J. Bradford DeLong's Blog, page 1092
January 13, 2015
The Near-Term in Wichita: The View from The Roasterie
One of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback's standard applause lines is that he wants Kansas: "to be less like California, and more like Texas!" The problem is that Texas has:
mild winters,
a culture that is very welcoming to hispanics, and
lots of oil.
Kansas as a whole has none of these--although Wichita has the third...
Now that the price of oil has crashed in half, having lots of oil--which Wichita has and the rest of Kansas does not--is not a near-term plus. It is, rather, a cause of painful structural adjustment.
And a Texas with the hostility to hispanics we see in today's Kansas Republican Party, plus harsh Kansas-quality winters, does not seem to be an attractive place...
By contrast, the big thing not to like about California right now seems to be its rampant NIMBY-ism--and the fact that that makes real estate fortunes for so many influential current Californians, and so makes them happy
Liveblogging the American Revolution: January 13, 1777: The American Crisis
Tom Paine:
The American Crisis:
TO LORD HOWE.
'What's in the name of lord, that I should fear
To bring my grievance to the public ear? UNIVERSAL empire is the prerogative of a writer. His concerns are with all mankind, and though he cannot command their obedience, he can assign them their duty. The Republic of Letters is more ancient than monarchy, and of far higher character in the world than the vassal court of Britain; he that rebels against reason is a real rebel, but he that in defence of reason rebels against tyranny has a better title to 'Defender of the Faith,' than George the Third.
As a military man your lordship may hold out the sword of war, and call it the 'ultima ratio regum': the last reason of kings; we in return can show you the sword of justice, and call it 'the best scourge of tyrants.' The first of these two may threaten, or even frighten for a while, and cast a sickly languor over an insulted people, but reason will soon recover the debauch, and restore them again to tranquil fortitude. Your lordship, I find, has now commenced author, and published a proclamation; I have published a Crisis. As they stand, they are the antipodes of each other; both cannot rise at once, and one of them must descend; and so quick is the revolution of things, that your lordship's performance, I see, has already fallen many degrees from its first place, and is now just visible on the edge of the political horizon.
It is surprising to what a pitch of infatuation, blind folly and obstinacy will carry mankind, and your lordship's drowsy proclamation is a proof that it does not even quit them in their sleep. Perhaps you thought America too was taking a nap, and therefore chose, like Satan to Eve, to whisper the delusion softly, lest you should awaken her. This continent, sir, is too extensive to sleep all at once, and too watchful, even in its slumbers, not to startle at the unhallowed foot of an invader. You may issue your proclamations, and welcome, for we have learned to 'reverence ourselves,' and scorn the insulting ruffian that employs you. America, for your deceased brother's sake, would gladly have shown you respect and it is a new aggravation to her feelings, that Howe should be forgetful, and raise his sword against those, who at their own charge raised a monument to his brother. But your master has commanded, and you have not enough of nature left to refuse. Surely there must be something strangely degenerating in the love of monarchy, that can so completely wear a man down to an ingrate, and make him proud to lick the dust that kings have trod upon. A few more years, should you survive them, will bestow on you the title of 'an old man': and in some hour of future reflection you may probably find the fitness of Wolsey's despairing penitence- 'had I served my God as faithful as I have served my king, he would not thus have forsaken me in my old age.'
The character you appear to us in, is truly ridiculous. Your friends, the Tories, announced your coming, with high descriptions of your unlimited powers; but your proclamation has given them the lie, by showing you to be a commissioner without authority. Had your powers been ever so great they were nothing to us, further than we pleased; because we had the same right which other nations had, to do what we thought was best. 'The UNITED STATES of AMERICA,' will sound as pompously in the world or in history, as 'the kingdom of Great Britain'; the character of General Washington will fill a page with as much lustre as that of Lord Howe: and the Congress have as much right to command the king and Parliament in London to desist from legislation, as they or you have to command the Congress. Only suppose how laughable such an edict would appear from us, and then, in that merry mood, do but turn the tables upon yourself, and you will see how your proclamation is received here. Having thus placed you in a proper position in which you may have a full view of your folly, and learn to despise it, I hold up to you, for that purpose, the following quotation from your own lunarian proclamation.- 'And we (Lord Howe and General Howe) do command (and in his majesty's name forsooth) all such persons as are assembled together, under the name of general or provincial congresses, committees, conventions or other associations, by whatever name or names known and distinguished, to desist and cease from all such treasonable actings and doings.'
You introduce your proclamation by referring to your declarations of the 14th of July and 19th of September. In the last of these you sunk yourself below the character of a private gentleman. That I may not seem to accuse you unjustly, I shall state the circumstance: by a verbal invitation of yours, communicated to Congress by General Sullivan, then a prisoner on his parole, you signified your desire of conferring with some members of that body as private gentlemen. It was beneath the dignity of the American Congress to pay any regard to a message that at best was but a genteel affront, and had too much of the ministerial complexion of tampering with private persons; and which might probably have been the case, had the gentlemen who were deputed on the business possessed that kind of easy virtue which an English courtier is so truly distinguished by. Your request, however, was complied with, for honest men are naturally more tender of their civil than their political fame. The interview ended as every sensible man thought it would; for your lordship knows, as well as the writer of the Crisis, that it is impossible for the King of England to promise the repeal, or even the revisal of any acts of parliament; wherefore, on your part, you had nothing to say, more than to request, in the room of demanding, the entire surrender of the continent; and then, if that was complied with, to promise that the inhabitants should escape with their lives. This was the upshot of the conference. You informed the conferees that you were two months in soliciting these powers. We ask, what powers? for as commissioner you have none. If you mean the power of pardoning, it is an oblique proof that your master was determined to sacrifice all before him; and that you were two months in dissuading him from his purpose. Another evidence of his savage obstinacy! From your own account of the matter we may justly draw these two conclusions: 1st, That you serve a monster; and 2d, That never was a messenger sent on a more foolish errand than yourself. This plain language may perhaps sound uncouthly to an ear vitiated by courtly refinements, but words were made for use, and the fault lies in deserving them, or the abuse in applying them unfairly.
