The Civility Plea

You know, politics ain’t beanbag. If you are going to get upset about being called a hack, then perhaps you should not be making political comments. Stop using the Internet and stick to the Cartoon Network, or something.

Bernard and Arnold, perhaps you should revisit the actual post.

The Nobel prize winner was not talking about economics. He was talking about politics.

And when Solow talks about economic policy, which I think falls under the realm of politics, I do not think he is being fair minded. I think that he has a partisan agenda to which his economic arguments have become mere talking points for.

When you are not being fair minded, and when you are just regurgitating talking points, then you fall into the realm of hackdom.

Again, revisit my post. What set me off was that Solow doesn’t think that the tax cuts were immediate enough. This from a Democrat, the very people who blocked the tax cuts from being implemented immediately.

That’s not fair minded. And that is hack behavior.

“….whose economic writing, by the way, is objectively awful.”

Gosh, what ever happened to Paul “The Great Unraveling” Krugman? The stock market just a very short time ago was at 9588.39, up +19.93 from yesterday. Didn’t Krugman warn us that an economic Armageddon is at our doorstep? Yet, the economic news is improving on a daily basis.

Paul Krugman’s book has just been released. Should it be positioned in the economic area of the bookstore—or the humor section? Will he be laughed out of town?

The National Review posted Larry Kudlow’s
following column earlier today:

“The New Economic Reality
When will the bears wake up and smell the coffee?

August was supposed to be a bad month, but stocks rose anyway. September is supposed to be the worst month of the year, but stocks are surging anyway. When will the bears wake up and smell the coffee? We’re in a bull market. It has legs. It also has rising profits and productivity, lower taxes, and historically low interest rates. Investors are pouring money into stock prices. Think of it as rational exuberance.

Economic pessimists had better beware — and that includes Democrats on the presidential campaign trail.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow090403.asp

There is no question but that Larry Kudlow has been far more accurate with his economic predictions than Paul Krugman. Wow, do you think that Brad DeLong might start pretending that he never heard of Krugman?

I wouldn’t put Kudlow and Krugman in the same boat. Kudlow is nothing if not civil. No foaming at the mouth from him. You might not like him because he is an uber supply sider, and OH SO OPTIMISTIC!!! but he doesn’t have an attack dog bone in his body.

Actually, he is quite humorous.

Question off the subject: are Brad Delong and J. Bradford Delong (writes in Wired magazine) the same person?

Arnold,

Incivility is an older and worse problem on the Internet than SPAM is. While an undergraduate at UC Irvine from 1988-1992, I actively participated in an online politics discussion newsgroup frequented by students and profs in the department. It was ruthless, but always interesting because the playing field was level when everyone had an e-mail address and not just one person has a podium. I applaud you and other bloggers for asking for civility, but you’re spitting into a tornado, and so long as you realize that, your plea is laudible.

Econlog is actually a very civil place, and that accounts for at least 70% of its charm. But I think we all wonder where the bounds of civility really lie. Larry Kudlow is mentioned above. I generally find him well-reasoned and gut-wrenchingly humorous. I have one big problem with Kudlow as a personality involved as a very public face in the debate. It’s the same reason I turn the TV off when [a particular sportscaster] comes on Channel 4 sports in LA. They have both had publicly acknowledged cocaine problems. I find it repulsive that the media culture says they can take a little time off, and come back and expect a warm exception or expect media consumers to just forget. So I wonder, when discussing the ideas of someone who has placed themselves squarely in the public media sphere, is it uncivil to bring up such issues? If so, is it too cynical to let such issues ccloud our thinking out their ideas?

-Brad

“Since I agree with DeLong that the quality of their writing in this area is abysmal, I have to conclude he is doing a very poor job. “

You are conveniently overlooking the fact that Brad DeLong has severely demolished his credibility by endorsing Paul Krugman. It is obvious that DeLong is unable to discern what is truly “abysmal” writing. Anyone who has humiliated himself by arguing that the very mediocre Krugman deserves a Nobel prize is in no position to throw stones. My guess is that both men are reluctant to upset the liberal establishment. Alas, it must be hell for those pursuing a career within the liberal controlled universities to find themselves removed from those white wine and brie cheese party lists.

