LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=824)

Adder 02-18-2009 03:39 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381883)
Where in his "We won" speech - or the subsequent lockout during the House-Senate reconciliation meetings -was there any attempt for GOP input?

You mean the "we won" speech in which all of the Rs present said he was incredibly open, forthright and willing to listen to input?

ETA: link

Saying "I won" to "why can't we have it all our way" is hardly excessively obstinant.

ThurgreedMarshall 02-18-2009 03:50 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 381876)
This. It is guilty of being unfunny and uninsightful, but I doubt the cartoonist had Obama particularly in mind. I could be wrong, but I tend to presume good faith whenever someone is attempting to be funny to a general audience because it's hard work.

You presume good faith? It's the Post.

TM

Adder 02-18-2009 03:53 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 381888)
You presume good faith? It's the Post.

TM

This particular gentleman apparently also has a long history of being a class act. So much for any presumption of good faith.

taxwonk 02-18-2009 04:00 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381881)
As I pointed out, a lot of these "cuts" are nothing more than redistributions from the paying to the non-paying class.

So yes, I think that was 100% of what he wanted.

I will take your failure to respond to my challenge of your characterization as an implicit acknowledgement that you are wrong. Or, as Hank would put it:

Wonk: 1 bazillion
Slave: 0

Hank Chinaski 02-18-2009 04:03 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381889)
This particular gentleman apparently also has a long history of being a class act. So much for any presumption of good faith.

rosie is a fat bitch.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-18-2009 04:22 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 381888)
You presume good faith? It's the Post.

TM

They admitted to being with stupid just today.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 04:22 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381883)
Where in his "We won" speech - or the subsequent lockout during the House-Senate reconciliation meetings -was there any attempt for GOP input?

I agree with you that there was little effort to get GOP input in the reconciliation meetings. That would have been like going to marriage counseling after the divorce.

As for the "we won" speech, if I am recalling things correctly, then you are not -- Obama didn't make a "speech," he made a remark to Rep. Eric Cantor in the context of a meeting about designing the stimulus package:

Quote:

In an hour-long private meeting with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders this morning on the economic stimulus package, President Barack Obama stressed the urgency of getting the $825 billion stimulus plan passed quickly for the good of the country, and mentioned the political stakes for both parties.

According to a source present at the meeting, President Obama said, "Look, we are all political animals here, If we don't do this, we may lose seats. I may not be re-elected. But none of that's going to matter if we don't pass this because the economy will be in a crisis and the American people will be hurting."

The meeting was attended by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn D-SC, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Vice President Joe Biden, National Economic Council director Larry Summers, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel were also in attendance.

Despite being the lowest person on the totem pole in attendance, sources say the ideas presented by Cantor -- who brought handouts to the meeting -- provided some of the day's most engaging moments.

House Republicans have been complaining about not being consulted, and as Cantor explained the details of some of the ideas he and his GOP colleagues would like to see in the package, President Obama read the one-pager and told him, "Eric, I don't see anything crazy in here."

Among some of the things Republicans requested: tax deductions for some small businesses, making unemployment benefits tax free and a provision that would let businesses losing money carry the losses over to pay fewer taxes in a different fiscal year.

Mr. Obama did voice opinion on some differences on the issue of whether the lowest individual tax rates should be cut from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent.

As the president, he had told Kyl after the Arizonan raised objections to the notion of a tax credit for people who don't pay income taxes, Obama told Cantor this morning that "on some of these issues we're just going to have ideological differences."

The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

After the meeting, Boehner said Republicans relayed their concerns to Obama about the size and spending of the economic stimulus package during the meeting. He specifically mentioned a provision in the bill that would allow 50 states to offer Medicaid family planning service, like contraceptives, with the federal government's 9-to-1 match. Republicans say that whether this is good public policy, it has nothing to do with an economic stimulus.

While Republican leaders felt that Obama was at least receptive to their ideas, unlike their Democratic counterparts, they continued to express reservations about the plan despite the meeting.

