"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking" - JMK
- It was Milton Friedman's 99th birthday yesterday. His Nobel Prize lecture is here.
- David Glasner on why central bankers are not central planners.
- Stan Collender notes that on the debt deal it ain't over till it's over.
-What do people think about presidential candidate Thaddeus McCotter? I listened to an interview with him on C-Span and was impressed. He's sort of like Romney - he's a Republican that I could support if we weren't in a depression right now, but of course he relies on all the belt-tightening cliches that you always hear which makes it something of a non-starter at a time like this. Anyway - he seems extremely competent, not an ideologue, not a moralizer, and the discussion of the resolution authority as an alternative to TARP was especially good. He's apparently an avid Iraq War supporter too. I doubt I'd ever vote for him but it's worth pointing out the positive elements of the Republican field. And who knows - ten years from now when we're out of our wars and our depression and starting down Medicare and structural deficits I may come around to him (and Republicans in general) again. It seems a ways off at this point.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
McCotter is a member of the House; thus he has close to zero chance of being elected President. Unless he's another Garfield (our only sitting member of the House elected President).
ReplyDeleteSo, Daniel, when McCotter said that the Paulson bailout plan was the advent of "American socialism," did that make an ideologue or not? McCotter also was a vocal opponent of the passage of ObamaCare.
If you want to see more of him he shows up from time to time on Fox's "Redeye."
It makes him wrong certainly. If he followed it with more about socialism and fascism and trampling on the Constitution I might say "ideologue". But he didn't - he followed it with a good analysis of the alternative policy route he could have taken.
ReplyDeleteOf course as I've always made clear on here, health reform for me is a mixed bag. Since it can of course evolve I think it's probably better that it did happen than that it didn't. But I'm certainly critical enough myself of major facets of it that I don't mind vocal opponents (again - as long as they're not calling the people they disagree with socialists who don't care about the Constitution). His support for the Iraq War is much more troubling for me than his opposition to health reform.
One other thing that I forgot to mention that irked me - he has something of a manufacturing fetish, which is expected coming from Detroit, but also not great.
He seems - like Huntsman and Romney - like a Republican that would run a functional government. But I don't think I would vote for any of them so long as we're in this downturn.
Any time you are bailing out private firms and making them government entities either officially or unofficially then you're on the road to socialism. Or corporatism. Take your pick.
ReplyDelete"If he followed it with more about socialism and fascism and trampling on the Constitution I might say 'ideologue'. [sic]"
This, to be honest, really, doesn't make any sense. So it is the number of times one uses the term "socialism" that makes one an ideologue? Supposedly someone who is an ideologue is an individual who holds to an ideology in such an unswavering fashion that they will brook no compromise. That definition fits very few long-lasting politicians I've ever heard of; and certainly no one in the current Presidential field or in past presidential fields. Ideologues - if such a person exists - live in think tanks and amongst the general public as a rule.
I'd never vote for any of them; that probably makes me an ideologue.
re: "So it is the number of times one uses the term "socialism" that makes one an ideologue?"
ReplyDelete1. To a certain degree, yes.
2. Why did you neglect to quote the next sentence that I wrote? That seems relevant to your question.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying that is there are no ideologues amongst politicians, especially of the federal variety. They just don't last long enough up the latter of political competition to get to that point.
Being an ideologue is not what I worry about when it comes to politicians.
ladder - blech, no coffee yet
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying Gary. Certainly if you choose to define "ideologue" as never compromising not only are there few ideologues in Congress but there are few ideologues period. But there are certainly members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that are primarily motivated by ideology, are relatively uncompromising, and have deep ideologically based suspicions of their opponents. That seems sufficient to me to be an "ideologue".
ReplyDelete"But there are certainly members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that are primarily motivated by ideology..."