Soon after your return to New York, you published a very illiberal and unmanly handbill against the Congress; for it was certainly stepping out of the line of common civility, first to screen your national pride by soliciting an interview with them as private gentlemen, and in the conclusion to endeavor to deceive the multitude by making a handbill attack on the whole body of the Congress; you got them together under one name, and abused them under another. But the king you serve, and the cause you support, afford you so few instances of acting the gentleman, that out of pity to your situation the Congress pardoned the insult by taking no notice of it.
You say in that handbill, 'that they, the Congress, disavowed every purpose for reconciliation not consonant with their extravagant and inadmissible claim of independence.' Why, God bless me! what have you to do with our independence? We ask no leave of yours to set it up; we ask no money of yours to support it; we can do better without your fleets and armies than with them; you may soon have enough to do to protect yourselves without being burdened with us. We are very willing to be at peace with you, to buy of you and sell to you, and, like young beginners in the world, to work for our living; therefore, why do you put yourselves out of cash, when we know you cannot spare it, and we do not desire you to run into debt? I am willing, sir, that you should see your folly in every point of view I can place it in, and for that reason descend sometimes to tell you in jest what I wish you to see in earnest. But to be more serious with you, why do you say, 'their independence?' To set you right, sir, we tell you, that the independency is ours, not theirs. The Congress were authorized by every state on the continent to publish it to all the world, and in so doing are not to be considered as the inventors, but only as the heralds that proclaimed it, or the office from which the sense of the people received a legal form; and it was as much as any or all their heads were worth, to have treated with you on the subject of submission under any name whatever. But we know the men in whom we have trusted; can England say the same of her Parliament?
I come now more particularly to your proclamation of the 30th of November last. Had you gained an entire conquest over all the armies of America, and then put forth a proclamation, offering (what you call) mercy, your conduct would have had some specious show of humanity; but to creep by surprise into a province, and there endeavor to terrify and seduce the inhabitants from their just allegiance to the rest by promises, which you neither meant nor were able to fulfil, is both cruel and unmanly: cruel in its effects; because, unless you can keep all the ground you have marched over, how are you, in the words of your proclamation, to secure to your proselytes 'the enjoyment of their property?' What is to become either of your new adopted subjects, or your old friends, the Tories, in Burlington, Bordentown, Trenton, Mount Holly, and many other places, where you proudly lorded it for a few days, and then fled with the precipitation of a pursued thief? What, I say, is to become of those wretches? What is to become of those who went over to you from this city and State? What more can you say to them than 'shift for yourselves?' Or what more can they hope for than to wander like vagabonds over the face of the earth? You may now tell them to take their leave of America, and all that once was theirs. Recommend them, for consolation, to your master's court; there perhaps they may make a shift to live on the scraps of some dangling parasite, and choose companions among thousands like themselves. A traitor is the foulest fiend on earth.
In a political sense we ought to thank you for thus bequeathing estates to the continent; we shall soon, at this rate, be able to carry on a war without expense, and grow rich by the ill policy of Lord Howe, and the generous defection of the Tories. Had you set your foot into this city, you would have bestowed estates upon us which we never thought of, by bringing forth traitors we were unwilling to suspect. But these men, you'll say, 'are his majesty's most faithful subjects;' let that honor, then, be all their fortune, and let his majesty take them to himself.
I am now thoroughly disgusted with them; they live in ungrateful ease, and bend their whole minds to mischief. It seems as if God had given them over to a spirit of infidelity, and that they are open to conviction in no other line but that of punishment. It is time to have done with tarring, feathering, carting, and taking securities for their future good behavior; every sensible man must feel a conscious shame at seeing a poor fellow hawked for a show about the streets, when it is known he is only the tool of some principal villain, biassed into his offence by the force of false reasoning, or bribed thereto, through sad necessity. We dishonor ourselves by attacking such trifling characters while greater ones are suffered to escape; 'tis our duty to find them out, and their proper punishment would be to exile them from the continent for ever. The circle of them is not so great as some imagine; the influence of a few have tainted many who are not naturally corrupt. A continual circulation of lies among those who are not much in the way of hearing them contradicted, will in time pass for truth; and the crime lies not in the believer but the inventor. I am not for declaring war with every man that appears not so warm as myself: difference of constitution, temper, habit of speaking, and many other things, will go a great way in fixing the outward character of a man, yet simple honesty may remain at bottom. Some men have naturally a military turn, and can brave hardships and the risk of life with a cheerful face; others have not; no slavery appears to them so great as the fatigue of arms, and no terror so powerful as that of personal danger. What can we say? We cannot alter nature, neither ought we to punish the son because the father begot him in a cowardly mood. However, I believe most men have more courage than they know of, and that a little at first is enough to begin with. I knew the time when I thought that the whistling of a cannon ball would have frightened me almost to death; but I have since tried it, and find that I can stand it with as little discomposure, and, I believe, with a much easier conscience than your lordship. The same dread would return to me again were I in your situation, for my solemn belief of your cause is, that it is hellish and damnable, and, under that conviction, every thinking man's heart must fail him.
From a concern that a good cause should be dishonored by the least disunion among us, I said in my former paper, No. I. 'That should the enemy now be expelled, I wish, with all the sincerity of a Christian, that the names of Whig and Tory might never more be mentioned;' but there is a knot of men among us of such a venomous cast, that they will not admit even one's good wishes to act in their favor. Instead of rejoicing that heaven had, as it were, providentially preserved this city from plunder and destruction, by delivering so great a part of the enemy into our hands with so little effusion of blood, they stubbornly affected to disbelieve it till within an hour, nay, half an hour, of the prisoners arriving; and the Quakers put forth a testimony, dated the 20th of December, signed 'John Pemberton,' declaring their attachment to the British government. [NOTE] These men are continually harping on the great sin of our bearing arms, but the king of Britain may lay waste the world in blood and famine, and they, poor fallen souls, have nothing to say.