"How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives -- how does that stimulate the economy?" Boehner said at a news conference following the meeting. "You can go through a whole host of issues in this bill that have nothing to do with growing jobs in America."

The bill will be taken up for a vote in the House next week. Among a few elements in the bill -- $726 million for after-school snacks, $50 million for the NEA, $44 million to repair the USDA, and $200 million to work on the National Mall, including grass.
ABC

Note particularly that some of the GOP objections related here were addressed. Contraception and grass for the Mall were both dropped, even though the explanation for how they stimulate the economy is so simple that even John Boehner should be able to understand it. Note, too, that much of what the GOP had to say did not relate to how best to stimulate the economy. Sen Kyl may share your objection to giving those tax credits, but that's not objection about whether it stimulates the economy or not. And other things listed as Republican priorities -- e.g., letting business carry losses over -- plainly would be less effective in stimulating the economy now. Be that as it may, the point is that their views were solicited, heard, and acted upon. Your story is that Obama was giving a speech, but in reality it was a conversation.

Adder 02-18-2009 04:48 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381898)

Nice googling.

Sidd Finch 02-18-2009 04:59 PM

Pain Required to Pay Back Taxes
 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


Where's the outrage????

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 05:05 PM

Re: Palin Required to Pay Back Taxes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 381901)

I didn't understand your post until I clicked through and saw that there's an "l" missing from your title line. Since CNN will update that blog with new posts, here's a link to the specific post about Palin's taxes. I was outraged about her abuse of the per diem thing several months ago, but now I'm feeling all post partisan. Are per diem payments usually treated as income, or is this a sort of recognition that she was not legitimately claiming expenses?

futbol fan 02-18-2009 05:09 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381884)
Pretty poor as these cartoons go.

Yes, in light of the high standards usually set by the New York Post's editorial cartoons it must be said that this one was a disappointment. When one turns to these cartoons, one expects a piece that will amuse, yes, but also engage the reader on several levels and provoke a thoughtful reconsideration of the conventional wisdom regarding its subject.

This offering was not only lacking in the usual subtlety and nuance, it was also completely devoid of hook-nosed terrorists, celebrity amputees, bloated welfare queens, smelly hippies, criminally lazy union workers and Nancy Pelosi. It did, however, have a dead monkey in it, which is something.

taxwonk 02-18-2009 05:12 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 381904)
Yes, in light of the high standards usually set by the New York Post's editorial cartoons it must be said that this one was a disappointment. When one turns to these cartoons, one expects a piece that will amuse, yes, but also engage the reader on several levels and provoke a thoughtful reconsideration of the conventional wisdom regarding its subject.

This offering was not only lacking in the usual subtlety and nuance, it was also completely devoid of hook-nosed terrorists, celebrity amputees, bloated welfare queens, smelly hippies, criminally lazy union workers and Nancy Pelosi. It did, however, have a dead monkey in it, which is something.


Everybody loves a bit with a dead monkey.

Gattigap 02-18-2009 05:13 PM

Re: Pain Required to Pay Back Taxes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 381901)

Pain is ALWAYS accompanied by a requirement to pay back taxes. Shit, Hank can tell you that.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-18-2009 05:16 PM

Re: Palin Required to Pay Back Taxes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381902)
I didn't understand your post until I clicked through and saw that there's an "l" missing from your title line. Since CNN will update that blog with new posts, here's a link to the specific post about Palin's taxes. I was outraged about her abuse of the per diem thing several months ago, but now I'm feeling all post partisan. Are per diem payments usually treated as income, or is this a sort of recognition that she was not legitimately claiming expenses?

The opinion in September was probably yes, if she's staying at home.

