Sumner Trolls Krugman
A great post from Scott, when he goes after my favorite Keynesian. Here’s the zinger from Scott:
[Scott quoting Krugman:] The one sense in which Ireland has made some progress is that it has somewhat reassured bond investors that its population will continue to sullenly acquiesce in austerity; as a result, Irish 10-year rates, while still at a large premium, are now 60-80 basis points below those of Italy and Spain.
But the repeated invocation of Ireland as a role model has gotten to be a sick joke.
[Scott:] I’m not sure the Irish feel “sullen” about the 9.2% RGDP growth announced last week:
Scott of course can easily handle the Irish success story in his own worldview. Ever since Ireland left the outrageously restrictive euro in 2013, and went to its own central bank that bought and sold futures contracts to ensure expected 5% NGDP growth, the Irish economy has been doing awesome–thereby demonstrating once again that it is a problem of Aggregate Demand that has been holding back the Western nations since 2008.
UPDATE: To avoid confusing my non-cosmopolitan readers, let me clarify that I am kidding. Ireland is still on the euro, and subject to the “eurozone disaster” as diagnosed by Sumner. So my point is, whatever rhetorical device Scott uses to explain why Ireland is capable of 9.2% RDGP growth even though the ECB is doing the opposite of what Scott recommends, is presumably what Krugman would say too. And then, whatever smirk Scott (and I) would use to see Krugman trying to hammina hammina hammina explain his way out of the hole he’d dug for himself, would likewise be applied to Scott’s explanation.
Rob Bradley Points Out Awkward Jerry Taylor Quote
In a recent MasterResource post:
“Let’s switch out for a better [climate] policy…. Then conservative activists who continue to be in the denialist camp on climate change will find themselves completely isolated.”
– Jerry Taylor, quoted in “Libertarian Group Takes on Conservatives on Carbon Tax.” Energy & Environmental News (sub. req.), March 3, 2016.
“Alarmists … clearly have decided that the best way to win the global warming debate is by shouting down the opposition and demonizing them in the eyes of the public. But that is not dispassionate scientific debate; it is more like a ‘struggle meeting’ during the Chinese Cultural Revolution.”
– Jerry Taylor, The Heated Rhetoric of Global Warming, Cato Institute Commentary, September 15, 1997.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but here goes: Of course people are allowed to change their minds on a policy issue. But it’s annoying when people use tactics against their opponents that they previously abhorred, or when they act like someone who believed what they believed 10 years ago is a moral monster.
Correcting Krugman on Trade
Lately Krugman has been “correcting” right-wingers who justify trade liberalization on the grounds that it creates jobs. Yes that is a defensible opinion (because with flexible wages everybody can get a job, even under a complete blockade), but the way Krugman defends it is wacky. He talks about job growth in exporting industries offsetting job loss in importing industries. Yet I showed back in 2009 that this naive “GDP contribution” approach to trade is totally screwy.
Checking in on the Climate Models
I summarize the recent Working Paper from Cato climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger. An excerpt:
The reason for constructing the chart in this fashion is that nobody can accuse Michaels and Knappenberger of cherry-picking starting years and (thus) trend durations. This chart contains information pertaining to the trend warming—both in the computer models and in the actual observations from several data sets—for any length, ranging from a 10-year trend all the way up to a 65-year trend, and all year lengths in between.
Murphy Growth Plan for St. Patrick’s Day
Actually the article ran yesterday but I didn’t notice until today… My latest at FEE takes up the Gerald Friedman conundrum. An excerpt:
Turning to students: according to the Census Bureau, about 17 million are enrolled in high school. Assume that with no coercion and with plenty of entry-level jobs (thanks to abolition of the minimum wage), 7.5 million drop out and go to work. The census data also show some 19 million students enrolled in college or graduate programs. Let’s assume 10 million of them (a little more than half) don’t really belong there — and having worked as a college professor, I think that’s a conservative estimate.
Finally, consider that there are some 930,000 young adults (aged 16 to 19) who are currently unemployed, meaning they are actively seeking work but can’t get a job. Their unemployment rate is a whopping 16 percent, compared to 4.9 percent for the civilian noninstitutional population as a whole. Let’s assume that getting rid of the minimum wage would give these teenagers the same unemployment rate as everybody else.
Adding it all up, with rounding, we get about 19 million new workers entering the labor force. The existing civilian labor force is about 158 million. That means our policy changes would provide an immediate boost to the labor force of about 12 percent.
Scott Sumner Better Not Play “Go”
…because he apparently can’t look one move ahead.
(Folks, cut me some slack. I’ve been out of town for a while and I’m sure Scott misses me.)
Here’s Scott talking about Hit– I mean Donald Trump:
Trump does not seem to understand how democracy works. The whole point of conventions is to deny the nomination to a candidate who has a plurality of the delegates, but not a majority. That’s why we have conventions. It’s just about the only reason to have conventions. Their purpose is to deny the nomination to a candidate who is supported by 40% (many not even Republican), but hated by a group of 60% who split their votes among other candidates. They keep voting until someone gets a majority—those are the rules. We have conventions so that we can stop crazy candidates with mere pluralities of delegates.
…
If Trump comes into the convention 100 votes short, and gets the nomination anyway, the GOP party establishment (not the voters!!) will have picked him. Actually, 60% of GOP voters will have rejected Trump. The establishment will have forced Trump down our throats despite that rejection. And America will be a country with one legitimate major party, plus the tiny Libertarian Party, and our own version of France’s National Front.
OK, so what if reason and sanity and anti-Adolf sentiment prevail, and the convention does just what Scott hopes? Then we would have, say, Ted Cruz coming into the convention 600 votes short, and gets the nomination anyway, meaning the GOP party establishment (not the voters!!) will have picked him. Actually, 71% of GOP voters will have rejected Cruz. The establishment will have forced Cruz down our throats despite that rejection. And America will be…
Well, you get the idea I’m sure.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I think Trump is a jerk and would make an awful president.
Recent Comments