In some future paper I intend to distinguish between the different kind of persons who have been denominated Tories; for this I am clear in, that all are not so who have been called so, nor all men Whigs who were once thought so; and as I mean not to conceal the name of any true friend when there shall be occasion to mention him, neither will I that of an enemy, who ought to be known, let his rank, station or religion be what it may. Much pains have been taken by some to set your lordship's private character in an amiable light, but as it has chiefly been done by men who know nothing about you, and who are no ways remarkable for their attachment to us, we have no just authority for believing it. George the Third has imposed upon us by the same arts, but time, at length, has done him justice, and the same fate may probably attend your lordship. You avowed purpose here is to kill, conquer, plunder, pardon, and enslave: and the ravages of your army through the Jerseys have been marked with as much barbarism as if you had openly professed yourself the prince of ruffians; not even the appearance of humanity has been preserved either on the march or the retreat of your troops; no general order that I could ever learn, has ever been issued to prevent or even forbid your troops from robbery, wherever they came, and the only instance of justice, if it can be called such, which has distinguished you for impartiality, is, that you treated and plundered all alike; what could not be carried away has been destroyed, and mahogany furniture has been deliberately laid on fire for fuel, rather than the men should be fatigued with cutting wood. [NOTE] There was a time when the Whigs confided much in your supposed candor, and the Tories rested themselves in your favor; the experiments have now been made, and failed; in every town, nay, every cottage, in the Jerseys, where your arms have been, is a testimony against you. How you may rest under this sacrifice of character I know not; but this I know, that you sleep and rise with the daily curses of thousands upon you; perhaps the misery which the Tories have suffered by your proffered mercy may give them some claim to their country's pity, and be in the end the best favor you could show them.
In a folio general-order book belonging to Col. Rhal's battalion, taken at Trenton, and now in the possession of the council of safety for this state, the following barbarous order is frequently repeated, 'His excellency the Commander-in-Chief orders, that all inhabitants who shall be found with arms, not having an officer with them, shall be immediately taken and hung up.' How many you may thus have privately sacrificed, we know not, and the account can only be settled in another world. Your treatment of prisoners, in order to distress them to enlist in your infernal service, is not to be equalled by any instance in Europe. Yet this is the humane Lord Howe and his brother, whom the Tories and their three-quarter kindred, the Quakers, or some of them at least, have been holding up for patterns of justice and mercy!
A bad cause will ever be supported by bad means and bad men; and whoever will be at the pains of examining strictly into things, will find that one and the same spirit of oppression and impiety, more or less, governs through your whole party in both countries: not many days ago, I accidentally fell in company with a person of this city noted for espousing your cause, and on my remarking to him, 'that it appeared clear to me, by the late providential turn of affairs, that God Almighty was visibly on our side,' he replied, 'We care nothing for that you may have Him, and welcome; if we have but enough of the devil on our side, we shall do.' However carelessly this might be spoken, matters not, 'tis still the insensible principle that directs all your conduct and will at last most assuredly deceive and ruin you.
If ever a nation was made and foolish, blind to its own interest and bent on its own destruction, it is Britain. There are such things as national sins, and though the punishment of individuals may be reserved to another world, national punishment can only be inflicted in this world. Britain, as a nation, is, in my inmost belief, the greatest and most ungrateful offender against God on the face of the whole earth. Blessed with all the commerce she could wish for, and furnished, by a vast extension of dominion, with the means of civilizing both the eastern and western world, she has made no other use of both than proudly to idolize her own 'thunder,' and rip up the bowels of whole countries for what she could get. Like Alexander, she has made war her sport, and inflicted misery for prodigality's sake. The blood of India is not yet repaid, nor the wretchedness of Africa yet requited. Of late she has enlarged her list of national cruelties by her butcherly destruction of the Caribbs of St. Vincent's, and returning an answer by the sword to the meek prayer for 'Peace, liberty and safety.' These are serious things, and whatever a foolish tyrant, a debauched court, a trafficking legislature, or a blinded people may think, the national account with heaven must some day or other be settled: all countries have sooner or later been called to their reckoning; the proudest empires have sunk when the balance was struck; and Britain, like an individual penitent, must undergo her day of sorrow, and the sooner it happens to her the better. As I wish it over, I wish it to come, but withal wish that it may be as light as possible.
Perhaps your lordship has no taste for serious things; by your connections in England I should suppose not; therefore I shall drop this part of the subject, and take it up in a line in which you will better understand me.
By what means, may I ask, do you expect to conquer America? If you could not effect it in the summer, when our army was less than yours, nor in the winter, when we had none, how are you to do it? In point of generalship you have been outwitted, and in point of fortitude outdone; your advantages turn out to your loss, and show us that it is in our power to ruin you by gifts: like a game of drafts, we can move out of one square to let you come in, in order that we may afterwards take two or three for one; and as we can always keep a double corner for ourselves, we can always prevent a total defeat. You cannot be so insensible as not to see that we have two to one the advantage of you, because we conquer by a drawn game, and you lose by it. Burgoyne might have taught your lordship this knowledge; he has been long a student in the doctrine of chances.
I have no other idea of conquering countries than by subduing the armies which defend them: have you done this, or can you do it? If you have not, it would be civil in you to let your proclamations alone for the present; otherwise, you will ruin more Tories by your grace and favor, than you will Whigs by your arms.
Were you to obtain possession of this city, you would not know what to do with it more than to plunder it. To hold it in the manner you hold New York, would be an additional dead weight upon your hands; and if a general conquest is your object, you had better be without the city than with it. When you have defeated all our armies, the cities will fall into your hands of themselves; but to creep into them in the manner you got into Princeton, Trenton, &c. is like robbing an orchard in the night before the fruit be ripe, and running away in the morning. Your experiment in the Jerseys is sufficient to teach you that you have something more to do than barely to get into other people's houses; and your new converts, to whom you promised all manner of protection, and seduced into new guilt by pardoning them from their former virtues, must begin to have a very contemptible opinion both of your power and your policy. Your authority in the Jerseys is now reduced to the small circle which your army occupies, and your proclamation is no where else seen unless it be to be laughed at. The mighty subduers of the continent have retreated into a nutshell, and the proud forgivers of our sins are fled from those they came to pardon; and all this at a time when they were despatching vessel after vessel to England with the great news of every day. In short, you have managed your Jersey expedition so very dexterously, that the dead only are conquerors, because none will dispute the ground with them.
