Vote for the Most Astounding Statement I Heard This Week
Once again, it’s time for one of the more popular features on Free Advice, where you the reader get to vote on The Most Astounding Statement I Heard This Week.
Our first contestant is documentary maker Ken Burns, who said the following in a Reason interview with libertarian bad boy Nick Gillespie:
[M]y politics are in some ways irrelevant…[We] work with people of different political persuasions to just tell films that are just general…We have lost this ability to have a civil discourse and history is still a table around which we can agree to have that civil conversation. I don’t know anybody that doesn’t like Abraham Lincoln…
In fairness Burns was saying something particular about why every person to his knowledge liked Abraham Lincoln, but Gillespie cut him off with a snide remark. Then a few moments later Burns said:
Well I think history is sometimes used as a kind of propaganda tool, a superficial, sanitized Madison Avenue celebration of, you know, the ‘goodness’ of America and the good old days, and I’m clearly not interested in that.
Clearly not, Mr. Burns.
Our next contestant hails from New Jersey and is here in the studio today with his lovely wife, Robin. Paul likes cats, number puzzles, and science fiction. In a recent blog post defending “technocrats,” Paul said:
The line from people there, including the president, has been that it was too technocratic. But the real technocrats — people like Christy Romer and, well, me — were saying right from the beginning that the stimulus was too small, etc.; people like Geithner who opposed stronger action were basing their position on gut feelings about confidence, not number-crunching.
And by and large, people who did the numbers have gotten it mostly right; it’s precisely because we’re ruled by crats who trust their guts rather than the techno that we’re in such trouble.
Now this one might be over the heads of some of the members of our studio audience, so we’ll give you a hint. You know how in the debate over the Obama stimulus package, the #1 Smoking Gun of the right-wingers–the thing that all “true” Keynesians have had to disown and throw under the bus, claiming that they would never in a million years have endorsed such a thing–was the report prepared by Obama’s economic team, touting the benefits of his stimulus plan? Surely you remember, this was the document that contained the infamous graph showing how unemployment would peak at 8 percent with the stimulus, and 9 percent (the horrors!) if Obama did nothing.
The report begins with this introductory paragraph:
A key goal enunciated by the President-Elect concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is that it should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010. For this reason, we have undertaken a preliminary analysis of the jobs effects of some of the prototypical recovery packages being discussed. Our analysis will surely evolve as we and other economists work further on this topic. The results will also change as the actual package parameters are determined in cooperation with the Congress. Nevertheless, this report suggests a methodology for ensuring that the package contains enough stimulus that we can have confidence that it will create sufficient jobs to meet the President-Elect’s goals.
Sure, the report nowhere says, “Obama’s proposed stimulus package is the exact right thing. It’s just what the doctor ordered. No more stimulus could conceivably be needed.” But go skim that thing, and tell me if you get the sense that the author was warning the reader that it wasn’t enough, and that guts were overruling Keynesian analysis.
Last point: Who was the head of the Obama economic team at the time, and whose name is on the cover of that document?
I was most astounded by Greenspan’s suggestion that the government buy up all the “excess” homes and destroy them in order to re-inflate the housing market…
Yes, the man formerly in charge of the world’s reserve currency for almost 20 years hasn’t moved past the broken window fallacy
It says Christina Romer! The humanity!
It seems like you missed the connection to:
> people like Christy Romer and, well, me — were saying right from the beginning that the stimulus was too small, etc
That Paul guy is a slickster. People who are like Christina Romer cannot be Christian Romer.
Anyway, I always get Christina Romer confused with Christina Hendricks. You too?
http://nymag.com/fashion/10/spring/63808/
I’m still trying to figure out how Janet Reno is qualified to head DHS.
What’s so slick? They disagreed on their tarot card reading… ummm…. I mean “forecasting” – not on anything having anything to do with the multiplier or, well, what stimulus does.
You guys don’t seem to have any idea what the controversy over Romer-Bernstein even consisted of.
No Keynesian that I am aware of has ever leveled the criticism against Romer that her multiplier assumption of 1.57 or whatever it was was a problem.
And when the tarot-card reading got updated with real facts, what did Romer do? She called for more stimulus. And she got shut down for it.
And when the tarot-card reading got updated with real facts, what did Romer do? She called for more stimulus. And she got shut down for it.
In other words, Keynesians “like” Romer can never be wrong. Predict whatever you want, and when you’re wrong, update your predictions, and pretend like your past predictions were never made, because heck, they were made when the “facts” where different!
