is a lunatic extremist on issues such as reproductive choice and global warming as well as within his core (in)competence on fiscal matters (where he’s so extreme that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called his plan morally deficient)
But what is my core incompetence ??? (If you type "typing" or "spelling" you are kind but naive -- I sure don't display it on the web).
But what is my core incompetence ??? (If you type "typing" or "spelling" you are kind but naive -- I sure don't display it on the web).
stupidocalypse watch
So far two (Krauthammer and Barnes) of the four horseman of the stupidocalypse (them, Kaus and Kondracke) have defended Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate.
The closest we have come to stupidocalypse so far was November 2006 when Kaus and Krauthammer said the election showed the Democrats were weak as they barely won the Senate (not mentioning the fact that 40 Republican Senators were not up for re-election).
I understand that the claim about the Mayans and 2012 is innaccurate. But I am still worried.
The closest we have come to stupidocalypse so far was November 2006 when Kaus and Krauthammer said the election showed the Democrats were weak as they barely won the Senate (not mentioning the fact that 40 Republican Senators were not up for re-election).
I understand that the claim about the Mayans and 2012 is innaccurate. But I am still worried.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
22 dimensional chess
How did Paul Ryan take over the Republican party
OK to all those who denounce Obama for naively reaching across the aisle (including one Robert Waldmann): how did that work out ?
update: Maybe I'm not as dumb as I thought. I was on to it by April.
update 2. Ryan is such a sucker. He loves himself so much that he didn't understand that Obama is not his ally.
Wow.
Obama saw an opening. Invited to speak before the House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore, on January 29th, he seemed to extend an olive branch to Ryan. “I think Paul, for example, the head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal,” Obama said. “I’ve read it. I can tell you what’s in it. And there’s some ideas in there that I would agree with, but there’s some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about, because I don’t agree with them.” Afterward, Obama made a point of shaking Ryan’s hand and signing an autograph for his seven-year-old daughter, Liza. There was talk in Washington that the two young, wonky Midwesterners might be able to build a working relationship.
OK to all those who denounce Obama for naively reaching across the aisle (including one Robert Waldmann): how did that work out ?
update: Maybe I'm not as dumb as I thought. I was on to it by April.
update 2. Ryan is such a sucker. He loves himself so much that he didn't understand that Obama is not his ally.
In mid-April of 2011, in a speech at George Washington University, Obama once again decided to make an example of Ryan. Republicans were finally about to vote on the Path to Prosperity, and the President was eager to offer his opinion. Obama, for nearly the first time in his Presidency, emphasized the ideological divide between the two parties rather than offering bromides about what they shared. The White House invited Ryan to the speech and reserved a V.I.P. seat for him. Obama had personally called Ryan after Republicans won the majority in the House the previous November, and Ryan thought the two might have a rapport. They both liked sports and, because Ryan’s district runs along the Illinois border close to Chicago, knew many of the same people. “He’s a cerebral guy who likes policy, and he’s from my part of the country,” Ryan said. “At the beginning, I did have some hope.”
Ryan sat in the front row as the President shredded his plan. “I believe it paints a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic,” Obama said. “There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t think there’s anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.”
Ryan seemed genuinely shocked.
Wow.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Ground ax underground soon I promise.
Ed Kilgore's thought develops as he finally faces facts.
He wrote
It is entirely unsurprising that Paul Ryan and his many supporters have been advertising the [skip]in his budget proposal as the greatest thing since the Clinton-era welfare reform legislation. What is surprising is that some progressives seem to be going along with the characterization in order to grind some old axes about the 1996 act.
There was a big Sunday New York Times piece by Jason DeParle conflating the plight of “the poor” with those of the single unwed mothers affected by state-level reductions in cash assistance under the TANF program (the post-1996 name for the old Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, a.k.a. “welfare”).