In all the wars which you have formerly been concerned in you had only armies to contend with; in this case you have both an army and a country to combat with. In former wars, the countries followed the fate of their capitals; Canada fell with Quebec, and Minorca with Port Mahon or St. Phillips; by subduing those, the conquerors opened a way into, and became masters of the country: here it is otherwise; if you get possession of a city here, you are obliged to shut yourselves up in it, and can make no other use of it, than to spend your country's money in. This is all the advantage you have drawn from New York; and you would draw less from Philadelphia, because it requires more force to keep it, and is much further from the sea. A pretty figure you and the Tories would cut in this city, with a river full of ice, and a town full of fire; for the immediate consequence of your getting here would be, that you would be cannonaded out again, and the Tories be obliged to make good the damage; and this sooner or later will be the fate of New York.
I wish to see the city saved, not so much from military as from natural motives. 'Tis the hiding place of women and children, and Lord Howe's proper business is with our armies. When I put all the circumstances together which ought to be taken, I laugh at your notion of conquering America. Because you lived in a little country, where an army might run over the whole in a few days, and where a single company of soldiers might put a multitude to the rout, you expected to find it the same here. It is plain that you brought over with you all the narrow notions you were bred up with, and imagined that a proclamation in the king's name was to do great things; but Englishmen always travel for knowledge, and your lordship, I hope, will return, if you return at all, much wiser than you came.
We may be surprised by events we did not expect, and in that interval of recollection you may gain some temporary advantage: such was the case a few weeks ago, but we soon ripen again into reason, collect our strength, and while you are preparing for a triumph, we come upon you with a defeat. Such it has been, and such it would be were you to try it a hundred times over. Were you to garrison the places you might march over, in order to secure their subjection, (for remember you can do it by no other means,) your army would be like a stream of water running to nothing. By the time you extended from New York to Virginia, you would be reduced to a string of drops not capable of hanging together; while we, by retreating from State to State, like a river turning back upon itself, would acquire strength in the same proportion as you lost it, and in the end be capable of overwhelming you. The country, in the meantime, would suffer, but it is a day of suffering, and we ought to expect it. What we contend for is worthy the affliction we may go through. If we get but bread to eat, and any kind of raiment to put on, we ought not only to be contented, but thankful. More than that we ought not to look for, and less than that heaven has not yet suffered us to want. He that would sell his birthright for a little salt, is as worthless as he who sold it for pottage without salt; and he that would part with it for a gay coat, or a plain coat, ought for ever to be a slave in buff. What are salt, sugar and finery, to the inestimable blessings of 'Liberty and Safety!' Or what are the inconveniences of a few months to the tributary bondage of ages? The meanest peasant in America, blessed with these sentiments, is a happy man compared with a New York Tory; he can eat his morsel without repining, and when he has done, can sweeten it with a repast of wholesome air; he can take his child by the hand and bless it, without feeling the conscious shame of neglecting a parent's duty.
In publishing these remarks I have several objects in view.
On your part they are to expose the folly of your pretended authority as a commissioner; the wickedness of your cause in general; and the impossibility of your conquering us at any rate. On the part of the public, my intention is, to show them their true and sold interest; to encourage them to their own good, to remove the fears and falsities which bad men have spread, and weak men have encouraged; and to excite in all men a love for union, and a cheerfulness for duty.
I shall submit one more case to you respecting your conquest of this country, and then proceed to new observations.
Suppose our armies in every part of this continent were immediately to disperse, every man to his home, or where else he might be safe, and engage to reassemble again on a certain future day; it is clear that you would then have no army to contend with, yet you would be as much at a loss in that case as you are now; you would be afraid to send your troops in parties over to the continent, either to disarm or prevent us from assembling, lest they should not return; and while you kept them together, having no arms of ours to dispute with, you could not call it a conquest; you might furnish out a pompous page in the London Gazette or a New York paper, but when we returned at the appointed time, you would have the same work to do that you had at first.
It has been the folly of Britain to suppose herself more powerful than she really is, and by that means has arrogated to herself a rank in the world she is not entitled to: for more than this century past she has not been able to carry on a war without foreign assistance. In Marlborough's campaigns, and from that day to this, the number of German troops and officers assisting her have been about equal with her own; ten thousand Hessians were sent to England last war to protect her from a French invasion; and she would have cut but a poor figure in her Canadian and West Indian expeditions, had not America been lavish both of her money and men to help her along. The only instance in which she was engaged singly, that I can recollect, was against the rebellion in Scotland, in the years 1745 and 1746, and in that, out of three battles, she was twice beaten, till by thus reducing their numbers, (as we shall yours) and taking a supply ship that was coming to Scotland with clothes, arms and money, (as we have often done,) she was at last enabled to defeat them. England was never famous by land; her officers have generally been suspected of cowardice, have more of the air of a dancing-master than a soldier, and by the samples which we have taken prisoners, we give the preference to ourselves. Her strength, of late, has lain in her extravagance; but as her finances and credit are now low, her sinews in that line begin to fail fast. As a nation she is the poorest in Europe; for were the whole kingdom, and all that is in it, to be put up for sale like the estate of a bankrupt, it would not fetch as much as she owes; yet this thoughtless wretch must go to war, and with the avowed design, too, of making us beasts of burden, to support her in riot and debauchery, and to assist her afterwards in distressing those nations who are now our best friends. This ingratitude may suit a Tory, or the unchristian peevishness of a fallen Quaker, but none else.
'Tis the unhappy temper of the English to be pleased with any war, right or wrong, be it but successful; but they soon grow discontented with ill fortune, and it is an even chance that they are as clamorous for peace next summer, as the king and his ministers were for war last winter. In this natural view of things, your lordship stands in a very critical situation: your whole character is now staked upon your laurels; if they wither, you wither with them; if they flourish, you cannot live long to look at them; and at any rate, the black account hereafter is not far off. What lately appeared to us misfortunes, were only blessings in disguise; and the seeming advantages on your side have turned out to our profit. Even our loss of this city, as far as we can see, might be a principal gain to us: the more surface you spread over, the thinner you will be, and the easier wiped away; and our consolation under that apparent disaster would be, that the estates of the Tories would become securities for the repairs. In short, there is no old ground we can fail upon, but some new foundation rises again to support us. 'We have put, sir, our hands to the plough, and cursed be he that looketh back.'