It’s funny how you just admitted that Keynesianism is not falsifiable, despite the positions of most Keynesians that it is.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about – of course Keynesians can be wrong.
What else are you supposed to do in the fact of uncertain forecasts? What would you rather people do (I’m not sure why you’re referring to Keynesians here – all people do this). Are you suggesting decisions based on forecasts should not be revisited when we get actual data – that we should stick with forecasts regardless of how things turn out? Do you have a clue about how illogical this comment of yours is?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about – of course Keynesians can be wrong.
Serious question: WHEN are Keynesians wrong?
What else are you supposed to do in the fact of uncertain forecasts?
Admit they were wrong when they were wrong.
Are you suggesting decisions based on forecasts should not be revisited when we get actual data – that we should stick with forecasts regardless of how things turn out?
No, just admit that they were wrong.
Do you have a clue about how illogical this comment of yours is?
No. Tell me.
Folks, this howler from MMT’er Mike Norman just may take the cake for the most astounding statement of the week.
Roddis, I think you’ll particularly like this one.
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2011/11/it-doesnt-matter-if-whole-world-is.html
Who knew the digital printing press was our (and EZ’s) get out of jail free card?
What you get astounded by is always interesting because it almost never registers with me. Same goes for this one. Both seem like very reasonable statements.
On Burns, I don’t think we can blame him for not knowing the undercurrent of anti-Lincolnism. We’re in tune to that, but most people aren’t. Anyway – you seem to be astounded because you equate “having a civil discourse” with “celebration of the good old days”. Those seem like two entirely different things to me, so I’m not quite clear on what’s astounding.
On the Krugman/Romer thing – I think you’re completely misunderstanding what is “disavowed” about the report. The concern about the report is not about Romer and Bernstein, it’s about the shockingly low-quality thinking that points to the report as evidence that the stimulus didn’t work. Krugman and no Keynesian I’m familiar with ever quibbled with Romer and Bernstein’s multiplier estimates. What you had some early division on (and Krugman was against Romer on this) was that some people said earlier than other people that the baseline forecast was too low. The anti-Keynesians latched on to precisely that baseline forecast as a Gospel truth counter-factual, something that macroeconomists simply don’t do. So to the extent that there was division over Romer and Bernstein, it was that Krugman early on said that his shot at crystal-ball-gazing (i.e. – forecasting) was more pessimistic than Romer’s shot at crystal-ball-gazing. Big deal – who cares? It’s all crystal-ball gazing.
The impact estimates – the multipliers – have not been a source of major division among the “technocrats” as he puts it, and that’s really the important part.
And later when it became clear that the crystal-ball gazing was a little too rosy initially, it was Christine Romer who drew the conclusion that that meant we needed more stimulus. And what did she get for it? We all know now that she got isolation from an administration with no interest in Keynesian policy solutions.
What exactly was your spin on the Romer-Bernstein report? That’s always been my take on it.
Okay, I’ll grant you everything you wrote. But still, doesn’t it seem odd to you that the unemployment rate jacked up to 10% after the stimulus and since the stimulus has faded (and monetary policy has went back to interstate speeds from its previous Formula One trek), the unemployment rate is back down to 9%?
Given the behavior of the employment rate, no not at all. The idea of “unemployment” is a strange one. What we really have good theories on is the employment level. Anyway, no, in the absence of a good counterfactual I’m not going to make broad judgments like that on the basis of a nudge from one very high number to a slightly lower.
…so when Romer was wrong in the past, no big deal, because she eventually came through with flying colors in calling for more stimulus after the initial one failed to do what she previously expected it to do?
So to the extent that there was division over Romer and Bernstein, it was that Krugman early on said that his shot at crystal-ball-gazing (i.e. – forecasting) was more pessimistic than Romer’s shot at crystal-ball-gazing. Big deal – who cares? It’s all crystal-ball gazing.
I love these Keynes-Freud slips.
Keynesianism is all just crystal ball gazing.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
re: “Keynesianism is all just crystal ball gazing.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.”
MF – you realize forecasting is not Keynesianism right?
No, I do not claim that crystal ball gazing is necessarily Keynesianism, but I do argue that Keynesianism is necessarily crystal ball gazing.
DK wrote:
What you had some early division on (and Krugman was against Romer on this) was that some people said earlier than other people that the baseline forecast was too low….So to the extent that there was division over Romer and Bernstein, it was that Krugman early on said that his shot at crystal-ball-gazing (i.e. – forecasting) was more pessimistic than Romer’s shot at crystal-ball-gazing. Big deal – who cares? It’s all crystal-ball gazing.