I don't think it says anything about legitimacy, which is a question of state law. But say your employer decided they were going to be all smove, and said, Ty, we'll offer you a "per diem" for each day you come to work, and it will cover your living expenses, which we assume are $1000/day. Since it's a per diem, you don't have to pay taxes! Win, win! Not so fast . . . the IRS wants its bite, but obviously your employer could pay you that way if if chose to.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 05:20 PM

Re: Palin Required to Pay Back Taxes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 381909)
The opinion in September was probably yes, if she's staying at home.

I don't think it says anything about legitimacy, which is a question of state law. But say your employer decided they were going to be all smove, and said, Ty, we'll offer you a "per diem" for each day you come to work, and it will cover your living expenses, which we assume are $1000/day. Since it's a per diem, you don't have to pay taxes! Win, win! Not so fast . . . the IRS wants its bite, but obviously your employer could pay you that way if if chose to.


As a rule, if I were to travel on business and get a per diem for the trip instead of having expenses reimbursed, I would assume that the per diem would not be treated as taxable income. For the IRS to conclude that the per diem were taxable income, I assume it would have to investigate and decide that the payments were not to cover any expenses, no?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-18-2009 05:29 PM

Re: Palin Required to Pay Back Taxes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381911)
I assume it would have to investigate and decide that the payments were not to cover any expenses, no?

It concluded they weren't for travel expenses for the benefit of the paying business. The fact that Alaska provides for such payments and calls them "per diem" doesn't mean that the IRS considers them non-taxable.

ETA: It appears from the article that the IRS didn't investigate anything. Rather, the Alaska office that makes these payments obtained guidance from the IRS on what is and is not taxable. It concluded that it was taxable, at least to the extent Palin was getting per diem for staying in her home.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 05:30 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
DiFi now has tooth marks on her ankle.

Atticus Grinch 02-18-2009 06:06 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381889)
This particular gentleman apparently also has a long history of being a class act. So much for any presumption of good faith.

Jerry: I need to talk to you about my friend, Dr. Tim Whatley. I think he's converted to Judaism just for the jokes.
Priest: And this offends you as a Jewish person?
Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.

Adder 02-18-2009 07:18 PM

Interesting chart from Nate Silver:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUp...0/clinton2.PNG

This accompanying analysis isn't that great though.

Atticus Grinch 02-18-2009 08:08 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
With Greenspan now suggesting bank nationalization, has Ayn Rand become Leni Riefenstahl -- a mere propagandist to a generation of wrong-thinkers, to have her politics so thoroughly repudiated that we can only ever talk of her work as having "an aesthetic," which is just a polite way of saying they have to be handled with a fiercely concentrated detachment, as one handles depleted uranium?

I hope so.

Fugee 02-19-2009 09:36 AM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381889)
This particular gentleman apparently also has a long history of being a class act. So much for any presumption of good faith.

You'd think the Post would at least hire a political cartoonist who is funny -- if you're going to have a bigoted cartoonist, at least get a good one.

I still don't get the point of the dead chimp cartoon. It's guilty of being terminally unfunny; whether it is also racist is not entirely clear but I wouldn't doubt it.

ETA: I'm beyond officially bored with the Coleman-Franken Senate recount/challenge. If they held a run-off election today "neither of the above" would win by a landslide.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-19-2009 01:28 PM

caption, please
 
http://images.theglobeandmail.com/RT...ounties364.jpg

taxwonk 02-19-2009 02:05 PM

Re: caption, please
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381949)

In an awe-inspiring display of post-partisanship, Canada becomes 51st state.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-19-2009 02:35 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Given that the housing meltdown is the basic cause of the current economic problems, why was the $275B mortgage relief bill not part of the stimulus package?

sebastian_dangerfield 02-19-2009 02:38 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 381904)
Yes, in light of the high standards usually set by the New York Post's editorial cartoons it must be said that this one was a disappointment. When one turns to these cartoons, one expects a piece that will amuse, yes, but also engage the reader on several levels and provoke a thoughtful reconsideration of the conventional wisdom regarding its subject.