Your king, in his speech to parliament last spring, declared, 'That he had no doubt but the great force they had enabled him to send to America, would effectually reduce the rebellious colonies.' It has not, neither can it; but it has done just enough to lay the foundation of its own next year's ruin. You are sensible that you left England in a divided, distracted state of politics, and, by the command you had here, you became a principal prop in the court party; their fortunes rest on yours; by a single express you can fix their value with the public, and the degree to which their spirits shall rise or fall; they are in your hands as stock, and you have the secret of the alley with you. Thus situated and connected, you become the unintentional mechanical instrument of your own and their overthrow. The king and his ministers put conquest out of doubt, and the credit of both depended on the proof. To support them in the interim, it was necessary that you should make the most of every thing, and we can tell by Hugh Gaine's New York paper what the complexion of the London Gazette is. With such a list of victories the nation cannot expect you will ask new supplies; and to confess your want of them would give the lie to your triumphs, and impeach the king and his ministers of treasonable deception. If you make the necessary demand at home, your party sinks; if you make it not, you sink yourself; to ask it now is too late, and to ask it before was too soon, and unless it arrive quickly will be of no use. In short, the part you have to act, cannot be acted; and I am fully persuaded that all you have to trust to is, to do the best you can with what force you have got, or little more. Though we have greatly exceeded you in point of generalship and bravery of men, yet, as a people, we have not entered into the full soul of enterprise; for I, who know England and the disposition of the people well, am confident, that it is easier for us to effect a revolution there, than you a conquest here; a few thousand men landed in England with the declared design of deposing the present king, bringing his ministers to trial, and setting up the Duke of Gloucester in his stead, would assuredly carry their point, while you are grovelling here, ignorant of the matter. As I send all my papers to England, this, like Common Sense, will find its way there; and though it may put one party on their guard, it will inform the other, and the nation in general, of our design to help them.
Thus far, sir, I have endeavored to give you a picture of present affairs: you may draw from it what conclusions you please. I wish as well to the true prosperity of England as you can, but I consider INDEPENDENCE as America's natural right and interest, and never could see any real disservice it would be to Britain. If an English merchant receives an order, and is paid for it, it signifies nothing to him who governs the country. This is my creed of politics. If I have any where expressed myself over-warmly, 'tis from a fixed, immovable hatred I have, and ever had, to cruel men and cruel measures. I have likewise an aversion to monarchy, as being too debasing to the dignity of man; but I never troubled others with my notions till very lately, nor ever published a syllable in England in my life. What I write is pure nature, and my pen and my soul have ever gone together. My writings I have always given away, reserving only the expense of printing and paper, and sometimes not even that. I never courted either fame or interest, and my manner of life, to those who know it, will justify what I say. My study is to be useful, and if your lordship loves mankind as well as I do, you would, seeing you cannot conquer us, cast about and lend your hand towards accomplishing a peace. Our independence with God's blessing we will maintain against all the world; but as we wish to avoid evil ourselves, we wish not to inflict it on others. I am never over-inquisitive into the secrets of the cabinet, but I have some notion that, if you neglect the present opportunity, it will not be in our power to make a separate peace with you afterwards; for whatever treaties or alliances we form, we shall most faithfully abide by; wherefore you may be deceived if you think you can make it with us at any time. A lasting independent peace is my wish, end and aim; and to accomplish that, I pray God the Americans may never be defeated, and I trust while they have good officers, and are well commanded, and willing to be commanded, that they NEVER WILL BE.
Over at Equitable Growth: John Plender: Bewitched by Mandarins of Central Banking
Over at Equitable Growth: The very sharp John Plender makes what is now the standard--but I believe incoherent--argument that central banks are doing bad things with quantitative easing and need to reverse it and raise interest rates. They need to do so, Plender thinks, even though doing so will reduce spending, raise unemployment, put downward pressure on wages and prices, and increase risk in a world that still appears to be grossly short of risk bearing capacity. So it is natural to ask: "Why?" What is the upside supposed to be? Is there an upside aside from believing that this will make it easier for investment managers to report black rather than red numbers to their clients while still holding safe Treasury bond-based portfolios?
That Plender's argument is incoherent is, I think, demonstrated by the fact that markets do not respond as he thinks he should--he saw the end of large-scale US QE coming at the start of 2013, and confidently predicted a fall in US Treasury bond prices that simply has not happened. READ MOAR
The way I see it is this: The root problem is an inability of financial intermediaries to stand behind or to credibly assess risks, and so a reluctance on the part of investors to provide the factor of production of risk-bearing to the marketplace. Pushing safe interest rates way, way, way down and then pushing the supply of risk-free assets that the private sector can hold way, way, way down provides a form of Dutch courage to otherwise reluctant investors: even though they don't trust financial intermediaries' risk assessments, the low rates on and low volumes of safe assets give them no alternative. The long-run problems are twofold: First, safe interest rates expected to be very low for a long time artificially boost the value of long-duration assets--so capital is misallocated and we wind up with a capital structure that has in it too many long-duration relatively-safe projects that make at best very small contributions to societal well-being. Second, the demand for risky assets just generated is not a well-based demand for soundly-analyzed risks but rather for any priced risk at all--so the market becomes vulnerable to Ponzi and near-Ponzi finance.
From my point of view, however, the proposed cure of higher unemployment, lower demand, and greater fundamental risk from continued and deeper depression is worse than the disease. First best would be fixing the credit channel so that financial intermediaries would be able to stand behind risks they have credibly assessed. Second best is having the government take over and be a financial intermediary--have it borrow and spend, accepting that its spending will to a certain degree follow a political logic of greasing powerful and squeaky wheels more than amplifying wealth. Third best is continuing QE. Worst is attempting to revert to normal interest rates without financial policy to fix the credit channel or fiscal policy to maintain demand near normal-employment levels.
John Plender:
Bewitched by Mandarins of Central Banking:
"The continuing fall in government bond yields in the advanced economies...
