tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post4642799352502813664..comments2023-12-20T04:18:41.617-06:00Comments on The Hunting of the Snark: Mysteries Of The UniverseSusan of Texashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-1069642262241494592011-08-31T03:38:05.085-05:002011-08-31T03:38:05.085-05:00(Cont.)
Okay, final stretch. (BTW, it appears th...(Cont.)<br /><br />Okay, final stretch. (BTW, it appears the links can be copied and pasted even if they don't fully display on the screen.) Eric Rauschway's written quite a bit on the Great Depression and the New Deal. These posts are bit older, but he gives a good overview here, and critiques conservative New Deal foes Grover Norquist and Amity Shlaes:<br /><br />http://www.slate.com/id/2169744/pagenum/all<br /><br />Rauschway has done further debunking along these lines, and in this series, McMegan makes an appearance – and you'll be shocked to learn she attacked the New Deal and was wrong yet again:<br /><br />http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/<br /><br />http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/stop-lying-about-roosevelts-record/<br /><br />http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/when-is-it-lying/<br /><br />Finally, Lance Mannion makes some good, related points in "The Invisibles":<br /><br />http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2009/02/the-invisibles.html<br /><br />I imagine the non-Myles readers know most of this stuff already, and perhaps Myles does, too, and just chooses to ignore it. Night, all. Cheers.Batocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-54279531137627790762011-08-31T03:29:17.273-05:002011-08-31T03:29:17.273-05:00Okay, I'll play along, at least this once. I ...Okay, I'll play along, at least this once. I won't use live links to try to avoid running afoul of Blogger twitchiness. <br /><br />CLBetley has already linked the GDP data, which as CL notes, doesn't support Myles' claims. Moreover, while GDP is certainly important, it's hardly the only important economic factor. Jobs are kinda crucial, especially to those who are struggling. (Meanwhile, in our current era, most economic gains are funneled to a tiny few, and income and wealth inequity shouldn't be ignored.) Let's recall: McMegan was specifically claiming that there wasn't "some magical program for re-employing everyone that has been hitherto overlooked." Yet again – sure there was/is, the New Deal (or contemporary version thereof). The historical one absolutely lowered unemployment. McMegan is wrong or disingenuous as usual; it's not that such policies don't exist or don't work, it's just that she and her ilk don't support them. (Not coincidentally, New Deal jobs and projects helped spur some economic growth.) The Wikipedia entry on the Great Depression is decent but not great, but does provide some charts on unemployment and GDP:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression<br /><br />If you want to argue the New Deal wasn't great for some other reasons, fine, although it's not a convincing sell, but stay on point: acknowledge that it significantly reduced unemployment. Some conservative hacks (Amity Schlaes) have tried to argue otherwise (more on that below) but it's a preposterous claim.<br /><br />Moving on to broader context, and another CL point, there are many articles on the mistake of 1937 – cutting back on the New Deal – but this one by David Woolner is pretty good: <br /><br />http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/04/obama_keynes_fdr<br /><br />Demand, baby. FDR took office in March 1933, and his policies proved much more effective than Hoover's. Roughly speaking, the New Deal was extremely helpful but insufficient (FDR resisted going further); full recovery wasn't achieved until higher WWII spending kicked in. Paul Krugman has explained these dynamics countless times, and that non-military spending can do the same trick. Christina Romer and Krugman recently explained this: <br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/business/economy/from-world-war-ii-economic-lessons-for-today.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&pagewanted=all<br /><br />http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/oh-what-a-lovely-war/<br /><br />(Cont.)Batocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-30087392296039441462011-08-30T20:29:05.285-05:002011-08-30T20:29:05.285-05:00if she has basked in the glow of an important pers...<i>if she has basked in the glow of an important person she is theirs forever</i><br /><br />There you go. It's a proximity thing.Substance McGravitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04118764163822188800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-41899258464784485612011-08-30T18:17:39.321-05:002011-08-30T18:17:39.321-05:00Well, I guess that settles it. If the business and...<i>Well, I guess that settles it. If the business and economics editor of the Atlantic says it's okay, then I'm sure Boehner, McConnell and all the other fucksticks in the GOP will just wave their withered old white man hands and let the guy through!</i><br /><br />Personally, I think Brad DeLong should be appointed to the Fed.<br /><br />The basic problem for sane econ people in relation to politics is how to separate countercyclical fiscal stimulus and unconventional monetary policy from left-wing politics (given the problematic bundling effect with things like WPA, and given the pretty understandable unwillingness of conservatives to support unconventional fiscal and monetary policy otherwise). DeLong is someone who goes for serious unconventional policy without having the left-wing politics baggage.<br /><br />You don't want it to be the case where the most vocal spokespeople for unconventional policy are loons and cranks like Jamie Galbraith or Hudson or Ha-Joong Chang or whoever is the crank-of-the-day. That both decreases the credibility of unconventional policy and increases the credibility of the loons' other (more idiotic) ideas.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-71289050129855781202011-08-30T17:23:45.891-05:002011-08-30T17:23:45.891-05:00"Megan McArdle announces Alan Krueger appoint..."Megan McArdle announces Alan Krueger appointment to the president's Council of Economic Advisers and gives him <b>her tentative approval</b>."<br /><br />Well, I guess that settles it. If the business and economics editor of the Atlantic says it's okay, then I'm sure Boehner, McConnell and all the other fucksticks in the GOP will just wave their withered old white man hands and let the guy through!<br /><br />-AWSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-71789528431660938742011-08-30T17:06:22.245-05:002011-08-30T17:06:22.245-05:00It's your cite, Myles.