Another thing about Kudlow, on his show he goes from areas where he should have some expertise like economics(debatable) to even more complex areas like Iraq with the same self confidence and certainty. The impression I am left with is that things will be great because his guy is in charge. Perhaps I am wrong but has he ever been bearish on the market since Bush took office?

Eric,

So Kudlow is not a “hack,” to use your term, despite uncritically promoting a partisan agenda.

Your view of “neo-Keynesian” economics is simply wrong, by the way. Remember that Keynes was addressing precisely the problem of growth – how to end the Depression. You may think his ideas, or those of Neo-Keynesians are wrong, but before doing so you might want a non-cartoon version.

David,

I know that Krugman annoys the hell out of conservatives, but an awful lot of this is because he is simply right about many things. An extremely high percentage of the criticism he gets is due to the fact that conservatives just don’t like what he say. I would say his comments about the budget and tax reforms have proven vastly more accurate than the Administration’s.

I don’t agree that DeLong has “demolished his credibility.” And ifyou do believe that, how does that make the sort of idiocy published in NRO correct?

>>Remember that Keynes was addressing precisely the problem of growth – how to end the Depression.

Does Krugman ever criticise Democrats? Does Solow?

Like I said, Kudlow has some nice things to say about Clinton.

“Well, this again takes us into an area of people not being straight about their true intentions.

The bottom line with Keynes is that government interference in the economy was seen as a means of CONTROLLING growth.

As is human nature, the power that came with that control was corrupting. Growth itself became subserviant to other agendas that were facilitated by Keynsian policies. For example, airline pilots who are against de-regulation because they make more money in a regulated industry.

For supply siders, its all about growth. Get the incentives right, growth happens, and other things like equality and justice take care of themselves. Of course, the class warriors just make it out to be “tax cuts for the rich”

Eric,

I don’t know your source for this information, but I suggest you look elsewhere. This is woefully ignorant. There is not a single accurate sentence in your post.

And while you’re at it, lose the sound bites about “class warriors.” They make you sound like you’re just regurgitating talking points in support of a partisan agenda.

>>There is not a single accurate sentence in your post.

Eric,

True. I break my resolutions.

Let me be specific about what I perceive as wrong in your post. Keynes’ ideas had nothing to do with regulating or controlling the economy. Therefore all the stuff about pilots is irrelevant.

Keynes was specifically concernded with growth. What he observed was a world economy stuck in depression that it was unable to come out of by just letting the market work. It seemed clear to him that the economy had reached an equilibrium, but it was not the full-employment equilibrium of classical economics. In other words, it was stuck.

Keynes recognized that one source of this problem was a lack of “aggregate demand,” the combined demand, more or less, of business, consumers, and government. He therefore suggested that government deficit spending could provide a stimulus to the economy by increasing aggregate demand.

This has nothing to do with regulation or control. It is an observation, unexceptionable today, that fiscal policy affects the economy.

Now this is a dramatically oversimplified, and probably not totally accurate, explanation. But two things are critical:

Keynes was concerned with growth.

He did not advocate central control of the economy.

That is why I felt your post was poorly-informed. That is why I didn’t respond to you ropinions – because your opinions of Keynesianism seem to have nothing to do with Keynes.

I know that supply-siders are concerned with growth, so I have to admit that that sentence was not inaccurate. But so are others. Let me quote from DeLong’s lecture notes, linked to on his site:

“Ultimately long run growth is the most important aspect of how the economy performs.”

Does that sound like someone who isn’t concerned about growth?

Am I a “closet Republican?” No. I do think market solutions are generally desirable, but I have a reasonable understanding of when they won’t work, and I am not averse to government action in principle. I also disagree with some Democratic policies, notably on trade (though I’m not overwhelmed by Republican policies in this area either). But I dislike Republican policies much more. And, I must admit, I think the Bush Administration is dishonest in the extreme, and cares only for the well-being of its big-money cronies.

Glad to hear you’re agreeing with DeLong, but he doesn’t sound like much of a Republican. He recently wrote (accurately),

“The Bush Administration is incompetent at countercyclical policy.”

And of course he has been in general a harsh critic of Bush.

“but what does Brad DeLong think about the current crop of Democrat candidates?”

I don’t know.

