...and this hearing on monetary policy. Am I wrong to find the way Congressional hearings are run completely obnoxious?
First, the title of the hearing sounds like the title of a middle school science project
I also hate the witnesses they bring to these things. People have complained about Thomas DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute because of his sympathies for the Confederacy. South of D.C., it isn't all that absurd to hear equivocating on this, but it's usually pretty muted and qualified. DiLorenzo cannot be described as "muted" or "qualified" and is probably an embarassment to many even in Alabama, where the Mises Institute is located. But let's put aside the Confederate sympathies for the moment - my biggest question is why is he testifying in a hearing on monetary policy? Let's say he wrote an entirely conventional book about Lincoln - how does this qualify him to testify? He's written a variety of other books on other subjects, but the man does not do monetary economics.
DiLorenzo is just the one that's been getting all the attention - but the other two, Vedder and Bivens, aren't particularly impressive either. Vedder is a labor economist and economic historian at Ohio University and AEI that is perhaps best known for a book he co-authored attributing essentially all unemployment to government and unions. The book was not well received, and a good example of the sorts of basic mistakes it makes is proviced by DeLong here. Josh Bivens is an economist at EPI, and he strikes me as no better. The only publications on his website that seem to even touch on monetary policy are (1.) the testimony from this hearing that he posted, and (2.) a piece on Chinese currency manipulation from 2006. He's best known for his work on how globalization hurts American workers.
This is absurd. These three men hail from three of the most ideological think tanks we have in this country. None of them work on monetary policy issues. I don't know the quality of Bivens' work, but I know DiLorenzo and Vedder's work raises eyebrows for a lot of people.
The point is, there are a ton of good monetary economists out there that will give you reasoned answers without the political and ideological spin that these guys are bound to provide (I haven't listened to the hearing yet). But this happens a lot. Congressional hearing representatives are often show-horses, not legitimate witness. I find that obnoxious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Yes yes yes, I have been hearing about this hearing on various economics related forums.
ReplyDeleteAm I wrong to believe this was another disastrous decision by Ron Paul? Look, there was this one rather conspiratorial author who wrote some book called Creature From Jekyll Island. Many free market economists, including those of the Austrian School, stayed the hell away from endorsing the book and its author.
Who called it a great book? This Congressman. Also, occasionally I visit Alex Jones channel just for humour and the over-the-top style. I see Ron Paul there. What on earth is a legislator doing on a 9/11 truther's radio channel? This is political suicide and deliberately damaging to one's reputation.
Dr. Ron Paul seems sincere and interested in educating the public. But he has bad judgment.
Ya - and most of it has been either about DiLorenzo and the Confederacy or some sort of Mises-Koch brothers feud.
ReplyDeleteI felt obligated to mention the former, and am completely uninterested in the latter.
Ya - I think Ron Paul bungled this. I simply don't see why people are so enamored with him. But he's not the only one that does this - Congressional hearings are often useless like this. Pet theorists are trotted out. None of these witnesses has any business testifying here.
I think he is sincere, which in a way is even more disconcerting.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait for Ron Paul to gain some real power so he has to start compromising his principles.
ReplyDelete"Slavery could have been ended peacefully as all other nations did — and as the Northern states did — in the nineteenth century. There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853. The real purpose of the war was to end once and for all the ability of American citizens to control the federal government by possessing the powers given to them by the Tenth Amendment, including the power of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and secession or the threat of secession. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Tenth Amendment was the cornerstone of the Constitution. Lincoln, who was the political son of Jefferson’s nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, removed that cornerstone by orchestrating the murder of some 350,000 fellow American citizens, including more than 50,000 civilians according to historian James McPherson." -- Thomas DiLorenzo
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how his stance is NOT "qualified." It's not as if he repeatedly states that the South was morally unstained.
Frankly, I'm in full agreement with DiLorenzo. To quote the title of Jeffrey Hummel's book on the subject, Lincoln's escapades were about "emancipating slaves, enslaving free men." If you actually look at the offense Lincoln committed (jailing journalists, etc.), then I'm not sure "unqualified" support for the North (as you seem to exhibit) is justified.
The issue is complex, but simply believing the South should have been able to secede doesn't make one "an emabarasssment to many even in Alabama," especially when Northern federal tyranny can be demonstrated amply.
I think the fairest way to think about the war is that Northern abolitionism spooked Southern elites into seceding over slavery, dragging a lot of poor Southerners who weren't especially interested in second-guessing the institution. Lincoln clearly initiated the conflict to sustain the Union, which is entirely legitimate. I don't think secession is "unconstitutional" per se. It doesn't even make sense to talk about constitutionality when the whole point is that you're repudiating a constitutional union! But I don't see how preserving the union and putting down rebellions is tyrannical in itself. George III wasn't a tyrant for responding to rebellions. He was a tyrant for the way he acted before the rebellions even started. George Washington wasn't a tyrant simply for putting down the rebellion he faced while president.
ReplyDeleteI think if the South had seceded unmolested slavery certainly would have died - probably embarassingly late and from international pressure rather than a natural death - and things would have turned out decently enough by the 21st century. But that doesn't mean Lincoln was a tyrant for trying to prevent it (although certainly we can critique many of his specific measures - and these have been critiqued).