[skip]
Ezra Klein takes a different tack in suggesting that welfare reform’s record is an accurate yardstick for how the Ryan budget might work out: since Ryan (and for that matter, in his own proposal, Mitt Romney) wants to turn Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs into state-run block grants, it’s important to look at how states have cut TANF to see how they might handle these other programs.
Ezra’s right about that, but like Paul Ryan, he’s mixing apples and oranges: TANF costs and caseloads were intended to go down in no small part because the other safety net programs, along with the extremely important earned income tax credit (EITC) were intended to pick up the slack.
so EITC expansion was part of welfare reform and critics of welfare reform are grinding old axes stuck in 1996 when they discuss poverty in the USA right now.
I assert that in this post he called Jason DeParle and Ezra Klein objectively pro Ryanist left deviationists.
Later he wrote
Also note the recognition of uh like time and calenders and stuff
"expanded EITC, which was enacted ... well before welfare reform". Wow the man has noticed that 1993<1996 what a math genius.
My oh my it seems that by August 7 2012 criticisms of the 1996 welfare reform bill were no longer Paul Ryan serving old ax grinding eh. Why exactly is DeParle's article on current events in Texas stuck in 1996 old ax grinding while this post is forward looking discussing of what shits Republicans were in 1996 (in writing the bill signed into law by Bill).
Now we have come full circle. Playing into Paul Ryan's hands has become
he quotes with approval
So can anyone explain to me how the "really fine post today at Ten Miles Square"
differs from the old ax grinding od DeParle and Klain.
I think that Kilgore has finally recognised that he was wrong wrong wrong and that DeParle and Klein were just describing reality as reality based entities recognise that it really is, I think he owes them a HUGE apology.
He wrote
It is entirely unsurprising that Paul Ryan and his many supporters have been advertising the [skip]in his budget proposal as the greatest thing since the Clinton-era welfare reform legislation. What is surprising is that some progressives seem to be going along with the characterization in order to grind some old axes about the 1996 act.
There was a big Sunday New York Times piece by Jason DeParle conflating the plight of “the poor” with those of the single unwed mothers affected by state-level reductions in cash assistance under the TANF program (the post-1996 name for the old Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, a.k.a. “welfare”).
[skip]
Ezra Klein takes a different tack in suggesting that welfare reform’s record is an accurate yardstick for how the Ryan budget might work out: since Ryan (and for that matter, in his own proposal, Mitt Romney) wants to turn Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs into state-run block grants, it’s important to look at how states have cut TANF to see how they might handle these other programs.
Ezra’s right about that, but like Paul Ryan, he’s mixing apples and oranges: TANF costs and caseloads were intended to go down in no small part because the other safety net programs, along with the extremely important earned income tax credit (EITC) were intended to pick up the slack.
so EITC expansion was part of welfare reform and critics of welfare reform are grinding old axes stuck in 1996 when they discuss poverty in the USA right now.
I assert that in this post he called Jason DeParle and Ezra Klein objectively pro Ryanist left deviationists.
Later he wrote
Indeed, we were about the only people in the non-technical chattering classes who seemed to understand the distinction between the Clinton administration’s philosophy of welfare reform (aimed at getting welfare recipients into private-sector jobs, not just through work requirements but with robust “making work pay” supports like an expanded EITC, which was enacted at Clinton’s insistence well before welfare reform) and that of congressional Republicans (House Republicans were mainly concerned about punishing illegitimacy and denying assistance to legal immigrants, while Senate Republicans enacted a bill that was just a straight block grant that let states do whatever they wanted so long as they saved the feds money).
Also note the recognition of uh like time and calenders and stuff
"expanded EITC, which was enacted ... well before welfare reform". Wow the man has noticed that 1993<1996 what a math genius.
My oh my it seems that by August 7 2012 criticisms of the 1996 welfare reform bill were no longer Paul Ryan serving old ax grinding eh. Why exactly is DeParle's article on current events in Texas stuck in 1996 old ax grinding while this post is forward looking discussing of what shits Republicans were in 1996 (in writing the bill signed into law by Bill).