...at the turn of the year was a salutary reminder of how hard it is to invest in markets that are heavily distorted by central banks. At the start of 2013 there was near-consensus among investors that US Treasury yields had nowhere to go but up.... The US Federal Reserve did indeed stop buying in the summer, but Treasury prices continued to rise and yields to fall. The most plausible explanation for this defiance of conventional wisdom was the persistence of global imbalances... excess savings in Asia and northern Europe had to find a home. The additional yield available in the US market, along with the potential for further dollar strength, made this a compelling trade.... Central banks, most notably the Fed, have put a cushion under asset prices when they go down while imposing no cap when they bubble up.... The great bond bull market that began in 1982 has yet to revert.... Market professionals who have hitherto contributed to the efficiency of market pricing through their analytical skills are reduced to hanging sheeplike on the words of central bankers about the likely direction of bond-buying programmes. And they remain bewitched by the mandarins of central banking despite the mixed quality of their forward guidance.... Whatever the benefits of QE, there are bound to be significant economic costs arising from the artificially cheap cost of capital. Capital will be misallocated. And it may go on being misallocated, for the central banks seem to be trapped in a process whereby measures to counteract the fallout from one bubble pave the way for another.
January 12, 2015
Noted for Your Nighttime Procrastination for January 12, 2015
Over at Equitable Growth--The Equitablog
Réka Juhász: Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade
Aaron Carroll: Philip Klein’s "Overcoming Obamacare"
What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus
Wolfgang Münchau: Eurozone Must Act Before Deflation Grips
Paul Krugman Has Been on a Serious Roll All of This Just-Past Weekend!
Nick Bunker:
Jobless recoveries and the decline of startups
Plus:
Things to Read on the Evening of January 12, 2015
Must- and Shall-Reads:
Jared Bernstein:
So why aren’t wages responding to the tightening job market?
Richard Kahlenberg:
The Genius of Obama's Two-Year College Proposal
Jim Tankersley:
Why America’s middle class is lost
John Makin:
Fed too complacent on US deflation damage
Peter Orszag:
What Brill's 'Bitter Pill' Gets Wrong on Obamacare
Réka Juhász:
Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade
Aaron Carroll:
Philip Klein’s Overcoming Obamacare
Wolfgang Münchau:
Eurozone Must Act Before Deflation Grips
Paul Krugman:
On Econoheroes http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/on-econoheroes
Paul Krugman:
History and Policy Failure
And Over Here:
Over at Equitable Growth: What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily FocusFirst-World Problems: Live from Evans Hall
Live from the Lafayette Reservoir: Missing Men Edition
Réka Juhász:
Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade:
"I find that, in the short-run, regions in the French Empire which became better-protected from trade with the British for exogenous reasons during the Napoleonic Wars... increased capacity in... mechanised cotton spinning to a larger extent than regions which remained more exposed to trade. Temporary protection had long term effects.... Firms located in regions with higher post-war spinning capacity were more productive 30 years later.... After... peace, exports of cotton goods from France increased substantially, consistent with evolving comparative advantage in cottons.... As late as 1850, France and Belgium... had larger cotton spinning industries than other Continental European countries... not protected from British trade during the wars..."
Aaron Carroll:
Philip Klein’s Overcoming Obamacare:
"Philip Klein wanted to write a book that sums up competing schools of thought from conservatives as to what to do about Obamacare, and he succeeds. I can recommend it without reservation. But in doing so, I think he shows the relative seriousness of those schools of thought. In the Reform School, we see incredibly detailed plans (like those of Roy) where numbers have been run and tradeoffs calculated. There are things that conservatives want, and things they’re willing to concede. The Replace School is better considered than I had previously thought, but a little less detailed (and, perhaps, a little less realistic). The Repeal School, however, left me feeling like it was just a political ploy, with hand-waving to old studies (which barely applied) and old ideas like ‘HSAs can fix everything’. I’m curious to see if others agree. Bottom line, Klein is a talented journalist and writer who gave me some insights into what conservatives are thinking. Well worth my time. Likely worth your time, too."
Wolfgang Münchau:
Eurozone Must Act Before Deflation Grips:
"Deflation in the eurozone has nothing to do with the price of oil. Its cause is a series of policy errors over several years--the interest rate increase in 2011, the failure to act when inflation rates dropped off a cliff in 2013 and the pursuit of austerity in a recession. If the European Central Bank had met its inflation target of ‘close to but below 2 per cent’, the oil price collapse would have been harmless.... A year ago it was said that the eurozone was only one shock away from deflation. Since then, we have had two: Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the fall in the oil price. Shocks happen.... But beware the second-round effects, those that come with a delay. There are already signs that German pay negotiators are dropping the ECB’s 2 per cent inflation target in their wage formulas.... My expectation is that QE will fall short for a number of reasons. The size of the purchases may not be large enough... may simply not work as well in an economy with a smaller capital market and a different system of housing finance.... A helicopter drop would work but sadly, I fear, it would be too unconventional for the continental European mind. A slightly more realistic possibility would be a combination of QE, an external stimulus from oil and a fiscal boost..."
Paul Krugman:
On Econoheroes http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/on-econoheroes:
"Joe [Stiglitz] and I do tend to get quoted, invoked, etc. on a frequent basis in liberal media and by liberals in general, usually with (excessive) approbation.... [The] people playing a comparable role in right-wing discussion... tend not to be highly cited or even competent economists. So don’t tell me that Greg Mankiw or Robert Barro are famous economists and also conservative. Indeed they are. But are they omnipresent on the conservative scene?... ‘mankiw economy’... get[s]... 5200 hits... ‘stephen moore economy’... get[s] 65,700... ‘stiglitz economy’... get[s] 43,800.... This [is] a real asymmetry.... The right does not turn to these eminent conservative economists for guidance and support; it prefers the hacks."