ReplyDeleteThe evidence for that claim is very thin. Politicians are motivated by re-election, particularly since it has become so career oriented since the 1960s (for the worst IMO - a career politician is going to try to sell themselves more as the vox populi than a non-career politician - and that means entertaining public passions more). If a politician looks intransigent it is mostly because his/her district is intransigent; we have natural experiments when it comes to this - as populations change in Congressional districts (or states in the case of Senators) the voting patterns of Reps and Senators change. If the actions of politicians seem inconsistent, etc., that's probably because the voters have inconsistent goals (or the public's mood isn't firmly set on a particular issue).
Gary ideology can be an important component of reelection. These are not mutually exclusive motivations. I'm not sure if your parenthetical is right either (although I agree the career politician thing is a bad development).
ReplyDeleteIs that a natural experiment? Ideologies evolve over time. What it means to be a "conservative" has evolved tremendously, for example. It seems reasonable to assume that politicians' ideology evolves too. So do politicians chase votes or are they ideological fellow-travelers. Certainly its some of bloth. The point is I'm not sure it's all that clean of a test.
Again - you seem to think that any vote-chasing means they aren't an ideologue. I've rejected this strict definition, but you seem to continue your counter-argument as if I haven't.
*both
ReplyDeleteI guess it depends on what you mean by important. It is just not a strong factor in the voting records of federal politicians. American's pretty much get the policies they want to see enacted, so if ideology comes into play it is whatever "ideology" is strongest in a particular member's district or state.
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me how economists can be divided on so many issues.
ReplyDeletere: "It never ceases to amaze me how economists can be divided on so many issues."
ReplyDeleteSometimes there are stark disagreements. I think there's a vocal but small minority on policy issues that exaggerates this.
If you look at the sort of work economists do day in and day out there are certainly open questions but there's a lot of consistency.
People often see economists with different political views and assume economics is an indecisive science. The problem with that is that arguing about politics is completely different from economics science.
Astronomers are on the same page on a lot of questions and are pretty coherent in their disagreements on open questions of astronomy. You can't look at astronomers' views on a political issue like "what should NASA do" and try to extrapolate from teat division on questions of astronomical science.
but of course he relies on all the belt-tightening cliches that you always hear which makes it something of a non-starter at a time like this
ReplyDeleteYou and I completely disagree on the nature of government spending.
He's apparently an avid Iraq War supporter too.
You and I completely disagree on the nature of war and foreign policy.
David Glasner on why central bankers are not central planners.
You and I completely disagree on the nature of money production.
These are stark differences, Dan. And I'm not the wacko pariah that babbling gibberish. A whole lot of the economics profession is divided on these and similar issues. We're not arguing technicalities on complex issues - these are fundamental disagreements on the nature of the discipline.
When we can't even agree on the definition of money, how can we expect intellectual progress?
re: "He's apparently an avid Iraq War supporter too.
ReplyDeleteYou and I completely disagree on the nature of war and foreign policy."
We don't disagree on the Iraq War, do we???
re: "These are stark differences, Dan. And I'm not the wacko pariah that babbling gibberish."
If you identify central banking with central planning that's a pretty strange position. If you think that government debt works like household debt that's a pretty strange position. I don't know what differences between you and me on the definition of money - but definitions are things that majorities decide.
But a lot of the rest of the alleged "disagreements" are political disagreements, not scientific disagreements.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that what economists do is inherently far more political than what astronomers do. It is a lot harder to separate out the normative/political claims from what is supposed to be the science.
Back in the yonder 19th century historians fulfilled the same role in a number of European states, in many ways from that spawned the German historical school - which was an effort to make history more scientific/systematic in comparison to say what had come before since Herodotus, Plutarch, etc. - history as narrative, as a teacher of moral life, as a means to describe who and who was not part of a community, etc. These days history doesn't have as much role in forging current public policy, etc., so it just isn't as controversial as it used to be. The only flash points you normally see have to do with school text books or something very rare like the Enola Gay memorial at the Smithsonian.
