My friend, Steve, is rereading all of the "classic" economics tomes (think Wealth of Nations et al).  An admirable pursuit, indeed.  Since my reading speed these days is just slightly more highbrow than The Bobbsey Twins, I will not be emulating Steve in this endeavor.

I did want to refer folks, however, to a great article in the September 6th New York Times Magazine by Paul Krugman entitled "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"  In the article, Krugman (who is an economics professor at Princeton) does a great job of keeping the discussion centered on economics and out of the shoals of political posturing.  As a result, it's a great summary of the flaws in the descendants of free market and Keynesian economics.

The article is lengthy indeed, but well worth the investment.  Especially if, like me, you prefer a primer to an exhaustive review of the literature.  (Go Steve!)
 


Comments

Steve Peden

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:33:50

Not sure I can sign on that Krugman's piece "does a great job of keeping the discussion centered on economics and out of the shoals of political posturing." Krugman is (in the immoral - sp intentional - words of James Carville) a "bitter partisan" - and a hack. (Don't give me the "Nobel Prize" crap - Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Yasser Arafat. 'Nuf said.)

Seriously, if you want to get into understanding economics (and we ALL should), there are plenty of good, basic introductions. Krugman's (subtly) partisan and (not-so-subtly) self-serving recap is much more interesting to read after an exposure to the "real thing."

Seriously, however liberal you may be, read "Free to Choose."

I re-read "Free to Choose" - I just flew through it. Actually well written. I'm about halfway through "Wealth of Nations." WHEW!!!! I had forgotten quite how turgid and stilted the language of 1776 was. HEAVY sledding. But, "Road to Serfdom" is next, and that is a better read. (I'm not doing them in chronological order.)

Not sure I can stomach a re-read of "Das Kapital." First go through (required for college Econ) took me MONTHS, and it was almost literally painful. Marx was not only an illogical idiot, he was a TERRIBLE writer (kinda like Ayn Rand, but much more boring).

 

Erik

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:09:43

I'm sorry to see you, Mr. Steve, categorically dismiss minds like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Disagree with their politics, despise their liberal leanings, curse the political ground they walk on, but know it sounds small and bitter to dismiss their winning of the Nobel Prize. Increasingly the conservative camp sounds more and more shrill, and I wonder at the sheer hate and rage I hear spraying from that corner. More and more it sounds like frightened middle-aged white people who are unable to bend or compromise at all, insistent that their way is the only way, and that anything else is wrong, evil or taking us to certain destruction as a nation. One thing I'm clear on - frightened, angry people don't think very well. And that's too bad - because their are some damn fine minds on both sides of the political fence. Maybe Al Gore is just making up Global Warming - maybe some sort of Universal Health Care Plan is really a tool of communism and Satan - maybe we really should build a fence to lock out all those Mexicans. But it is damn difficult to have an intelligent and engaged conversation when the loudest and shrillest voices I hear are the Fox News Network (or, as I've begun saying to Laura, the Fox Fear Network.)

And, I'll confess, when I hear someone dismiss out of hand two smart, engaged men who, however much you may disagree with their politics, are doing a little more than sitting around and pissing about how evil the other guys are.

 

Steve Peden

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:05:25

Wow, Eric, you sure seem to know a lot about what I (and all us other "frightened middle-aged white people") think.

Yes, I dismiss Al Gore - he is a hack politician, and not a very good one, at that. While I DO belittle his alleged "Global Warmism" views (I'll CONSIDER believing in AGW when it's proponents, like Al Gore, start ACTING like they believe in it), but my disdain for him comes from thinks like (among others) "He PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!" (like that's not EXACTLY what he's trying to do???), and his bullshit story about his dying sister, and his invention of the Internet, and . . . well, you get the idea.

Jimmy Carter?? Are you SERIOUS????? Carter, who has never met a leftist dictator he wouldn't wet kiss and provide political cover for? Carter who finds an Israeli settler building a house a crime against humanity, but can't find it in himself to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah??? Who will question the integrity of AMERICAN elections, but vouch for those of communist dictators? THAT Jimmy Carter?? Oh, yeah, he's "engaged" alright. I won't say what I consider him to be engaged in.

You have no idea to what extent I have read and studied the seminal works of Leftist ideology and policy. No, I don't denigrate your "solutions" because I find them frightening (and CERTAINLY not because I find them new - there is nothing in modern Leftism that ISN'T warmed over, failed "solutions" from decades ago) - but because I have studied them and found them wholly unpersuasive.