Paul Krugman:
History and Policy Failure:
"I’ve been having a hard time reading Barry Eichengreen’s Hall of Mirrors... It seems to be a very good book.... But the recent history is painful.... You often hear assertions to the effect that in early 2009... we didn’t know how deep and prolonged the slump would be... how much damage would be done by the pivot to deficit reduction. So it must be said: What do you mean ‘we’, white man?.... Up through 2011 the CBO... was... more pessimistic than what actually happened.... Thereafter CBO predicted a faster recovery... but even so CBO didn’t expect the output gap to go away until around now.... Conventional est... [gave] ample... [warning] that the proposed stimulus was inadequate and that 2010 would be way too soon to pivot to deficits.... It’s true that for years elite discourse was dominated by the worry that we were doing too much, that deficits and easy money were dangerous, that we were risking debt crisis and inflation. Now, seemingly suddenly, the Very Serious People have realized that in reality we did too little, that deflation and stagnation are looming as the great dangers, and there are cries of ‘Who could have known?’ Well, everyone could and should have known. I certainly did."
Should Be Aware of:
Eileen Shim:
Psychologists Have Uncovered a Troubling Feature of People Who Seem Nice All the Time - Mic
J.F.:
Meagan Hatcher-Mays:
WSJ Just Realized The Anti-ACA Lawsuit It's Pushing Could Be Ruinous For Americans--Including Republican Voters
Noah Smith:
Ross Douthat ponders the Liberal Marriage Hypothesis
Eric Eisenberg:
Un-Awesome: Golden Globes Stupidly Pass Over The LEGO Movie:
"Calling the Golden Globes’ choice incorrect shouldn’t be translated as an insult to Dean DeBlois’ How To Train Your Dragon 2, as I actually enjoyed that film immensely when I saw it this past summer, but The LEGO Movie’s positive aspects really outweigh it all around. I will give the DreamWorks feature plenty of credit for being an adventures piece of storytelling and stunning to look at, but the immense creativity and originality of Warner Bros.’ film leaves really no comparison, and it’s a shame that it wasn’t rewarded for it. Interestingly, it’s the 'F' in HFPA that may very well have prevented The LEGO Movie from taking home this award – which it very rightly deserved. While Phil Lord and Chris Miller’s animated feature was a huge hit here in the United States – ranking as the fourth biggest domestic hit of the year with an impressive $257 million pull – the film didn’t really translate abroad.... It’s very possible that this sway was reflected in the voting for the Golden Globes..."
Daniel Davies and Tess Reed:
Sweaty January and how gyms make money:
"Having seen the books of a gym chain or two, we can tell you that the ‘Sweaty January’ phenomenon is not an urban myth or a joke — it’s absolutely fundamental to the economics of the industry and it’s basically impossible to run an economically viable gym without taking it into account. Usually about 75 per cent of all gym memberships are taken out in the month of January. Not only this, but the economics of the industry absolutely depend on the fact that a very great proportion of January joiners will not visit more than three or four times in total before their membership comes to a floundering flop of weight not lost at the end of the year..."
Evening Must-Read: Réka Juhász: Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade
Réka Juhász:
Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade:
"I find that, in the short-run...
...regions in the French Empire which became better-protected from trade with the British for exogenous reasons during the Napoleonic Wars... increased capacity in... mechanised cotton spinning to a larger extent than regions which remained more exposed to trade. Temporary protection had long term effects.... Firms located in regions with higher post-war spinning capacity were more productive 30 years later.... After... peace, exports of cotton goods from France increased substantially, consistent with evolving comparative advantage in cottons.... As late as 1850, France and Belgium... had larger cotton spinning industries than other Continental European countries... not protected from British trade during the wars...
Evening Must-Read: Aaron Carroll: Philip Klein’s Overcoming Obamacare
Aaron Carroll:
Philip Klein’s Overcoming Obamacare:
"Philip Klein wanted to write a book...
...that sums up competing schools of thought from conservatives as to what to do about Obamacare, and he succeeds. I can recommend it without reservation. But in doing so, I think he shows the relative seriousness of those schools of thought. In the Reform School, we see incredibly detailed plans (like those of Roy) where numbers have been run and tradeoffs calculated. There are things that conservatives want, and things they’re willing to concede. The Replace School is better considered than I had previously thought, but a little less detailed (and, perhaps, a little less realistic). The Repeal School, however, left me feeling like it was just a political ploy, with hand-waving to old studies (which barely applied) and old ideas like ‘HSAs can fix everything’. I’m curious to see if others agree. Bottom line, Klein is a talented journalist and writer who gave me some insights into what conservatives are thinking. Well worth my time. Likely worth your time, too.
Over at Equitable Growth: What Was Going on Between the White House and the Federal Reserve in the Early 1980s?: Daily Focus
Over at Equitable Growth: I must say, I am surprised to see Robert Samuelson claiming that the Federal Reserve and the Reagan administration were in accord in 1982...
Let's roll the videotape:
Paul Krugman:
Presidents and the Economy:
"Serious analyses of the Reagan-era business cycle...
...place very little weight on Reagan, and emphasize instead the role of the Federal Reserve.... Paul Volcker, was determined to bring inflation down, even at a heavy price; it tightened policy, sending interest rates sky high, with mortgage rates going above 18 percent. What followed was a severe recession that drove unemployment to double digits but also broke the wage-price spiral. Then the Fed decided that America had suffered enough. It loosened the reins, sending interest rates plummeting and housing starts soaring. And the economy bounced back. Reagan got the political credit for ‘morning in America,’ but Mr. Volcker was actually responsible for both the slump and the boom... READ MOAR
Robert Samuelson:
Volcker, Reagan and History:
"It’s important to get history right...
...Paul Krugman has gotten it maddeningly wrong.... Reagan was crucial. In nearly four decades of column-writing, I can’t recall ever devoting an entire column to rebutting someone else’s.... Krugman’s error is so glaring that it justifies an exception.... Reagan provided... political protection....
As the gruesome social costs of Volcker’s policies mounted--the monthly unemployment rate would ultimately rise to a post-World War II high of 10.8 percent--Reagan’s approval ratings plunged.... Still, he supported the Fed. ‘I have met with Chairman Volcker several times during the past year,’ he said in early 1982. ‘I have confidence in the announced policies of the Federal Reserve.’ This patience enabled Volcker to succeed.... It’s doubtful that any other plausible presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, would have been so forbearing. During Volcker’s monetary onslaught, there were many congressional proposals, backed by members of both parties, to curb the Fed’s power, lower interest rates or fire Volcker. If Reagan had endorsed any of them, the Fed would have had to retreat.