“The labor bosses have an inordinate impact on the Democrat presidential candidate selection process. ”

Well, they have an impact, certainly. Lots of groups have an impact on the nominating process in both parties. Whether the impact of any one group is “inordinate” depends on your view of the group’s agenda. it’s not an objective term.

“So you’re going to argue about the definition of the word “Keynsian”?”

Well, I’m reasonably sure it doesn’t mean what you think, which is something like, “economic policies Eric Krieg disagrees with.”

Please. What exactly was Nixon talking about when he said “We’re all Keynsians now”.”

Nixon was talking about the importance of fiscal policy to the economy.

“The regulated economy of the 1970’s was Keynesian.”

Nonsense.

>>Keynes was specifically concernded with growth.

Let’s take Keynes at his own words, shall we?

From my well worn copy of “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money”, Chapter 24:

“The outstanding faults of the society we live in are its failure to provide for full employment AND INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH AND INCOMES”.

Growth was not Keynes’ principle concern. He had other agendas.”

Keynes’ motivation was the Depression. Getting out of a depression requires growth. If you had read a little further you would have noticed that he was writing in favor of progressive income taxes and the estate tax. His main concern was that certain types of inequality hindered economic growth. He was not opposed to inequality per se.

“ Keynes was also concerned with bubble economies, and wanted to regulate growth so that markets didn’t become overheated. He said to avoid the depression by limiting growth during the boom.

I’m not aware of ANY similar concern with supply siders. I don’t think that supply siders can even spell bubble.

Keynsians did advocate regulation of the fiscal cycle by government. Not socialism, per se, but regulated capitalism.”

I don’t doubt that supply-siders are poor spellers. Do they not think that the Fed has a role to play in preventing the economy from overheating?

Are the objectives of “regulation of the fiscal cycle” much different than the objectives of regulation of the money supply?”

>>Am I a “closet Republican?” No.

“I disagree. Respectfully. “

You are wrong.

“You don’t like Republicans as people, and you question their motives. “

True.

“But you agree with their policies, economically at least. “

Let’s see. The only consistent feature of Republican economic policy in recent years has been tax cuts as the cure for all evils. I disagree with that, and think Bush’s cuts were a terrible idea.

I disagree with protectionism but, rhetoric aside, that is practiced by both parties. I do think markets are in general the best way to allocate resources. But I think Republicans generally have a poor understanding of markets. They do not understand that markets sometimes fail, that they exist in a context of law, and that their economic benefits are not best realized by complete laissez-faire policies. Further, they seem happy to interfere on behalf of many business interests.

As for non-economic matters, there are very few areas where I agree with Republicans, and many where I find their policies destructive, and as I said above, motivated solely by a desire to please big business. Furthermore, I admit to a visceral dislike of many leading Republicans. They are smarmy, stupid, sanctimonious, mean-spirited, bigoted. I despise the gay-bashing and kowtowing to religious ignorance that characterizes so much Republican rhetoric. I have zero respect for Bush.

Sound like a closet Republican to you?

Since you’ve taken the liberty of telling me what I think, let me talk about you. You’re a bright guy who comes to reasonable conclusions sometimes, but you . But you’ve read too much conservative propaganda, and swallowed it without realizing it. For example, you take “supply-side way too seriously and may actually blieve that tax cuts pay for themselves. Broaden your reading, understand that NR is a rag, that Business Week columnists are a highly mixed bag. Try The New Republic for starters.

I have no problem with someone disliking Republicans for their cultural stands. I’m glad that there are things more important to you than mere economics.

I am the opposite. I give Dubya wide latitude on economics because of the things he has done culturally and especially with respect to the military and foreign policy.

Tell me what I should give him credit for. He sometimes talks a good game, but when it comes to putting up some money he backs off.

“Haven’t you heard? There’s a big deficit. We can’t afford X.”

Whose fault is that?

(Rhetorical question. Let’s not start the 98,375th thread about what caused the deficit).

Your stance also reminds me of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals think that people who don’t agree with them are evil.

Conservatives think that people that don’t agree with them are just misguided, and need more convincing.

Your visceral hatred of Dubya is very personal, when really your beef is just over policy. Now, I probably loathe Clinton just as much, but more for the fact that his word meant nothing, and that he was a sexual predator. And that liberals let him get away with behavior that would get a normal human being thrown in the slammer.