What's the GDP lev...<i>It's your cite, Myles.</i><br /><br />What's the GDP level in 1940 (or 1939, given purchase by Britain of American armaments) as compared to 1930?Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-75131697280845103772011-08-30T16:33:21.504-05:002011-08-30T16:33:21.504-05:00Despite his press, Krueger has done little work in...Despite his press, Krueger has done little work in mass unemployment and is not really "pro labor". He has advocated cutting the social safety net in the past and will continue to do so as a member of team Obama. His sole purpose is as a sop to liberals which, given his track record, will be purely cosmetic.Ben Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07726143508849742734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-76314870963020911922011-08-30T11:20:55.636-05:002011-08-30T11:20:55.636-05:00To avoid any mistaken assumptions about Myles'...To avoid any mistaken assumptions about Myles' veracity: <a rel="nofollow"> http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-32.pdf </a> shows US GDP grew annually from 1934 to 1940 between 5 and 13% in real terms, but for 1938, when it fell 3.5% following an ill-advised and well-debated turn to austerity. <br /><br />It's your cite, Myles.CLBetleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10907901365466488219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-14075656084504639412011-08-30T10:35:24.684-05:002011-08-30T10:35:24.684-05:00It's called the fucking New Deal (contemporary...<i>It's called the fucking New Deal (contemporary version thereof).</i><br /><br />The New Deal was an economic failure. Look at US GDP numbers from 1930 to 1940.<br /><br />In any case, one of the shittier things about the New Deal is the conflation in people's minds between fiscal stimuli (which are effective) and make-work programs. Ideally, fiscal stimuli should operate invisibly and automatically, and the public should not have any sense of its separate existence. Automatic stabilizers, for example. Payroll tax moratoriums, for another.<br /><br />The more the public are actually aware of fiscal stimuli the less effective it is.Mylesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-56994696527955925472011-08-30T02:29:03.124-05:002011-08-30T02:29:03.124-05:00It's not that I think there's some magical...<i>It's not that I think there's some magical program for re-employing everyone that has been hitherto overlooked...</i><br /><br />It's called the fucking <i>New Deal</i> (contemporary version thereof). Maybe McMegan has heard of the original, classic version? <br /><br />Okay, there's more to McArdle's sentence, but the biggest problem facing America is the vortex of stupid-evil-crazy consuming all policy debates and the entire Republican Party (plus some Dems). The problem isn't that folks don't have good ideas and effective policies. The problem is that Megan and her brood fight against those with every fiber of their Galtian beings.Batocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-42313990747543879282011-08-29T17:06:31.903-05:002011-08-29T17:06:31.903-05:00He's also very good at explaining those distin...<i>He's also very good at explaining those distinctions in a way that makes sense.</i><br /><br />How nice. Whereas Megs herself so often can't be bothered to explain anything, but rather occupies herself with announcing her opinions as she sprays the audience with jargon.Mr.Wonderfulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-4356147205606205242011-08-29T16:16:07.626-05:002011-08-29T16:16:07.626-05:00I used my mind control waves, Ken.
But now I feel...I used my mind control waves, Ken.<br /><br />But now I feel incapacitated...<br />~ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252371815131259831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-35524603549200524822011-08-29T14:11:02.824-05:002011-08-29T14:11:02.824-05:00"a grasp of labor market economics that seems..."a grasp of labor market economics that seems to <strong>this non-economist</strong> both encyclopedic, and very nuanced. He's also very good at explaining those distinctions in a way that makes sense."<br /><br />She admits it.<br /><br />All right, which regular here (or at FMM, may it rest in peace) broke into McMegan's <em>Atlantic</em> account and posted this piece?Ken Houghtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440837287933536370noreply@blogger.com