Sorry it offends you, but, no, I do not believe that Al Gore or Jimmy Carter has earned my respect, nor am I obligated, in any way, shape or form, to afford respect to their yammerings. They have freedom to speak their opinions - but I, equally, have the freedom and right to call their opinions foolish twaddle.

And, no, I don't believe the answer is "compromise" - for one thing, "compromise" to the Left means "you abandon your principles, to give us HALF of something which is total anathema to you (and we'll come back for the other half next year)", and for another, you simply don't compromise on core values, such as individual liberty and self-reliance/individual responsibility.

Again, sorry if it offends you, but when it comes to folks like Carter and Gore, I guess I believe in the old adage about opinions and @$$holes.

 

Erik

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:44:19

You're right - you have the freedom to call anything you like foolish twaddle. And in fact I do know a great deal about frightened middle-aged white men - I listen to them almost daily on a little network called Fox. They spend a great deal of time spinning everything they don't like about the world into scary stories of disaster and impending doom, and, like you (from what you said here) find nothing of value at all in viewpoints not their own.

And I'm free to call that foolish twaddle. Anytime I hear someone dismiss an entire political framework as foolish twaddle I find myself having to dismiss them. I can't claim to have read The Wealth of Nations, but I can say that both the Left and the Right have crucial perspectives that need to be thought through and discussed, not dismissed, shouted at or shut down.

I believe in a strong military, I don't believe in the standard model of welfare and I am not a fan of abortion. I also believe that market economies need more controls than they have right now, that at least basic health care should be a right, and that two people, regardless of their gender, should have access to the host of financial and legal advantages that marriage can bring. I catch heat from both sides of the political fence as a result, and that's good. It is powerfully narrow-minded to believe that the answer lies in uber-conservative or uber-liberal perspectives. Narrow-minded and foolish. I'm CERTAIN I don't have all the answers, or even a lot of the answers. I'm equally certain that we will only find even workable answers, let alone brilliant ones, if we can debate and discuss such answers, instead of dismissing each other's perspectives out of hand.

I don't think Jimmy Carter or Al Gore are saints, or flawless. I think that, warts and all, they're giving stuff that matters a shot. I know the same thing can be said for leaders on the Right. I'm just not as willing as you to dismiss either side because they don't meet my standards of purity or political correctness.

And I don't think either party has a corner on warmed-over political solutions. We don't let politicos in this country try new things - we trash them because they don't hold our precise political beliefs instead, then work to destroy them so we can install people who do hold our precise political beliefs.

Feel free to offend me. I'm glad you can say what you like. Confirms that I live in a kick-ass country, with all of its ups and downs, flaws and accomplishments. I'm sure I'll offend you when I say you do sound scared - scared of change, scared of everything going to hell (just like a great number of both liberals and convservatives have been terrified of for years - yet somehow we muddle on.)

And in case it isn't clear, I enjoy reading your comments on Laura's blog - you're a good writer, and I like hearing how you think. I hope you keep commenting and thinking out loud - makes me work at my own thinking.

 

Steve Peden

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:31:18

Eric,

Ever heard the term "cognitive dissonance"?

Eric:

"And in fact I do know a great deal about frightened middle-aged white men - I listen to them almost daily on a little network called Fox. They spend a great deal of time spinning everything they don't like about the world into scary stories of disaster and impending doom, and, like you (from what you said here) find nothing of value at all in viewpoints not their own."

If you don't see the irony, cognitive dissonance and sheer internal inconsistency of your statements above, well, there is little that I can say.

I don't claim to "listen to all sides" - please tell me, what was the "pro" side of the Third Reich? What party of the philosophy of David Duke should I carefully consider? I'm sure George Wallace's views on civil rights deserved respectful consideration, didn't they.

Sorry, Eric, but that doesn't even make sense. Just because you believe someone is "giving stuff that matters a shot" does NOT mean that they are saying anything worth listening to.

The word "discrimination" actually has one positive definition (look it up). I try to practice discrimination, in politics and policy. I have made a point of educating myself about history and economics.

Health care "reform" is something we should do? Then why are most of the countries who've tried this failed experiment looking for a way out?