I am not an uncritical supporter of the North. I've been criticized before for being too defensive of the Confederacy. But I do think calling Lincoln a tyrant and romanticizing the Confederacy (as opposed to certain select potentially worthy Confederates) is too much. One of Harper Lee's characters was said to have regarded the decision to secede with "impotent fury", and any Southerner that responds any other way I think is a fool.
Secession shouldn't be opposed because it's illegal or because of how admirable Lincoln was. It should be opposed because it is the single dumbest decision a committee of men from the American South has ever made in the over four hundred years since the initial European settlement. I have more sympathy for border states that stuck with the Union on the initial question and left for the South when armies were raised. But it was still a stupid, reckless decision.
But let's be clear - whatever you think of DiLorenzo and the Confederacy, the man is entirely unqualified to testify before Congress on this question and Paul is irresponsible for choosing him.
ReplyDelete"I've been criticized before for being too defensive of the Confederacy. " =Daniel.
ReplyDeleteCould you link to that criticism.
Thanks,
Not on this blog primarily (although I think there were one or two times), and I don't have time to track it down elsewhere for you. I will tell you it was on several posts on Matt Yglesias's blog and on Ta-Nehisi Coates's blog. In a lot of cases it was over the Confederate flag - I think a lot of people completely misunderstand the way that symbol is understood and used by people.
ReplyDeleteAnyway - my thoughts on the United States between 1861 and 1865 don't seem to ever make anybody happy, so I usually try not to talk about it that much.
This post is really not about the Civil War.
It's about Ron Paul wasting our time and the charade that is congressional hearings.
"It's about Ron Paul wasting our time and the charade that is congressional hearings. "
ReplyDeleteI understand. It is about Ron Paul. Not about the charade that is congressional hearings.
This is very common, Calling Bluff. Witnesses are often picked because the organizer of the hearing knows they're going to say what they want to hear - not because they're the most qualified witness.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot wrong with how Congress does hearings. They also interrupt all the time. It's their responsibility to probe, of course, but the exercise becomes largely useless. Aside from their opening statement, witnesses often don't get a complete thought out, and when they do their talked down to by the Congressmen who invited them there in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I remember reading about a few monetary policy hearings that happen in the United States, and yes, they might be done for purely political posturing.
ReplyDeleteSome legislator called Bernie Sanders was once giving a dressing down to Ben Bernanke. Even though Bernanke was being quiet and patient, none of his explanations or answers were heard, and Sanders continued scolding him. It was very cruel and pointless - what exactly was this Sanders' experience? I searched him through Google and the man had no experience in money and banking. I remember also the famous Alan Grayson video with Bernanke, and his smug laughter was unfortunate. Back in old Britain, a certain deference and respect was expected in public discourse, and statesmen are not supposed to be petty mocking - Western nations were not made to such standards.
Should such hearings be done away with altogether?
Sanders and Grayson are terrible - throw Kucinich in too. This is not a libertarian hate-fest. All four of them are smug and pretentious (although, as I said of Paul above, all four are quite sincere).
ReplyDeleteDeference, I think, is overrated. Letting someone you invite to speak actually speak is simply common courtesy. I don't care if Paul or Sanders defers to Bernanke or not. It would just be nice if witnesses could actually bear witness. Too many Congressmen act like we serve at their pleasure and not vice versa.
"But I don't see how preserving the union and putting down rebellions is tyrannical in itself. George III wasn't a tyrant for responding to rebellions. He was a tyrant for the way he acted before the rebellions even started. George Washington wasn't a tyrant simply for putting down the rebellion he faced while president."
ReplyDeleteThat would be true IF Lincoln didn't commit many tyrannical acts (once again, jailing journalists). But also incidents like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant.
I mean, there's plenty more evidence of Lincoln's overreaching from moderate and even liberal historians.
"But let's be clear - whatever you think of DiLorenzo and the Confederacy, the man is entirely unqualified to testify before Congress on this question and Paul is irresponsible for choosing him."
I personally agree with you BECAUSE I support more mainstream economics (rational choice, mathematical models, econometric studies) and so I respect Cato Institute papers more than almost anything in the library at LvMI.
Of course, in Paul's own eyes (an Austrian true believer), he probably could've done nothing more responsible than select a man like DiLorenzo.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/9/book-lincoln-sought-to-deport-freed-slaves/
ReplyDeleteExactly right - not surprising to me except for the destination (I had always thought Liberia had been his deportation destination of choice). It's hard to look at this sort of thing through modern eyes. This plan was embraced by abolitionists and many freed slaves as well, well into the twentieth century.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I think a lot of Rastas still support similar plans!
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I just checked, and those four Congressmen happen to be quite popular, with a cult following for each.
ReplyDeletePerhaps their dubious methods work? It seems easy to please the "fringe" and "underground" with arrogant behaviour.
David Henderson agrees with us that Ron Paul's Dilorenzo pick was a poor one.
ReplyDeletehttp://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/ron_pauls_stran.html
The filename (ron_pauls_stran.html) doesn't match the title or any of the content; I wonder if it was originally labeled "Ron Paul's Strange Choice" or something along those lines.
I never cringed so much than when watching Grayson question all the those Fed personnel. I'm all for a more transparent Fed, but the stuff he was asking were borderline conspiracy nonsense. You get the impression he has very little understanding about how open market operations works and monetary policy in general. I'm positive he has been getting all his talking points from Peter Schiff ever since Grayson started investing with his company.
ReplyDeleteThis one especially was horrible to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXmNpdYpfnk