« Markets in everything | Main | Eric Posner is now blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy »
Assorted links
1. David Leonhardt has a long, thoughtful article on the economic thinking of Barack Obama.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 20, 2008 at 03:17 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
The lede was buried, down on page 8:
"Maybe his health-care program won’t bring down costs."
Posted by: Josh at Aug 20, 2008 4:01:14 PM
"Yet laissez-faire capitalism hasn’t delivered nearly what its proponents promised. It has created big budget deficits, the most pronounced income inequality since the 1920s and the current financial crisis."
That's when I knew this reporter knows jack.
Big budget deficits = Congress
current financial crisis = Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
and since when did laissez-fair capitalism ever promise that incomes would be equal?
Posted by: crap at Aug 20, 2008 4:07:50 PM
"Depending on how you look at it, he is both more left-wing and more right-wing than many people realize."
That says plenty about the piece. Typical Times' on the one hand, on the other hand journalism. If Truman were alive today he'd say give me a one-handed Times reporter....
Posted by: SteveM at Aug 20, 2008 4:18:26 PM
"Depending on how you look at it, he is both more left-wing and more right-wing than many people realize."
That says plenty about the piece. Typical Times' on the one hand, on the other hand journalism. If Truman were alive today he'd say give me a one-handed Times reporter....
Posted by: SteveM at Aug 20, 2008 4:18:43 PM
Haven't read the whole thing yet, but this stood out:
In other words, free-market policy isn’t likely to dominate his agenda; his project would be fixing the market.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Aug 20, 2008 4:24:55 PM
'University of Chicago Democrat'
interesting phrase
Posted by: PJ at Aug 20, 2008 4:42:37 PM
“My core economic theory is pragmatism,” he said, “figuring out what works.”
“Figuring out what works” is what FDR did in the 30's during the Great Depression. That economic theory promoted uncertainty which exacerbated and lengthened the depression. It also setting the stage for unprecedented expansion of the government into the private sector.
Posted by: Brandon at Aug 20, 2008 5:08:54 PM
It seems that the biggest problem for Democrats is that they (nor anybody else) don't know what caused increase in
income inequality (it has increased even among dentists, so it cannot be completely explained by foreign labor competiotion,
education and the usual supects). Because they don't know what the reason of increased inequality is, it is doubful
they will be effective in reducing it without undermining incentive to work; they'll just flail around and screw
up a lot of things in the process.
It was interesting, in the Buffett quote ("let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of
people at the end and just redistribute it"), that the guy seems completely oblivious of the effect of changed incentives -
he seems to believe that you can increase marginal income tax rates arbitrarily, and the behaviour will not cahnge!
Of course, he is only talking about increasing taxes on wages, he'll be left alone to dispose of his wealth and
capital gains as he sees fit.
Posted by: Ned at Aug 20, 2008 5:52:28 PM
Was anyone else confused by there being only 1 assorted link(s)?
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Aug 20, 2008 6:55:44 PM
Ned: Buffett isn't oblivious to the economic argument, but he believes that taxing the super-rich will not affect their activities, since wealth accumulation at that scale is more about competition between magnates than about accumulating resources. He may be wrong but he ain't ignorant.
Posted by: anonymous_coward at Aug 20, 2008 8:22:55 PM
Very strange eclectic writing -- pretending to be of a whole, but trailing all across the spectrum along the way. I agree with some of the other points above. The author repeatedly argues that the poor have not done well, that government programs can increase prosperity (how?) and so forth.
One thing that really struck me: the Virginia model, where government spends and spends and the people are better off. Except most of that spending is FEDERAL dollars - for military employment. Yeah, maybe, but that doesn't mean we can apply that model to the country. I guess if we tax Europe to its tipping point to run our military, we can increase our GDP. Who should tell them?
Posted by: liberty at Aug 20, 2008 10:51:42 PM
Along with liberty's comment, any student of Virginia's public universities knows that Kaine has routinely signed measures pulling back our funding. UVA, VA Tech, and WM have been hit particularly hard.
If investment in education is a cornerstone of Virginia's success over the past 25 years, why is Governor Kaine insistent on cutting it, especially while leaving more wasteful spending around?
Posted by: Doubtful WM Student at Aug 21, 2008 1:39:45 AM
I came closest ever on this one to breaking down and getting a login to NYTOL.
"Yet laissez-faire capitalism hasn’t delivered nearly what its proponents promised. It has created big budget deficits, the most pronounced income inequality since the 1920s and the current financial crisis."
It is interesting what people think they hear. I've never heard or read any of these promises. I've always pondered whether the swings and the gaps would be larger, but the absolute levels higher under a freer market. I just don't see swings and gaps as a problem. If Joe has a bigger yacht than I do, and if in a recession I have to downgrade to a 50-footer, that's not a problem to me. If the free market solved all the problems liberals agonize over, then we wouldn't need liberals. As for the budget deficit, we cut taxes and didn't cut spending because of the "surpluses." Is the free market supposed to supply INFINITE funds?
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 21, 2008 3:07:17 AM
'For three decades now, the American economy has been in what the historian Sean Wilentz calls the Age of Reagan. The government has deregulated industries, opened the economy more to market forces and, above all, cut income taxes.... As Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Rubin ally from the Clinton administration, says: “We’ve probably done a better job of the last 20 years on the problems the market can solve than the problems the market can’t solve. We’re doing pretty well on the size of people’s houses and televisions and the like. We’re not looking so good on infrastructure and education.”'
Not only have I not noticed a ton of deregulation, I seem to notice that what Mr. Summers says we're "doing pretty well on," like the size of houses and televisions and the like is deregulated, whereas infrastructure and education is much less so. And why does he necessarily think that market-based solutions can't help solve education? It's helped in Sweden.
Posted by: John Thacker at Aug 21, 2008 10:44:45 AM
If you can get past the first page, which contains all the standard rhetoric about how the sky is falling, the piece is quite interesting. The author is quite optimistic, which I suppose reflects Obama's optimism as well.
Posted by: Asa at Aug 21, 2008 4:48:51 PM
I can't decide if the poor economic thinking in this article is the fault of Leonhardt or Obama. If the latter, despite his many many economic advisors, this article has me more worried than ever. It seems that here is a man who knows just enough to be dangerous. He realizes there are long chains of logic that must be considered when making a policy decision and then stops halfway down the chain--e.g. healthcare, CO2 permits for utilities. Very very concerning!
Posted by: Lisa at Aug 25, 2008 11:04:22 AM