I appreciate your passion, but you will never convince me that the "right" approach to solving our problems is to "listen to all points of view." I deliberately educated and trained myself to recognize and dismiss points of view which are not deserving of my time and attention. A little education, a little analysis, a little logic, and a little common sense, and you can quite easily winnow out most of the crap flung out by most politicians, and I not only admit that this is exactly what I do, I am quite proud of the fact.

 

Erik

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:33:41

Magnificent. I read quite clearly in my last posting that I mentioned 2 (two) perspectives, liberal and conservative, in the discussion of considering both sides, not all sides. I don't recall being Nazism or David Duke into the conversation.

And I have little interest in convincing you of anything Steve. You make a convincing case in these last few postings that you have already decided what is worthy and not worthy of your attention. OK. Please don't think I have any desire in these postings to change your mind, any more than I'm convinced that I could change Shawn Hanity's mind or Anne Coulter's mind. Anytime someone stops listening because they are certain the other party is categorically wrong they've stopped important aspects of critical thinking, whatever they're busy telling themselves.

And I have heard the term "cogntive dissonance." I am not clear (and feel free to try or not try to clarify why I'm experiencing C.D. because I state that Fox spends most of its time spinning stories of fear and anger) why you think I'm suffering from C.D. If you can't hear how that Network sounds to other ears (because you've carefully considered other viewpoints not conservative and have decided they have nothing of value for you) I'm sure not going to attempt to make you hear it.

I think I'll just continue on for a while attempting to hear what's worthy along the spectrum of political discussion in this country, pretty sure that I don't have a complete corner on what is true and right. Some places to stand, some places to think about and some places to leave open to debate, but making an effort (incomplete, flawed and, I'm sure for you, a waste of time) to listen.

Again, thanks for your postings. I hope to one day meet you - I've had the pleasure of spending time in the house you share with the Morefields on Hawaii, and anyone who could share a home with Laura Morefield is someone I'd like to meet.

 

Steve Peden

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:59:31

Project, much?
"I read quite clearly in my last posting that I mentioned 2 (two) perspectives, liberal and conservative, in the discussion of considering both sides, not all sides."

and

"I am not clear (and feel free to try or not try to clarify why I'm experiencing C.D. because I state that Fox spends most of its time spinning stories of fear and anger) why you think I'm suffering from C.D. If you can't hear how that Network sounds to other ears (because you've carefully considered other viewpoints not conservative and have decided they have nothing of value for you) I'm sure not going to attempt to make you hear it."

followed by

"I think I'll just continue on for a while attempting to hear what's worthy along the spectrum of political discussion in this country, pretty sure that I don't have a complete corner on what is true and right."

And, yet, you see no cognitive dissonance, no internal inconsistencies, in your post. And I'm the one who has closed my mind to valuable input.

Yeah, whatever. Let me know how that works out for you.

"I mentioned 2 (two) perspectives, liberal and conservative, in the discussion of considering both sides, not all sides"

So, it's a binary choice, eh? Ah, that vaunted liberal "nuance" at work. Is that Austrian School/Hayekian fiscal conservatism, Gary Bauer social conservatism, or "neo-con" foreign policy conservatism?

Am I to balance that against Keynesian/fiscal policy economics, Alinskyite/socialist radical reform domestic initiatives, or good old fashioned Democratic machine politics (ala Chicago, New York, and the states of New Jersey and Louisiana)?

Define for me these two, clear, clean, oppositional choices you perceive as existing, 'cause I'm damned if I can find them.

Two choices. Interesting. Never lived in a political world that small; hope I never do. You just keep on with dissin' Fox News, and comparing your two clear alternatives. Get your news from the NY Times, do you? Because they are CLEARLY more unbiased than Fox News, aren't they? Ditto "Newspeak," "Time," the WAPO, LA Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Boston Globe, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc., etc., etc.

Cracks my @$$ up how "open minded" you liberals are - when it comes to anything except actually listening to and understanding conservative/libertarian critiques of liberal policy initiatives.

Make ya a deal, Eric. Name the policy issue of your choice, and I guarantee I can make the liberal case FOR that initiative better than you can.

Only listen to "my" side??? Not hardly, pal. Yes, I HAVE dismissed, as completely unpersuasive, ahistorical, economically impossible AND illiterate, impractical, poorly thought out, and just plain silly, almost everything that the Democrats (and, frankly, many Republicans) want to do. And feel free to make the smug assumption that it is solely because I "don't listen" to, or "don't understand" your point of view, because you would be wrong. Dead wrong. As I said, I guarantee you that I understand the liberal position at least as well as you do. It's just wrong.