Ok, that's a longwinded way of saying that economics is just different from astronomy; it is different because economics feeds into varying political philosophies as do economists, and I don't believe you can separate those things.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteOh I understand WHY people get worked up about normative differences - and it's absolutely for the reason that you cite - that there are lots of normative applications of economics. I'm simply saying the fact that that substantial risk is there is no reason to reproduce laxity in policing the border between normative and positive work. It's reason to be even more adament about the difference between the two.
We don't disagree on the Iraq War, do we???
ReplyDeleteI believe so. I seem to recall you were in favor of occupying Iraq last we spoke.
If you identify central banking with central planning that's a pretty strange position.
To you it is.
I could just as easily write:
If you don't identify the manipulation of a fiat currency by a central board of bureaucrats and elite bankers as central planning, that's a pretty strange position.
If you think that government debt works like household debt that's a pretty strange position.
Again:
If you don't think that the rules for debt and borrowing are the same when applied to a nation as when it's applied to a household, that's a strange position.
I don't know what differences between you and me on the definition of money - but definitions are things that majorities decide.
You and I don't hold the same definition of money at all. I subscribe to the Misesian/Rothbardian definition of money and you subscribe to probably more of a Keynesian/Friedmanite understanding.
One of us rejects fractional reserve banking, the other does not. One of us sees the intertemporal capital effects of tampering with a money supply, the other does not (fully appreciate the dangers).
It reminds me of the argument Bob Murphy had with Major Freedom on the definitions of savings and consumption! I mean.. how can we expect to see solidarity and consensus in economics as a science when we can't even agree on what savings and consumption mean, let alone money and how it works!
But a lot of the rest of the alleged "disagreements" are political disagreements, not scientific disagreements.
No Daniel, they ARE scientific disagreements. I dispute your methodology and your conclusions, not your policy.
Let me put it this way. I think we can all take it for granted, as Mises offers as an empirical gesture, that we all prefer life to death, happiness to suffering, satiation to starvation, etc. We have the same goals in mind - namely, the prosperity and flourishing of our race. We are not in disagreement over the ENDS, merely the MEANS to achieve them.
So we disagree scientifically, technically. If you and I were equally competent economists, and your goal was not the simple utilitarian prospect of happiness for all, we would have political disagreements - but we are simply fighting over how to get to the same place.
re: "I believe so. I seem to recall you were in favor of occupying Iraq last we spoke."
ReplyDeleteI think I've said there's something to the argument that going cold turkey could hurt everyone and a phased withdrawl is smart but I've never been in support of the Iraq war.
As for all the definition stuff, etc. If you want to accept Rothbard's definitions fine. Be my guest. Don't proceed under the impression you're doing economic science. We can redefine force and mass too if we want, but we're not doing physics if we're speaking a different language. Don't let the blogosphere confuse you about what a small minority Rothbardians are. If you are not talking about the same things the scientists are talking about you can't do science.
Yours are strange definitions. Yours are strange methodologies. They are unusual. If you insist on holding them don't tell me the discipline is in disarray just because you've turned your back on the discipline.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteIn the past you've talked about the need for the U.S. to have a large military role in the world (at least at present). Most libertarians reject that idea.
"Don't let the blogosphere confuse you about what a small minority Rothbardians are."
Science isn't about counting hands or voting I'm afraid.
Ultimately the problem with economics being a "science" (or the problem with claiming such) is that unlike most sciences economics appears mostly to be geared not towards problem solving but toward answer solving - the answer is provided and then one works backward to try to justify it. Or such is my impression.
"If you insist on holding them don't tell me the discipline is in disarray just because you've turned your back on the discipline."
