- Paul Krugman making a point I've made several times about why Robert Barro's empirical work on the multiplier is next to useless right now. You can't take an very low empirical estimate of a multiplier from a time when theory says that it will be very low, drag it out at a time when theory says the multiplier should be high, and insist that the multiplier is going to be low. It makes zero sense. From an econometric standpoint, Barro's work is really great stuff. He figured out a brilliant identification strategy, and the discipline always gets excited about brilliant identification strategies. But clever doesn't equal universally applicable.
- Catherine Rampell reports on the Job Creation Tax Credit. All the usual caveats - it's really hard to know whether these things work... which is why I've gotta stop blogging for a while and write my paper on the Georgia hiring tax credit program.
- David Frum, blogging for Andrew Sullivan, quotes C.S. Lewis to shine light on the bizarre obsession with inflation risks. It really hits the mark:
We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under.
Ahh, Lewis' defense and discussion of the idea of demons as agents which tempt man into atheism, materialism, etc. used as a defense against arguments about the myriad problems of inflation. How laughable.
ReplyDeleteThe quote is taken from Letter 25: http://www.ccc-nl.org/mn/ScrewTape_Letter_25_and_questions.pdf
Anyway, I stopped listening to anything Frum had to say once he started proposing things like this:
"Requiring all residents to carry a national identity card that includes 'biometric data, like fingerprints or retinal scans or DNA,' and empowering all law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws. The authors admit that such a card 'could be used in abusive ways,' but reassure us by saying that victims of 'executive branch abuse will be able to sue.' Those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear!"
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2004/01/30/frum_perle/index.html
"used as a defense against arguments about the myriad problems of inflation"
ReplyDeleteWell, not against arguments about the myriad problems of inflation. Those are almost universally considered to be valid, I think. It's used against the use of those arguments at the present juncture.
"The authors admit that such a card 'could be used in abusive ways,' but reassure us by saying that victims of 'executive branch abuse will be able to sue.' Those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear!""
ReplyDeleteI make this same argument against relying too heavily on tort law too, but often get shot down by libertarians. I wonder why that is.
dkuehn,
ReplyDelete"It's used against the use of those arguments at the present juncture."
The "present juncture" is always an argument against concerns about inflation and debt. Look, we've had roughly forty years of the vast majority of the political and intellectual class arguing against those concerns, so this renewed effort doesn't really strike as one I should put much stock in. Of course you'd have a bit of a historical memory to remember that.
"I make this same argument against relying too heavily on tort law too..."
Possibly because the stakes are generally much higher when it comes to state authority. Furthermore, you'd probably have to also realize that suing an agent of the state for this sort of thing is far, far harder (indeed, nearly impossible in many circumstances - especially those concerning the vaunted notion of "national security") than suing just your average joe for a tort. So let's not pretend these are remotely the same situations; because they aren't.
"Look, we've had roughly forty years of the vast majority of the political and intellectual class arguing against those concerns"
ReplyDeleteAgainst those concerns? You mean expressing those concerns, right? Which was legitimate at the time, I would argue. Inflation has been the boogy man, and the legitimate boogy man, for the last half century. That's part of the reason why the fear is so hard to disabuse people of right now.
"Possibly because the stakes are generally much higher when it comes to state authority. Furthermore, you'd probably have to also realize that suing an agent of the state for this sort of thing is far, far harder (indeed, nearly impossible in many circumstances - especially those concerning the vaunted notion of "national security") than suing just your average joe for a tort."
Actually, neither of those arguments come up in my experience. They're reasonable ones, but I'm not quite sure about the one about how easy it is. Certainly when it's average joe vs. average joe you could probably be heard. But I'm not quite sure we can be so definitive about a suit against a corporation vs. a suit against the government. Hamdi got justice within three years. Hamdan in four. Boumediene in six years.
How long did it take for Exxon-Mobil? Wasn't that something like twenty years?
The issues are different, of course. I'm sure there's a lot of calculations and testimonies to cycle through for Exxon-Mobil. But those other three were national security cases, Xenophon. I'm not making the alternative extreme claim that bringing suit against the state is always smooth and easy. I'm just pushing back a little on your framing of the issue.
I suppose "exxon-valdez" is more accurate
ReplyDelete"How long did it take for Exxon-Mobil? Wasn't that something like twenty years?"
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate settlement amount, yes. During that whole period Exxon was shelling out cash for clean-up - what was at issue was how much they had to pay, not whether they had to pay. In the aforementioned national security cases each man sat in their prison cell and awaited their freedom.
Anyway, when it comes to national security claims the case which stands out the most as your run of the mill sort of situation is this one: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3145
Note that we haven't even touched other, non-national security areas where the state acts.
OK, that's fine. But you seem to be confusing my argument. My argument isn't that suing the government is great. I said I agreed with you on that. My argument is that tort law in general is a blunt, problematic incident.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing for Exxon to pay money out. BP is doing that right now too. That doesn't mean that there has been restitution. Contra David Frum, the fact that something is done doesn't mean there is nothing to fear.
*blunt, problematic instrument
ReplyDeleteAnd contra your argument, I think it is far less blunt in areas where private entities (persons or corporations) interact than when a citizen goes up against the state.
ReplyDeleteRoberts has an excellent blog post on government spending here: http://cafehayek.com/2010/07/stimulating-thoughts.html
ReplyDeleteYa - I had read through that, thanks. I think I may write something on it tomorrow morning, or at least share it.
ReplyDelete