Now we have come full circle. Playing into Paul Ryan's hands has become
Beyond everything I’ve already said about this ad, I’d also note Harold Pollack’s fine post today at Ten Miles Square about the realities of TANF,
he quotes with approval
Right now, states are often rewarded for simply cutting recipients off, or for other activities that do not successfully place recipients into stable jobs. The Obama administration is granting waivers to do better. Under the July 12 memorandum, states must “explain in a compelling fashion” why their proposed approaches would provide “more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs” which “will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits…..”
More generally, these Romney commercials warn us about a nonexistent problem: The supposed excessive generosity of cash assistance for poor families with children. The most pressing welfare problem is quite different: We’re neglecting millions of low-income families who need help. The number of Americans in poverty increased by ten million between 1996 and 2010. Unemployment among low-income single moms has correspondingly grown. Yet TANF serves a progressively declining share of children living in economic need. When welfare reform was enacted, 68 American families received AFDC/TANF benefits for every 100 families with children in poverty. By 2010, only 27 did.
So can anyone explain to me how the "really fine post today at Ten Miles Square"
differs from the old ax grinding od DeParle and Klain.
I think that Kilgore has finally recognised that he was wrong wrong wrong and that DeParle and Klein were just describing reality as reality based entities recognise that it really is, I think he owes them a HUGE apology.
Burying the ax I have been grinding
I think that Kilgore here admits that he was wrong wrong wrong about really existing welfare reform.
I comment (full post to come).
Today I bury the old hachet I have been grinding. Your thought on reformed welfare has, I think, evolved. Frankly, I think you have finally faced the fact that really existing welfare reform has nothing to do with the welfare reform you dreamed of back at the Progressive Policy Institute.
Not so very long ago, you denounced reporting data on current welfare (which is principally controlled to the very limited extent that it is controlled by any federal law by the 1996 welfare reform bill) as grinding old axes and playing into Paul Ryans hands.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/ryan_budget_not_the_new_welfar036597.php
Now essentially identical reporting is a "fine post at 10 miles square.
What is the difference between Harold Pollack's fine post and the objectivley pro Republican left deviationism of Jason DeParle and Ezra Klein (who isn't much older than the ax you claimed he was griding).
I think you owe DeParle and Klein a huge apology. The fact is that they reported the facts. You who not they were still fighting old battles from the 90s and you not they decided that reporting current events was grinding old axes.
Now I think you understand that they were totally right and you were totally wrong.
So I will stop arguing with you, since I think you have admitted that you obsession with old quarrels prevented you from being reality based.
I comment (full post to come).
Today I bury the old hachet I have been grinding. Your thought on reformed welfare has, I think, evolved. Frankly, I think you have finally faced the fact that really existing welfare reform has nothing to do with the welfare reform you dreamed of back at the Progressive Policy Institute.
Not so very long ago, you denounced reporting data on current welfare (which is principally controlled to the very limited extent that it is controlled by any federal law by the 1996 welfare reform bill) as grinding old axes and playing into Paul Ryans hands.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/ryan_budget_not_the_new_welfar036597.php
Now essentially identical reporting is a "fine post at 10 miles square.
What is the difference between Harold Pollack's fine post and the objectivley pro Republican left deviationism of Jason DeParle and Ezra Klein (who isn't much older than the ax you claimed he was griding).
I think you owe DeParle and Klein a huge apology. The fact is that they reported the facts. You who not they were still fighting old battles from the 90s and you not they decided that reporting current events was grinding old axes.
Now I think you understand that they were totally right and you were totally wrong.
So I will stop arguing with you, since I think you have admitted that you obsession with old quarrels prevented you from being reality based.
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Ed Kilgore on EITC expansion and welfare reform again
There he goes again. After I have repeatedly noted his falsehoods, Kilgore concedes that the EITC was expanded before AFDC was reformed into TANF. He insists, based on no evidence, that the two bills passed by completely different congresses 3 years apart are part of the same thing. This is nonsense.
