…and accountability:
To be clear, this lack of accountability is not a feature on this specific administration but is, instead, a reflection of the inherent uncertainties associated with macroeconomics. The administration, however, has not been particularly forthright in admitting to this lack of accountability. Indeed, the act of releasing quarterly reports on how many jobs have been “created or saved” gives the illusion of accountability without the reality.
The country is in the very best of hands. If you like having it run by thieves and charlatans. The press certainly doesn’t seem to mind.
I’d love to see quaterly reports on jobs “Saved”, with specific references.
Well, those cash payouts to state governments have allowed them to “save” the jobs of government employees who would’ve been laid off to make up for budget shortfalls. However, an honest accounting would also have to include the private sector jobs lost due to a shortage of capital from all that government deficit spending.
The press certainly doesn’t seem to mind.
Well, since the press is now simply a branch office of the thieves and charlatans should we expect anything different?
Would news media jobs count as private-sector or government-sector?
You can’t expect the Press to bite the hand that may feed it. They are salivating over some of that stimulus money As readers and viewers look elsewhere for news rather than opinion, the Press may well need a bailout, or at least think they do. Since they haven’t fairly covered the fall out to GM after GM took stimulus funds, you can’t expect the Press to learn from previous examples.
The country is in the very best of hands. If you like having it run by thieves and charlatans.
Click my name to read Ryan Lizza’s piece on the Obama economic team, and how they arrived at the size of the ARRA stimulus bill. It was the economists who wanted a bigger stimulus, and the political people who were horrified at the idea of asking for more than $1T. So much for the notion that that ARRA was a political move.
Economists on the Left were for ARRA while those on the Right opposed it. Yeah, no politics there. Click my name to read where Martin Feldstein (part of Robert Reich’s supposed “economists across the political specturm”) calls it the $800 billion mistake.
Economists on the Left were for ARRA while those
on the Rightwho actually understand economics opposed it.There, fixed that for ya. 😉
It was the economists who wanted a bigger stimulus, and the political people who were horrified at the idea of asking for more than $1T.
You lie.
lol, Rand…
Rand writes: Economists on the Left were for ARRA while those who actually understand economics opposed it.
That puts Larry Summers, winner of the John Bates Clark Medal, the guy who got tenure at Harvard at 27 (under the mentorship of Martin Feldstein), in the category of “economists who don’t actually understand economics.” Along with Christina Romer, Tim Geithner, Paul Krugman, etc.
Titus writes: Click my name to read where Martin Feldstein (part of Robert Reich’s supposed “economists across the political specturm”) calls it the $800 billion mistake.
Feldstein also wrote:
The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big
He had objections to the nature of the spending and the tax cuts that were put in as a sop to the GOP, but not with the need for a large stimulus, or with the overall fiscal impact.
Right, IOW, monies poorly spent in a political stunt.
Jim, is that the same Tim Geithner who couldn’t figure out TurboTax year after year after year?
Not to mention the same Paul Krugman who advised us a few years ago that the solution to the economic problems was to create a housing bubble?
But then, as Jim has demonstrated multiple times here, he is an idiot, who wouldn’t know an intelligent economist if one punched him in the nose.
Jim, is that the same Tim Geithner who couldn’t figure out TurboTax year after year after year?
Yes. Do you think he doesn’t actually understand economics?
Not to mention the same Paul Krugman who advised us a few years ago that the solution to the economic problems was to create a housing bubble?
The Paul Krugman who co-authored International Economics: Theory and Policy, the standard introductory textbook on international economics (along with dozens of scholarly books and articles on economcis); you’re saying he does not understand economics?
But then, as Jim has demonstrated multiple times here, he is an idiot, who wouldn’t know an intelligent economist if one punched him in the nose.
Here Rand lends support to the theory that when the facts are against him, he will turn to name calling.
The Paul Krugman who co-authored International Economics: Theory and Policy, the standard introductory textbook on international economics (along with dozens of scholarly books and articles on economcis); you’re saying he does not understand economics?
Apparently he’s forgotten what he once knew, he’s become so poisoned by his leftist ideology.
Here Rand lends support to the theory that when the facts are against him, he will turn to name calling.
How can that be, when the facts aren’t against me?
How can that be, when the facts aren’t against me?
So you’re sticking to your claim that Summers, Romer, Krugman, Geithner, et al. don’t understand economics? The Lizza piece debunks your earlier claim, that White House economists only supported the stimulus for political reasons.