What? Is this a priesthood or something? Most scientific disciplines have some sort of over-arching paradigm to them (or series of paradigms which are some times linked, sometimes not) - in biology you have evolution, cell theory, etc. Nothing like that exists in economics - obviously economics has gone through a variety of paradigmatic shifts (e.g., Smith, then Ricardo, then marginalism, then Keynes, etc.), but the paradigms are never really complete or uncontested and thus they tend to be fairly weak. And yes, there are debates about evolution by evolutionary scientists, but those debates regard specific mechanisms and so forth, no one doubts the basic story about the evolution of species. Instead of something like the Big Bang or wave particle duality or what have you, you've got in economics something more a kin to one of the undemonstrated UFTs. Most of the grander economic theories that are supposed to explain a lot look a lot more like M theory or loop quantum gravity theory; they don't seem to be able to convince people like the Big Bang does or evolution or quantum theory in chemistry.
If you want to accept Rothbard's definitions fine. Be my guest. Don't proceed under the impression you're doing economic science.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the case that I'm speaking A and you're speaking B so OOPS, we can't communicate.
I'm asserting to you that your understanding of money (and interest theory and capital theory, et al.) is seriously deficient and in some cases wrong. All elaborate theories based on misunderstandings of base phenomena will not discuss reality. That's the problem. We communicate just fine (mostly), but one of us is doing economics and the other is constructing an elaborate fiction that bears some resemblance to reality.
To the extent we don't agree on economic theory, we are having scientific disagreements - disagreements about how money, interest, exchange, production, capital, etc. WORK and as they actually are in reality. For various reasons, I don't support the idea that data collection gives an accurate view of economics.
Yours are strange definitions. Yours are strange methodologies. They are unusual.
Actually, you're the strange one. Economics proceeded by mental constructions and hypothetical isolations (aka logical deduction) for centuries. It has only recently been the case that economics is studied by your methodology.
If you insist on holding them don't tell me the discipline is in disarray just because you've turned your back on the discipline.
As far as I know, I'm not the flat-earth theorist arguing with astronomers. The entire discipline is in disarray because there are a million schools that define things in their own way.
And Gary's right, you make it sound like a priesthood.
Gary -
ReplyDeleteI would certainly guess that I want the U.S. to have more of a role than you or Mattheus do, but I've never supported the Iraq war and I've never wanted a "large role" for the U.S. military in the world. If you're confused on that point I'm informing you of my position now.
re: "Ultimately the problem with economics being a "science" (or the problem with claiming such) is that unlike most sciences economics appears mostly to be geared not towards problem solving but toward answer solving - the answer is provided and then one works backward to try to justify it. Or such is my impression."
I'm not sure how you get that impression - it's not my impression at all. One of my impressions has been that you don't read much economics (you often share what you're reading so I feel like I have a pretty decent sense of it). I'm not sure what you're making this judgement on the basis of.
I have no clue what either of you are talking about with this "priesthood" thing. If you redefine "force" and "mass" and then complain that nobody else uses your definitions physicists will give you quizzical looks. Is physics a "priesthood" now too?
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem of course; economics really has no equivalent of force or mass. Much of it verges on junk science to be frank.
I read plenty of economics.
Who have you read lately? My understanding is that you read a lot of Hayek, but you seemed to read mostly his later work which wasn't in economics.
ReplyDeleteI just read _The General Theory_ last month, remember? I've got it on my kindle now.
ReplyDeleteOh I had no idea you read that.
ReplyDeleteAnyway that's something like reading Origin of the Species... you're highly critical of the work economists do but I don't get the impression you don't follow a lot of modern economics. Have you read much of any economics science published since 1940? I know you like the classics - I'm sure you've read Smith, etc.
Anyway - your reading habits are your business. I just know I spend a lot of time reading economics and I feel like I just barely have a grasp of the scope of what the science does (part of this is because I spend time dabbling in these side issues of history of thought and Austrian economics - which detracts from getting up to date in economics). I don't have the impressions you have given the years that I've put into it and I don't get the sense you've burrowed quite as deeply in the literature as I have so I'm wondering where you get such strong opinions.
(part of this is because I spend time dabbling in these side issues of history of thought and Austrian economics - which detracts from getting up to date in economics).
ReplyDeleteThat's a little left-handed, wouldn't you say?
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I have in common with Leo Strauss is that I like to read old books.