When I first read the EITC increase is part of welfare reform howler here, I asked my friend Brad DeLong who was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for policy analysis in 1993 when the EITC was increased. He wrote back. I just got his permission to quote him in full with my e-mail (not in full) for context
Dear Brad
I knew I would get pissed at someone from the Progressive Policy Ist taking over from Drum the Benen. It took a while. The issue i, of course, welfare reform. This http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/ryan_budget_not_the_new_welfar036597.php
Is appalling post by Ed Kilgore in many ways, but the part I found intollerable was ascribing the expansion of the EITC to welfare reform. I consider this to be simply a lie.
Yes we should seek converts not heretics and the brand "welfare reform" is too strong to fight. But the truth is the truth. I think any historian who worked at the Clinton Treasury has an obligation to the truth to point out that Kilgore is grossly distorting history.
Also [skip]
Ciao
Brad DeLong
Apr 11
to me
OUCH! That is painful...
IIRC the EITC expansion came about to offset the adverse distributional impact of the BTU tax...
Brad DeLong
Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong
U.C. Berkeley
brad.delong@gmail.com
925 708 0467
He was there and you weren't.
Now the point of your post is that Obama supports the 1996 welfare reform (he sure does and wrote that explicitly in The Audacity of Hope. But your claim that the EITC expansion of 1993 was part of it is just false.
When I first read the EITC increase is part of welfare reform howler here, I asked my friend Brad DeLong who was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for policy analysis in 1993 when the EITC was increased. He wrote back. I just got his permission to quote him in full with my e-mail (not in full) for context
Dear Brad
I knew I would get pissed at someone from the Progressive Policy Ist taking over from Drum the Benen. It took a while. The issue i, of course, welfare reform. This http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/ryan_budget_not_the_new_welfar036597.php
Is appalling post by Ed Kilgore in many ways, but the part I found intollerable was ascribing the expansion of the EITC to welfare reform. I consider this to be simply a lie.
Yes we should seek converts not heretics and the brand "welfare reform" is too strong to fight. But the truth is the truth. I think any historian who worked at the Clinton Treasury has an obligation to the truth to point out that Kilgore is grossly distorting history.
Also [skip]
Ciao
Brad DeLong
Apr 11
to me
OUCH! That is painful...
IIRC the EITC expansion came about to offset the adverse distributional impact of the BTU tax...
Brad DeLong
Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong
U.C. Berkeley
brad.delong@gmail.com
925 708 0467
He was there and you weren't.
Now the point of your post is that Obama supports the 1996 welfare reform (he sure does and wrote that explicitly in The Audacity of Hope. But your claim that the EITC expansion of 1993 was part of it is just false.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Geppetto Kessler
Glenn Kessler rates the latest hard hitting utterly ruthless Obama ad completely accurate.
The truth will out or ref successfully worked ? I guess the first, but am glad I didn't read Kessler's e-mail during the Bain fiasco.
The truth will out or ref successfully worked ? I guess the first, but am glad I didn't read Kessler's e-mail during the Bain fiasco.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Breaking News
Massachusetts Candidate Confirms Utah As Residence
By FOX BUTTERFIELD
Published: June 07, 2002
Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for governor, acknowledged today that he filed tax returns in 1999 and 2000 saying he was a part-time resident or nonresident of Massachusetts, while he lived full time in Utah running the Winter Olympics.
The Massachusetts Constitution requires a candidate for governor to have lived in the state for seven consecutive years before running, and Mr. Romney's admission raised new questions about his candidacy. On Wednesday, he acknowledged saving $54,000 in taxes by claiming his multimillion dollar Utah house as his primary residence.
Via Traci Lee
Note the date. Why don't we have as good a press corps as we had in 2002 ?
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Kevin Drum is surprised by a poll again
I think very highly of Kevin Drum too. I think he has useful things to say about economics (I don't think that most economists do). I think he is very smart. But he keeps being surprised by polls which shouldn't surprise him
He just learned that Medicaid is pretty popular.