This offering was not only lacking in the usual subtlety and nuance, it was also completely devoid of hook-nosed terrorists, celebrity amputees, bloated welfare queens, smelly hippies, criminally lazy union workers and Nancy Pelosi. It did, however, have a dead monkey in it, which is something.

2. It's a shitrag. Tabloid papers have no use save the sportspages. I wouldn't read the Post or Daily News if you gave them to me free for the rest of my life. The MySpace of news - short and stupid soundbites for the lowest common denominator.

ThurgreedMarshall 02-19-2009 02:47 PM

Re: caption, please
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381949)

"Is this Dudley Do-Right/Benny Hill combo over here serious?"

TM

sebastian_dangerfield 02-19-2009 02:48 PM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 381932)
With Greenspan now suggesting bank nationalization, has Ayn Rand become Leni Riefenstahl -- a mere propagandist to a generation of wrong-thinkers, to have her politics so thoroughly repudiated that we can only ever talk of her work as having "an aesthetic," which is just a polite way of saying they have to be handled with a fiercely concentrated detachment, as one handles depleted uranium?

I hope so.

Was there ever any other way to approach her absolutism? Or anyone else's?

The sensible ethic underpinning her ideas - that we should be free to succeed and fail, and that a free society can't succeed without that dynamic - remains infallible. Where she was stupid yesterday, last year and ten and fifty years before that - in arguing there should be no regulation at all, ever - remains mindless and ridiculous.

Adder 02-19-2009 06:45 PM

Hopefully Barry is Listening
 
Quote:

Dear Mr. President, Have the Guts to Be an Optimist
by Mark McKinnon
February 18, 2009 | 10:15pm

As Obama prepares for his first major speech next week, he should take a page from FDR, Reagan, and his own campaign instead of constantly trying to manage expectations. It sure isn’t helping the stock market.

OK, Mr. President, enough with the doomsday talk already. We get it. Things suck. And they’re going to get worse before they get better.

And we get how it important it was for you to level-set expectations out of the gate, as they were stratospherically out of whack.

We are all in economic rehab now, clear eyed and sober. If we’re not out of work, we know friends and family who are. And those of us lucky enough to have jobs are being showered with resumes. Really good ones.

You were elected because you are a walking, talking hope machine. Plug that sucker back in and crank it up to ten.

So now we want to know that there is light at the end of this bleak, black tunnel.

It’s time for less mope and more hope. You were elected because you are a walking, talking hope machine. Plug that sucker back in and crank it up to ten.

There has been some debate in the opinion pages about whether the FDR or Ronald Reagan approach to a bad economy is the best remedy. Putting that aside, there is one thing they had in common: They were unblushing optimists. And they communicated their enthusiasm until their half-full cups ranneth over.

It’s time to cut the talk about similarities to the Great Depression. First, it sure as hell doesn’t help the markets. Second, it’s not true. Not yet anyway.

Bradley Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, straightens out the facts for us: “This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don’t come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate, Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That’s a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2 percent of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost—fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 losses totaled 2.2 percent of the labor force, the same as now.

“Job losses in the Great Depression were on an entirely different magnitude…Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.

“This was reflected in the unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6 percent. That’s more than three percentage points below the 1982 peak (10.8 percent) and not even of the a third of the peak in 1932 (25.2 percent). You simply can’t equate 7.6 percent unemployment with the Great Depression."

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25 percent. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90 percent. The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to 10,000 bank failures in 1933. Stockholders can take some solace form the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90 percent devaluation of the early 1930s.

There now, don't you feel better.

George W. Bush was president through some of the darkest days of our history and yet his optimism never waned. He is optimistic by nature, but he also understood the importance of always communicating a sense that things will get better. And it’s in part why John Kerry lost in 2004. He painted a terrible picture of the future. And as Bush said, “You can’t say things are going to be awful, follow me and expect to turn around and see a crowd.”