So you’re sticking to your claim that Summers, Romer, Krugman, Geithner, et al. don’t understand economics?
I can’t know what’s actually in their heads, but if they really believe what they’re saying, then yes. And their prognosticatory track record for the first eight months of power is abysmal.
So you’re sticking to your claim that Summers, Romer, Krugman, Geithner, et al. don’t understand economics?
Jim, if you’re ever going to learn to argue, you need to find arguments that won’t automatically lose your case for you. As Rand noted, if these guys are sincerely peddling the advice they peddled in the recent past, then they don’t understand economics.
I can’t say whether Geithner, et al, understand or are ignorant of economics. One could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they do not understand it. Or one could conclude that they do, and that their policies are born of a deliberate, well considered desire to destroy the U.S. economy. If one takes the position that Geither’s “inability” to correctly do his income taxes in no way reflects negatively on his economic acumen, then I suppose one would have to take the latter position.
As Rand noted, if these guys are sincerely peddling the advice they peddled in the recent past, then they don’t understand economics.
And yet they are eminent economists, among the most acclaimed in the world. But if Rand says otherwise, that must settle it….
The logic seems to be: they are doing things that I think are wrong, so clearly they don’t understand what they are doing, or else are doing them for nefarious reasons. The notion that the posters here — without 1% as much relevant experience or any remotely similar credentials in the field — might possibly be wrong is of course inconceivable. Likewise the banal possibility that even the greatest economist on earth, with the finest understanding of the field, acting in unimpeachably good faith, can still be simply wrong about specific predictions or policy prescriptions.
For some reason it isn’t enough for Rand to say that Summers and Romer are wrong; he has to smear them (without the least evidence) as unqualified, ignorant and/or dishonest.
Jim, it’s real simple.
They made testable predictions eight months ago. Their predictions have been shown to be nonsense. Therefore, these “eminent economists” apparently aren’t as eminent as you want to think, particularly since those of use who actually do understand economics (as you’ve demonstrated you do not, when you say that breaking windows and then fixing them creates economic value) predicted that this policy would be a disaster.
You can continue to believe in your false collectivist gods if you wish. We will continue to mock you. You can also continue to be a masochist and continue to show up here to be mocked. We enjoy it. Hope you do.
Jim, you wrote:
And yet they are eminent economists, among the most acclaimed in the world.
Sounds like you should read one of the books by John Kenneth Galbraith. He spins an entertaining tale of the Great Depression in “The Great Crash, 1929”. One chapter is devoted to the failed predictions (some losing streaks last several years!) of a number of eminent economists, some among the most acclaimed in the world.
To be blunt, economics is the closest thing to the hard sciences where it can pay very well to be continually and utterly wrong. That’s because more than any rigorous science, economic policies directly affect the well-being of the powerful and the ideologues. There are economic schools of thought with tenuous connection to reality (Marxism, Austrian school, and Objectivistism, for example) that haven’t changed in decades and have no incentive to change. In other cases, one can benefit greatly by parroting economic ideas that benefit an industrial sector or a special interest (like Greenpeace, Socialists, etc).
Romer and Geithner in particular seems to be profiting quite well by coming up with bogus economic rationalizations for Obama policy. It’s worth remember always with economists who is buttering their bread.
The logic seems to be: they are doing things that I think are wrong, so clearly they don’t understand what they are doing, or else are doing them for nefarious reasons.
Yes, that is true.
The notion that the posters here — without 1% as much relevant experience or any remotely similar credentials in the field — might possibly be wrong is of course inconceivable.
I have more than 1% personally (being decently read in economic theory and in economic history) and have FWIW “similar credentials” (a PhD in Math and more than ten years experience with the theory of betting markets). Also, I’ve actually read some of the rationalizations that these experts come up with. For example, one might recall my complaint about Romer who rationalized the Stimulus Bill by assuming (though IIRC she did cite some research that allegedly backed up her assumption) that government spending had a greater (economic activity or GDP) multiplier than tax cuts of equal size.
Likewise the banal possibility that even the greatest economist on earth, with the finest understanding of the field, acting in unimpeachably good faith, can still be simply wrong about specific predictions or policy prescriptions.
Of course, they can and be consistently wrong for years. As indicated in my reference above, this has happened before. Here, we’d label it “ignorance” or “delusion”.