I am reminded that he doesn't use www.pollingreport.com
I don't often have the impression that I have something to teach you. When I it is usually
www.pollingreport.com . You would be surprised less often by polls if you searched that site regularly as I do. It isn't totally user friendly, but it convinced me that Medicaid is almost as popular as Medicare.
see
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget5.htm
search for
Medicaid -- the federal health program for the poor
There are two relevant polls which are the second and third appearance of the phrase on the page.
Medicaid ranks above infrastructure and unemployment insurance (and way above defense spending).
Also here
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget3.htm
search for Medicaid only the first is relevant.
Not quite as popular as Medicare but very popular.
Or how about
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget3.htm
(note I am not googling)
search medicaid again (it appears twice). Again not quite as popular as Medicare but close.
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget2.htm
Not useful. All polls as about "Medicaid and Medicare"
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
"Medicaid" doesn't appear on the page.
Here as very very often public opinion on economic issues is to the left of where you think it is. An earlier example was your belief that people in the USA oppose higher taxes on rich people (I pointed out you were wrong before the mass of recent polling proved you were totally completely utterly wrong).
I have three observations.
1) Orange County is not typical (it isn't as right wing as it was but you are in an unusual place)
2) The Village is less typical. It is hard not to be influenced by famous pundits who claim to have a sense of how regular Americans think. They are all rich and totally out of touch. There is a huge massive incredible gap between VSP opinion and public opinion.
3) Polling literalism may be a problem (although there is no proof of this claim) but it's worth at least looking at polls (you agree as this post shows). If you don't find numbers repulsive, then pollingreport.com contains a huge amount of valuable information which can be absorbed quickly and painlessly.
He just learned that Medicaid is pretty popular.
I am reminded that he doesn't use www.pollingreport.com
I don't often have the impression that I have something to teach you. When I it is usually
www.pollingreport.com . You would be surprised less often by polls if you searched that site regularly as I do. It isn't totally user friendly, but it convinced me that Medicaid is almost as popular as Medicare.
see
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget5.htm
search for
Medicaid -- the federal health program for the poor
There are two relevant polls which are the second and third appearance of the phrase on the page.
Medicaid ranks above infrastructure and unemployment insurance (and way above defense spending).
Also here
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget3.htm
search for Medicaid only the first is relevant.
Not quite as popular as Medicare but very popular.
Or how about
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget3.htm
(note I am not googling)
search medicaid again (it appears twice). Again not quite as popular as Medicare but close.
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget2.htm
Not useful. All polls as about "Medicaid and Medicare"
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
"Medicaid" doesn't appear on the page.
Here as very very often public opinion on economic issues is to the left of where you think it is. An earlier example was your belief that people in the USA oppose higher taxes on rich people (I pointed out you were wrong before the mass of recent polling proved you were totally completely utterly wrong).
I have three observations.
1) Orange County is not typical (it isn't as right wing as it was but you are in an unusual place)
2) The Village is less typical. It is hard not to be influenced by famous pundits who claim to have a sense of how regular Americans think. They are all rich and totally out of touch. There is a huge massive incredible gap between VSP opinion and public opinion.
3) Polling literalism may be a problem (although there is no proof of this claim) but it's worth at least looking at polls (you agree as this post shows). If you don't find numbers repulsive, then pollingreport.com contains a huge amount of valuable information which can be absorbed quickly and painlessly.
More Contra Yglesias
I think extremely highly of Matthew Yglesias.
I mainly disagree on one topic and it is a disagreement of degree not of kind. We both think the Fed can and should do more to stimulate the economy. He tends to argue that this would be easy and all the Fed has to do is declare a higher inflation target plus maybe open ended QE3. He noted that Peter Diamond disagrees. He was impressed at his courage in debating a Nobel Laureate and has gone on to assume, in effect, that Diamond is so obviously wrong that he can be ignored.