So, Mr. President, you’ve got a big speech coming up. Turn the heat up and the lights back on.
link

ThurgreedMarshall 02-19-2009 07:19 PM

Re: Hopefully Barry is Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381983)

How about he just tell the truth? He can be (realistically) optimistic about it, but I'm sick of George Bush-type bullshit.

TM

Adder 02-19-2009 07:27 PM

Re: Hopefully Barry is Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 381986)
How about he just tell the truth? He can be (realistically) optimistic about it, but I'm sick of George Bush-type bullshit.

TM

Agreed on the W out of touch with reality crap. But a little hope and optimism, especially now that the plans are mostly in place, would be good.

Atticus Grinch 02-19-2009 08:36 PM

Re: caption, please
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381949)

(Whispered) "He's not so great, eh? Notice he always chokes in the Ryder Cup?"

sebastian_dangerfield 02-19-2009 09:41 PM

Re: Hopefully Barry is Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381983)

Funny that Schiller has such a different message than his more famous namesake in economic circles.

Hank Chinaski 02-19-2009 09:42 PM

Re: caption, please
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 381992)
(Whispered) "He's not so great, eh? Notice he always chokes in the Ryder Cup?"

this is offensive on four levels. but you vote Dem so I guess you get a pass?

sebastian_dangerfield 02-19-2009 09:44 PM

Re: Hopefully Barry is Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381987)
Agreed on the W out of touch with reality crap. But a little hope and optimism, especially now that the plans are mostly in place, would be good.

The fear accelerates the race to the basement, which is where the private money will finally come into the game. Why not hit the fast forward button? I'm beginning to think it might be better to have a series of severe shock and vulture investment bonanza than this endless CPR saga.

But then, I'm drinking right now, so, well... I might think differently tomorrow.

Adder 02-19-2009 09:51 PM

Re: Hopefully Barry is Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 381996)
The fear accelerates the race to the basement, which is where the private money will finally come into the game. Why not hit the fast forward button?

First, because that is ridiculous, and second, "the basement" is the point at which more people think we have hit the bottom than think we are still going down. We don't need to keep talking our way down to find that point.

Secret_Agent_Man 02-19-2009 10:58 PM

Re: caption, please
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381949)

"Always get their man? Really? . . . . NTTAWWT."

Secret_Agent_Man 02-19-2009 11:00 PM

Re: caption, please
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381995)
this is offensive on four levels. but you vote Dem so I guess you get a pass?

Hank --

Your eternal vigilance for the slightest whiff of racial prejudice is no doubt greatly appreciated, but you might want to give it a rest sometime.

The Canadians really don't need your help, eh?

S_A_M

Atticus Grinch 02-20-2009 12:17 AM

Re: caption, please
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381995)
this is offensive on four levels. but you vote Dem so I guess you get a pass?

The first two levels were intentional. Whatever the other two were, I am deeply apologetic, deeply ashamed.

sebastian_dangerfield 02-20-2009 10:22 AM

Re: Hopefully Barry is Listening
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 381986)
How about he just tell the truth? He can be (realistically) optimistic about it, but I'm sick of George Bush-type bullshit.

TM

Not an exclusively Bush thing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/..._obama_economy

Replaced_Texan 02-20-2009 11:17 AM

Interesting
 
I found this article through the Predictably Irrational blog. I thought it was interesting.
Quote:

With the chattering classes consumed by concern for the devastated value of their 401K funds, and their suddenly precarious lifestyles, there has been much anger and scorn directed at those former masters of the universe, financiers.

But the shock to the world of finance has been echoed by a shock to the world of academic economics that is just as profound.

In the long post WWII boom, as free market ideology triumphed, economists have won for themselves a privileged place inside academia.

First there is the cash. It astonished some when Washington University, a school with an economics department of modest prestige, hired economists David Levine and Michele Boldrin by offering salaries well in excess of $500,000. But most high ranked economics departments have professors earning in excess of $300,000. Not much by the pornographic standards of finance, but a fat paycheck compared to your average English or Physics professor.