Daniel, this simply won’t do. First of all, you are going to have to trust me when I tell you that I UNDERSTAND the forecast/multiplier distinction. Do you really think I don’t get that point, after (literally) all these years?
OK now, look again what you just wrote (which I quoted for your convenience). You’re telling me what you just wrote, is consistent with Krugman saying this:
But the real technocrats — people like Christy Romer and, well, me — were saying right from the beginning that the stimulus was too small, etc.;
Are you telling me that “right from the beginning” means late 2009?
Just admit it this once, Daniel, Krugman is re-writing history. Christina Romer was a technocrat, who was running the numbers, and she said at the beginning that this plan would achieve the new President’s economic goals.
You can say “shoot her baseline forecast was wrong,” but you cannot at all say this was Geithner’s fault, for overruling Romer and Krugman’s Keynesian number-crunching. That is BS.
I was quoting and commenting on your later point about “true Keynesians” having to “disown and throw under the bus” the Romer-Bernstein report.
I guess I see the two points as slightly different. Apparently what Krugman is refering to is that Romer was advocating a $1.2 trillion stimulus in early 2009: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/12/091012fa_fact_lizza?printable=true. That got left out of the point because of concerns about passing Congress.
What I was criticizing was your characterization of the Romer-Bernstein report as something that Keynesians have been fleeing away from or Romer as somehow not on our side.
If you are right, then Krugman has his chronology off but his taxonomy right.
If Krugman is right, then he has both his taxonomy and his chronology right.
If it’s just the “from the beginning” that you’re concerned over, I guess that’s something you need to work out with Krugman. The bigger deal for me (and we are all subjectivists, right?) seems to be (1.) your mischaracterization of the concerns over the Romer-Bernstein report, and (2.) that Krugman got the teams right, and Romer is and always has been on ours – and we’re happy to have her.
DK wrote:
If you are right, then Krugman has his chronology off but his taxonomy right.
…
If it’s just the “from the beginning” that you’re concerned over, I guess that’s something you need to work out with Krugman.
You’re a funny guy to argue with, Daniel. I am flipping out because Krugman said “from the beginning” Romer was saying the stimulus was too small, when the Prime Exhibit A in support of the actual stimulus package was a document, which said in the introduction that this would achieve the President-Elect’s goals for job creation. This document had Romer as the lead author. Krugman at the time was publicly warning the stimulus would be too small, whereas I bet Romer was going around drumming up support for it. (I couldn’t find proof of that, though.)
So when you say “OK that’s maybe Krugman having his chronology off, but you should take that up with him,” then you are really saying “Yes Bob you might be 100% right in this post. Krugman is rewriting history.”
Now thanks for the New Yorker link, at least now I can see how Krugman isn’t just flat out lying. You’re right, that must be what he meant, that she was overruled behind the scenes and then, politics being politics, went ahead and put her name on the prime piece of analysis that supporters used to push through the actual stimulus.
re: “You can say “shoot her baseline forecast was wrong,” but you cannot at all say this was Geithner’s fault, for overruling Romer and Krugman’s Keynesian number-crunching. That is BS.”
I don’t have huge problems with Geithner, but it is certainly true that he has pulled Obama away from the Keynesians in the administration from the beginning, and he has largely been successful. He does a lot of his job well – I think Summers would have been better at it, but we can’t change that now.
If Geithner was not at Treasury there would be a significantly better chance of (1.) having had a bigger stimulus initially, and (2.) having more stimulus subsequently. If Romer was not there pushing there would be a significant chance of having a smaller stimulus initially.
Papandreou has been delivering some corkers lately, first coming out with the idea that the Greek people should be allowed to make a decision over IMF loans and bailout proposals (imagine putting such choices in front of ordinary people, and in the very nation that invented Democracy).
Then he was teetering on the border of resignation, but suddenly the referendum is off, Papandreou is talking about leading some sort of unity government (one party system?) and when asked whether he was ever serious about holding a referendum, Papandreou’s response was something along the lines of, “Naa, I was just playing you guys all along.”
Oh yeah, and a whole bunch of Greek military chiefs were recently replaced, but just a routine reshuffle you understand, nothing to see here.
I’m still sticking to my theory that if we could just get a large plurality of ordinary people to understand that diluted funny money, government debt, deficits and spending for the sake of spending are purposeful government policy as determined by the “elite” that the establishment game would be over and we could drive the Keynesians back into the sea.