The question is whether the Fed can achieve an inflation target of say 4%. Yglesias argued (no link) that it obviously can because it controls the money supply. Here I think the issue can be redefined (maybe I am being unfair to Yglesias here and still no link) as whether the Fed can achieve an inflation target of 4% if the only way it affects the economy is through expected inflation.
Note I haven't specified the existing inflation rate at the time the Fed announces its 4% target. I think this makes it clear why people significantly older than Yglesias find his posts on the subject incomprehensible. In 1980 the Fed had an inflation target of 4% (possibly importantly it wasn't stated at the time -- I infer this from later monetary policy). It achieved this target following an extremely severe recession. My recollection is that output remained low and unemployment high even after Volker's ruthless determination was made very clear to everyone who was paying attention.
Look at the Livingston Survey of Consumer Price Index forecasts (many pages go to CPI). In 81 and 82 you will see forecasts of increases on the order of 4 or 5%. Notice these are forecasts of prices 6 months ahead so correspond to expected inflation of 8 or 10%. This is after the Fed had a huge horribly painful effect on the real economy. The unemployment rate reached the highest level since WWII (not surpassed in 2009). This is a snip of median CPI forecasts
No one who lived through the early 80s can imagine that the Fed can control inflation expectations just because it controls the money supply.
The usual boring rant follows.
Yglesias thinks the Fed can stimulate a lot and I suspect it can stimulate not so very much, but not so very much better is better than current policy. We also disagree about how the Fed can most dramatically affect the economy. I think the main thing the Fed can do is bear (really hide) risk from investors reducing the supply of risky assets held by private agents and increasing their prices. So I think the key issue is first that there be QE3 and second that the Fed buy something risky. This means US Federal Agency issued mortgage bonds or bonds issued by not so credit worthy foreign governments (conflict of interest disclaimer some of those bonds are sold to get the money paid to me each month). These are the only risky asset it is allowed to buy. This is what QE1 was (and it worked). In QE2 the Fed tried unconventional monetary policy which was as close to conventional as possible and the effects were, in my view, not statistically significantly different from nothing.
I mainly disagree on one topic and it is a disagreement of degree not of kind. We both think the Fed can and should do more to stimulate the economy. He tends to argue that this would be easy and all the Fed has to do is declare a higher inflation target plus maybe open ended QE3. He noted that Peter Diamond disagrees. He was impressed at his courage in debating a Nobel Laureate and has gone on to assume, in effect, that Diamond is so obviously wrong that he can be ignored.
The question is whether the Fed can achieve an inflation target of say 4%. Yglesias argued (no link) that it obviously can because it controls the money supply. Here I think the issue can be redefined (maybe I am being unfair to Yglesias here and still no link) as whether the Fed can achieve an inflation target of 4% if the only way it affects the economy is through expected inflation.
Note I haven't specified the existing inflation rate at the time the Fed announces its 4% target. I think this makes it clear why people significantly older than Yglesias find his posts on the subject incomprehensible. In 1980 the Fed had an inflation target of 4% (possibly importantly it wasn't stated at the time -- I infer this from later monetary policy). It achieved this target following an extremely severe recession. My recollection is that output remained low and unemployment high even after Volker's ruthless determination was made very clear to everyone who was paying attention.
Look at the Livingston Survey of Consumer Price Index forecasts (many pages go to CPI). In 81 and 82 you will see forecasts of increases on the order of 4 or 5%. Notice these are forecasts of prices 6 months ahead so correspond to expected inflation of 8 or 10%. This is after the Fed had a huge horribly painful effect on the real economy. The unemployment rate reached the highest level since WWII (not surpassed in 2009). This is a snip of median CPI forecasts
No one who lived through the early 80s can imagine that the Fed can control inflation expectations just because it controls the money supply.
The usual boring rant follows.