 

Erik

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:57:30

My apologies. It was not my intention to limit the notion "both sides" to a black/white choice. Poor choice of words.

I'm certain you can articulate every political topic better than I can. Again, if I somehow implied that I thought you couldn't articulate what you're thinking you have my apologies.

If you understood me to say that my concern about your perspective rested solely on you not being much of a listener then again, I apologize. My concern about your perspective doesn't rest solely on that at all.

And if you are certain that "almost everything that the Democrats (and, frankly many Republicans) want to do" is "illiterate, impractical, poorly thought out and just plain silly", well, then, you've articulated flawlessly the other reason I'm concerned about your perspective.

And if you can label me "smug" and not feel any cognitive dissonance yourself, then there isn't a damn thing I can imagine saying to you that will turn your efforts to prove me wrong into anything remotely approaching a conversation or dialogue. My last intention was smugness. Just the reverse. I do watch Fox News. I do read conservative commentators, of various stripes. I have yet in these postings to dismiss anything from the conservative perspectives. What I'm concerned about is the tendency from many to stop listening because they are certain they have the corner on lucid thinking and final answers.

Finally, forgive me for any implication that you haven't read, studied, through through and have finalized answers on any of the topics discussed here (and the broad spectrum of things we haven't touched on yet.) As you said, you can pick any position (you limited it to liberal, certain that I am, even after my very limited outline of positions I hold that don't limit me, at least at the moment, to either liberal or conversative) - but I'll assume you have the entire spectrum nailed. I'm certain you can articulate any position you desire better than anyone I personally know, including myself. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

Laura

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:26:12

Steve,

Krugman's Nobel prize was in economics (for his theories on world trade) not the "peace" prize...so I'm not sure that your comparison to Gore, Carter and Arafat holds. It's my understanding that the science awards are much less subject to political influence and global trends than one might conclude from Arafat's inclusion on the peace prize list.

I know it will shock you, but I don't agree with your assessments of either Carter or Gore...nor their awards. Carter's a friend of the Morefield family but more than that he's done tremendous work in poverty, diplomacy and is just flat out, imho, a man of integrity. One can disagree with his opinions, actions, etc., but he has an internal consistency with what I believe is his life's passion (peace) that I greatly respect.

I'm less informed on Gore's level of integrity and he seems to me to be more of a politician than Carter ever was. That usually means there's a fudge factor at work, in my experience.

However, I do think we're doing grave harm to the enviroment (on so many levels and in so many subsystems of the larger system). Part of that shows in global climate change, part in loss of species and habitat (dead zones in the ocean anyone?), part in ways I'm sure we haven't identified yet. I am glad he took on the environment as a personal mission.

He never, by the way, said the thing about the internet. I'm surprised you trotted that pony out.

That said, tell me more about "Free to Choose." I've taken economics courses (at Pepperdine...you'd think they'd have made a free marketer out of me) but don't remember that one.

Your college experience of reading "Das Kapital" reminds me of mine reading "Moby Dick." Thought I'd never finish and I certainly won't reread it again.

 

Laura

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:36:30

Erik,

You know I agree that politics has become more and more a game of fear-mongering. Bush got re-elected on fear (just saw that the "threat level" was artificially inflated before the election...sheesh).

Say what you will about McCain's politics, but I don't think he had the stomach for such strategies. Combine that with Obama's appeal, the economic crash and the typical 8-year backlash...and it added up to Obama winning.

I believe that there's a large contingent on the right still trying fear as their only strategy. I hear it in Rush. I hear it on Fox. I hear it in friends who hate Obama and give as their reasons the arguments that Rush and Fox used as their talking points that day.

It reminds me a bit of when many of my Christian women friends despised Hillary for sticking with Bill...even though that was inconsistent with their own moral views of what should happen when infidelity occurs in a marriage.

Are there fear mongers on the left, too? Yeah, there are. But it is interesting that our main "spokesperson"--imo, Jon Stewart--is an equal opportunity skewer-er...and that he responds more often with humor than with ire.

Unless he's talking about Tucker.

 

Kenneth R. Morefield

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:11:20

Laura,
As someone who just finished rereading Moby Dick for the fourth (I think) time...I just wanted to say that I found your post reactionary, dependent upon stereo types, grounded in a past fearful experience and just plain pig-headed.