It is not just the stars. Journeyman assistant professors in economics routinely come in at $100,000 or more. And, unlike the hard sciences, they do this fresh from their PhDs, without a publication to their name and without years of low pay as post-docs.

The high salaries have been accompanied by dramatic declines in the teaching burden. The research demands of our advanced science leave little time for the classroom. In good universities faculty typically teach only two courses a year - one of which has to be a graduate seminar. The masses in the Econ 1 classes are often abandoned to the tender mercies of graduate students.

Then there is the economics "Nobel" Prize. Not a real Nobel, but a prize funded by the Bank of Sweden in honor of Alfred Nobel, with all the royal trappings of the Nobel. That makes economics star players really attractive to universities. When Edward Prescott of Arizona State won the Nobel he was paraded at half time at a football game. There is nothing like a Nobel for luster and fund-raising.

Why did academic economics generate so much prestige? Sure, modern economics is technically demanding. But so, for example, are theoretical physics and archeology, and physics and archeology professors are (relatively) dirt poor.

The technical demands helped limit the supply of economists. But what drove demand was the unquenchable thirst for economists by banks, government agencies, and business schools - the Feds, the Treasury, the IMF, the World Bank, the ECB. Economics had powerful insights to offer the world, insights worth a lot of treasure. Economics was powerful voodoo. Any major university or research institute wanted to arm itself with this potency.

The current recession has revealed the weaknesses in the structures of modern capitalism. But it also revealed as useless the mathematical contortions of academic economics. There is no totemic power. This for two reasons:

(1) Almost no-one predicted the world wide downtown. Academic economists were confident that episodes like the Great Depression had been confined to the dust bins of history. There was indeed much recent debate about the sources of "The Great Moderation" in modern economies, the declining significance of business cycles.

Indeed as we have seen this year on the academic job market, macroeconomists had turned their considerable talents to a bizarre variety of rococo academic elaborations. With nothing of importance to explain, why not turn to the mysteries of online dating, for example.

I myself was so confident of the consensus of the end of the business cycle that I persuaded by wife after the collapse of Lehman Brothers to invest all her retirement savings in the stock market, confident that the Fed would soon make things right and we could profit from the panic of a gullible public. The line "Where is my money, idiot?" is her's.

(2) The debate about the bank bailout, and the stimulus package, has all revolved around issues that are entirely at the level of Econ 1. What is the multiplier from government spending? Does government spending crowd out private spending? How quickly can you increase government spending? If you got a A in college in Econ 1 you are an expert in this debate: fully an equal of Summers and Geithner.

The bailout debate has also been conducted in terms that would be quite familiar to economists in the 1920s and 1930s. There has essentially been no advance in our knowledge in 80 years.

It has seen people like Brad De Long accuse distinguished macro-economists like Eugene Fama and John Cochrane of the University of Chicago of at least one "elementary, freshman mistake."

It has seen Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, guided by Larry Summers, one of the most respected economists of our time, produce a bailout plan for the US financial system stunning in its faltering vagueness.

Bizarrely, suddenly everyone is interested in economics, but most academic economists are ill-equipped to address these issues.

Recently a group of economists affiliated with the Cato Institute ran an ad in the New York Times opposing the Obama's stimulus plan. As chair of my department I tried to arrange a public debate between one of the signatories and a proponent of fiscal stimulus -- thinking that would be a timely and lively session. But the signatory, a fully accredited university macroeconomist, declined the opportunity for public defense of his position on the grounds that "all I know on this issue I got from Greg Mankiw's blog -- I really am not equipped to debate this with anyone."

Academic economics will no doubt survive this shock to its prestige.

Will we be as well paid? A recent article in the Wall Street Journal suggests the days of the $500,000 economics professor may have passed.

But more importantly, will the focus of academic economics change? That is hard to tell. But I would rate the chances of Chrysler producing once again a competitive US automobile at least as high as the chances of academic economics learning any lesson from this downturn. (What was the price of that Chrysler stock we bought, dear?)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com