Yglesias thinks the Fed can stimulate a lot and I suspect it can stimulate not so very much, but not so very much better is better than current policy. We also disagree about how the Fed can most dramatically affect the economy. I think the main thing the Fed can do is bear (really hide) risk from investors reducing the supply of risky assets held by private agents and increasing their prices. So I think the key issue is first that there be QE3 and second that the Fed buy something risky. This means US Federal Agency issued mortgage bonds or bonds issued by not so credit worthy foreign governments (conflict of interest disclaimer some of those bonds are sold to get the money paid to me each month). These are the only risky asset it is allowed to buy. This is what QE1 was (and it worked). In QE2 the Fed tried unconventional monetary policy which was as close to conventional as possible and the effects were, in my view, not statistically significantly different from nothing.
On Yglesias on Friedman
Matthew Yglesias notes that, while Milton Friedman is highly praised, few consider him a guide out of our present predicament.
I comment
I knew I shouldn't have read this post. It is true that in the UK at least "monetarism" is used as an English translation of laissez Faire but I don't think that has anything to do with limited support for monetary stimulus on the left. It is also used as a synonym for tight money, just the opposite of what Friedman advocated for eg Japan (he advocated QE).
I think the reason that the US left (except for you) is lukewarm about monetary stimulus is that it has been tried and tried and has failed. Of course you et al can argue that the huge unprecedented efforts weren't the right efforts because words speak louder than actions. But the focus on fiscal policy was definitely a pragmatic choice based on the evidence. The ARRA wasn't accompanied by the most radically expansionary monetary policy in US history (by far). The standard line among Keynesian economists is that monetary stabilization policy is usually preferable to fiscal stabilization policy, but, at the moment we need both. Hostility to Friedman is, as far as I can tell, not a factor at all.
I think the reason that Friedman has few followers now is that the data have proven that he was totally utterly completely wrong about money (I think the natural rate hypothesis and the permanent income hypothesis are similarly proven wrong but others disagree -- no one who has any respect for data defends Friedman's monetarism because it is wildly spectacularly inconsistent with the data.
Similarly Newton is highly respected. But this doesn't mean that physicists at CERN ignore special relativity. Notably there isn't a Sumner/Yglesias wing of the Physics profession.
I comment
I knew I shouldn't have read this post. It is true that in the UK at least "monetarism" is used as an English translation of laissez Faire but I don't think that has anything to do with limited support for monetary stimulus on the left. It is also used as a synonym for tight money, just the opposite of what Friedman advocated for eg Japan (he advocated QE).
I think the reason that the US left (except for you) is lukewarm about monetary stimulus is that it has been tried and tried and has failed. Of course you et al can argue that the huge unprecedented efforts weren't the right efforts because words speak louder than actions. But the focus on fiscal policy was definitely a pragmatic choice based on the evidence. The ARRA wasn't accompanied by the most radically expansionary monetary policy in US history (by far). The standard line among Keynesian economists is that monetary stabilization policy is usually preferable to fiscal stabilization policy, but, at the moment we need both. Hostility to Friedman is, as far as I can tell, not a factor at all.
I think the reason that Friedman has few followers now is that the data have proven that he was totally utterly completely wrong about money (I think the natural rate hypothesis and the permanent income hypothesis are similarly proven wrong but others disagree -- no one who has any respect for data defends Friedman's monetarism because it is wildly spectacularly inconsistent with the data.
Similarly Newton is highly respected. But this doesn't mean that physicists at CERN ignore special relativity. Notably there isn't a Sumner/Yglesias wing of the Physics profession.
Stuff I wouldn't dare Make up
Worried about the cost of feed grain and aiming to maintain the supply of, among other things, high quality milk "Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Jim Costa (D-Calif.) introduced a bill, supported by the livestock industry, , that would relax the ethanol mandate by up to 50 percent when supplies are low."
I can only say that when they introduced the bill hoping to beat the farmer/distiller lobby they must have been drunk.
I can only say that when they introduced the bill hoping to beat the farmer/distiller lobby they must have been drunk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)