So what you’re saying is that Keynesianism is like mercury laden hat manufacturing.
I don’t claim to know what goes on in the minds of other people. However, I could always understand how people could become Commies, or socialists or monarchists, but I’ve never been able to understand how anyone can possibly become a Keynesian.
I know I took Econ 101 in 1971 or 1972 back when I was a Marxoid type due to the anti-war anti-draft milieu of the times. No one was a Keynesian back then because it was considered “capitalist”. Hell, the criminal Nixon was a Keynesian. Then I discovered Rothbard in 1973. I don’t think I ever gave Keynesianism a moment’s thought until Hayek on TV in 1977 declared it all a ruse by Keynes to trick British workers in the 1930s into accepting lower real wages without understanding what hit them. Nothing has changed my mind since.
So, is that a “yes”?
And, just to think that I had to go to war to reject Keynesianism.
I was assigned number 56 in the 1951 birthday draft lottery and most everyone between 1 and 125 was sure to be drafted. Tricky Dick’s plan worked as planned because those with numbers 126-365 suddenly weren’t so concerned about the draft or the war. My college deferment was about to expire in 1973 when Nixon announced “peace with honor” in January 1973, coinciding with me discovering Rothbard and autistic, binary and triangular intervention (the class-assigned book, “Power and Market”, was separate from MES back then). Let’s just say I was not a fan of the government at that time. I’ve always wondered if I hadn’t been so anti-government if I would have allowed myself to be open enough to understand Rothbard. Actually, what really turned me around was the realization that no lefty could possibly comprehend the concepts of autistic, binary and/or triangular intervention without throwing a hissy fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969)
I was talking to Wenzel about a week ago when he mentioned how amazed he was at how many people are libertarians today that’s hard to keep track of everybody, that back in the old days everybody knew everybody else.
My opinion was that it often takes largely significant events for people to take the statist veil from their eyes and give up the government religion. Most of my old shipmates are now libertarians, so I would imagine that other vets are, as well.
When your military has been killing people for 10 years based on a lie, your government is trying to spread the murder and bloodshed yet further, you have a crap economy clearly created by government intervention, and the largest archive of information in human history to display the ineptitude and lies of our overlords, that tends to make for a drastic change in the people’s perception.
While I wasn’t alive back during the late 60s (early 70s), I would imagine that it was similar, just that it wasn’t nearly as significant, and information was harder to come by. I’d imagine that most people back then came to libertarianism almost by chance.
Where’s the graph?
What graph?
haha, I know your email address.
🙂
Actually that’s a typo. I put the @hotmail.com after my username instead of in the mail box.
You can try to send an email to that address, but it won’t be me.
Where is the data?
There’s no data?
Then Roddis is more screwed than I thought.
Hey ManMouTh,
I am asking for the data that will falsify a law identified through deductive reasoning starting from sound, axiomatic premises.
Actually, you’re the one who’s screwed.
Mammouth wants to see a “chart” or graph proving the existence of Cantillon Effects.
I’m out of here.
Mammouth wants to see a “chart” or graph proving the existence of Cantillon Effects.
Hahaha, what a loon. He seems to be suffering from a Pythagoras-like quantophrenia. I’ll call it “chartophrenia.”
Next thing you know, he’ll ask for a chart that proves the law of supply and demand, or the law of marginal utility, or the law of scarcity.
Mammouth just believes economic science is a positivist field of inquiry. That’s why he’s confused.
Or, he is like one of those people who buy books just for the pictures. I would guess that he has more than a few coloring books in his library.
Only porn magazines.
But where’s the graph?
Show us a graph that proves the law of supply and demand.
Economic science is not a positivist program.
I can’t help myself.
The entire Keynesian program is one big proposed Cantillon Effect of injecting funny money to consumers so that they can buy more finished products. Even the Keynesians agree that such a policy will cause some general price inflation later.
That’s it.
And the graph?
And the data falsifying laws identified by applying deductive reasoning to sound premises? When are you going to show that?
I believe that Ken Burns’ next documentary should be on Sherman and Lincoln’s “War on Dogs”.
http://tinyurl.com/3ous49g
I wonder what the ladies would think if they knew about that.
I’ve got to hand it to Burns. Are we really doing that bad of a job on Lincoln?
I just watched the whole interview. Burns a statist through and through. I wonder how Reason ever scored an interview with him.