There is more greatness on any single page of Moby Dick than there is in the whole of 90 percent of most American novels.

You are right about everything else, though, so we'll call it a draw.

 

Steve Peden

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:14:00

"It's my understanding that the science awards are much less subject to political influence and global trends than one might conclude from Arafat's inclusion on the peace prize list."

Not so that I've noticed. The Nobel Prize committee consists ENTIRELY of leftist/socialist European and a VERY few leftist/socialist American "scientists" and politicians. Politics is a huge driver of the awards in all categories - less so in science, I agree, but still significant. All the economists I know consider Krugman's award a reward for his anti-Bush and anti-Republican tirades. He's not a horrible economist, but he's not a very good one, either. Frankly, his economic analysis is very result-driven.

Obviously, I don't know Carter, personally, as you do, so my view of him is based entirely on his public pronouncements, and the publicly available information about, for example, his financial ties to various leftists/fascist governments around the world.

I agree, his work against poverty is impressive - almost as impressive as W's work to end AIDS in Africa. Looking at (i) his public pronouncements, and (ii) his economic ties, I cannot but conclude that he is a shill for various leftist/totalitarian regimes. His comments regarding W, the US, and our foreign policy are (i) COMPLETELY inappropriate for a former President (there IS an etiquette for these things, and Jimmuh has pissed all over it, more than ANY President in history, AFAIK), (ii) wrong-headed to the point of either bad faith or abject stupidity, and (iii) deeply offensive to approx. 40% to 50% of the American public (notwithstanding what that dimwit peanut farmer says, my opposition to "The One" is based IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM on his race/ethnicity, but entirely on (i) my perception of the horrific wrong-headedness of his policies, and (ii) my deep dislike for his "cult of personaliy" method of governing. Far from being THE. SMARTEST. PRESIDENT. EVAH. I find him shallow, callow, naive, vengeful, petty, not thoughtful, ahistorical and just plain ignorant. But, YMMV.

 

Laura

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:17:37

Ken,

I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard...thanks for the great last line to your comment.

LMK how your students like MD.

(I am pigheaded about MD...I freely admit it!)

 

Laura

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:23:50

Happy Sunday Steve,

I very carefully worded my statement about Carter to indicate that he's a friend of the Morefields...not that I know him personally. So I'm sorry for the confusion...I know a lot of stories about their interactions with him but haven't met him.

Just curious if you think George Bush, or Ronald Reagan, had a "cult of personality" style of government?

As to Carter's "completely inappropriate" behavior...SOMEONE had to be a voice in the wilderness and he's never shied away from that. Of course, this is the opinion of someone who went out and bought the Dixie Chicks comeback album because of what they said and what they endured as a result of "daring" to disagree with Bush II. So I expect our mileage does indeed differ.

 

Steve Peden

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:47:57

Bush, a "cult of personality"???? How do you figure? He was cordially disliked by many (most?) fiscal conservatives, somewhat popular (depending on the day and his latest policy) by Gary Bauer conservatives, fairly popular with foreign policy neo-cons, but all based on his policies. I don't know (speaking for myself) ANYONE who supported Bush because they thought he was the coolest guy in town.

Reagan, perhaps somewhat moreso. Certainly, a great deal of his popularity arose from his ability to communicate broad, positive messages regarding American exceptionalism in a very approachable way. OTOH, he was DESPISED by the MSM, the rhetoric used about him by the Left was close to as vicious as that used against Bush 2. Certainly personality was a factor with Ronnie; how big a factor I am not able to say. My own support of his Presidency rested on (i) his support for military build up and opposition to the USSR, and (ii) his aggressive position against taxes and government intervention (in most areas, anyway). I thought his domestic policy (outside of taxes) consisted mostly of "What do I have to give Tip to get my military budget?" Not a great way to set policy, but I understand his bargain with Mephistopheles.

And I'm sorry, but there are, in addition to simple civility and good manners, DAMN SOLID policy reasons for former Presidents to STFU. I am not a great fan of either of them, but contrast the silence of the Bush's with the constantly flapping yap of the peanut farmer. He is out of line, and I would think this if he were criticizing Obama for his ignorance of economics. Former Presidents should be seen (rarely) and not heard (EVER). The fact that his pronouncements are so morally obtuse, historically ignorant and economically comedic just makes it worse. He needs to go build a few houses and have a big, steaming cup of STFU.

 



Leave a Reply