What Volcker and Reagan accomplished was an economic and political triumph.... Politically, Reagan and Volcker showed that leaders can take actions that, though initially painful and unpopular, served the country’s long-term interests."
Paul Krugman:
[Reaganomics Undefended](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015... Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body):
"This piece by Robert Samuelson...
...is really strange.... Samuelson declares me ‘totally wrong,’ then seems to agree with me about the economics. My point was that the legend of Reaganomics--that supply-side tax cuts produced a disinflation that confounded Keynesians--is not at all what happened in the 1980s.... Events played out exactly the way Keynesian-leaning textbooks said they would.... [Samuelson] accept[s] that it was all about tight money, and he just wants to give Reagan credit for staying off Volcker’s back....
[This] does nothing at all to resurrect the case for Reaganomics, for the magic of tax cuts? Maybe Reagan was a great guy, but that’s surely not what’s important for current debates....
I don’t agree on the political story.... Based in part on what I saw during my year in government (1982-3), Reagan’s inner circle didn’t even understand that monetary policy was what was going on. But... the key point is that the great disinflation of the 1980s was essentially a monetary affair, and fully consistent with Keynesian economics.... Samuelson doesn’t disagree...
I went to the New York Times archives and searched for mentions of Reagan and Volcker in the same article in 1982. The first four results that came up were:
Howell Raines: G.O.P. Chiefs Warn Reagan on Budget--See Possible Shift:
"Paul A. Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told the Senate Banking Committee today that the prospect of the big deficits for the next several years posed a threat to the financial markets. He suggested a combination of new taxes and spending cuts to achieve a $20 billion decrease in the 1984 deficit..."
Jonathan Fuerbringer:
Reagan and Volcker in Talks: "President Reagan and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Paul A. Volcker, met Monday.... The meeting comes after recent tension between the Fed and the Administration, highlighted by the Administration's contention that the Fed's erratic management of the money supply was pushing up interest rates and Mr. Volcker's response that it is the threat of large budget deficits that is affecting interest rates.... Senator Howard H. Baker Jr., the Senate majority leader, recently called for a meeting between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Volcker to coordinate economic policy.... Many economists outside the Government say that the Fed and the Administration are on a collision course on economic policy because the tight monetary policy promised by the Fed will not allow for the relatively strong economic growth the President has forecast.... Mr. Volcker in an interview Sunday said that he did not think the economy would come 'roaring' back, as Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan predicted.... David R. Gergen, director of communications, even refused to confirm whether the meeting had taken place..."
Jonathan Fuerbringer:
Aides Minimize Reagan's Remark: "The Reagan Administration and the Federal Reserve today sought to play down the President's apparent breach of confidence Tuesday when he said that Paul A. Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, had told him that interest rates would drop by three to four percentage points by summer.... Reagan said the Fed chairman had made the prediction during a private talk between the two. Senators at Tuesday's meeting repeated the forecast afterward.... One Administration official said the President wanted to make clear that he had not intended to violate the confidence of a private meeting.... The White House apparently was also concerned because the President may not have quoted Mr. Volcker accurately or fully..."
Steven Weisman: Reaganomics and the Presidents' Men:
"As the economy went into its nose dive Secretary of the Treasury Donald T. Regan publicly questioned the wisdom of the Federal Reserve Board's tight-money actions; perhaps Chairman Volcker had overdone things, he said. Yet it was an awkward position to take. From the start, Mr. Volcker had the President's blessing for his tight-money policy, and the Fed chairman had frequently made clear his conviction that the Administration should do its part in combatting inflation by curbing the deficit. This the President had failed to do. Mr. Volcker told an associate that he found Secretary Regan's criticism 'astounding'..."
This is much more consistent with Paul Krugman's story than with Robert Samuelson's. In these stories, Paul Volcker is openly and publicly opposed to Ronald Reagan's supply-side fiscal policies as creating a risk of forcing him to either abandon his fight against inflation or accept a permanent low-investment economy with slow growth. The Reagan administration as a whole is quietly and sotto voce via leaks blaming high interest rates and consequent high unemployment on "erratic management of the money supply" by Paul Volcker. The Reagan Treasury Department under its head Don Regan and the Republican Senate majority under its head Howard Baker are openly and publicly opposed to Paul Volcker's tight-money fight-inflation-first policy. Ronald Reagan in his private meetings with Paul Volcker appears to be pressing him to promise that interest rates will come down--and come down soon.
As I understood it then and understand it now, five things were happening:
Paul Volcker was trying back in 1982 to do what Alan Greenspan did in 1993--to condition a lower interest-rate policy on the administration's taking the first step and committing to long-term deficit reduction, and the Reagan administration was stonewalling.
Ronald Reagan's Treasury Department was engaged in a quiet and seeking a public administration-wide Reagan-led campaign to convince the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.
Ronald Reagan's communications staff was engaged in a quiet campaign to convince the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, but was opposed to any public Reagan-led pressure as bad for Reagan's image as a man in control of the government.
Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors was on Paul Volcker's side.
Reagan's own personal papers are singularly unilluminating as to what he thought and was trying to do.
Does this seem to you like a situation fairly and accurately portrayed by Robert Samuelson's:
[Reagan supported the Fed.... ‘I have confidence in the announced policies of the Federal Reserve.’ This patience enabled Volcker to succeed.... It’s doubtful that any other plausible presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, would have been so forbearing.... There were many congressional proposals... to curb the Fed’s power, lower interest rates or fire Volcker. If Reagan had endorsed any of them, the Fed would have had to retreat.... Volcker and Reagan accomplished... an economic and political triumph... showed that leaders can take actions that, though initially painful and unpopular, served the country’s long-term interests.
?
No. It doesn't seem that way to me either.
1446 words
Afternoon Must-Read: Wolfgang Münchau: Eurozone Must Act Before Deflation Grips
Wolfgang Münchau:
Eurozone Must Act Before Deflation Grips:
"Deflation in the eurozone...
has nothing to do with the price of oil. Its cause is a series of policy errors over several years--the interest rate increase in 2011, the failure to act when inflation rates dropped off a cliff in 2013 and the pursuit of austerity in a recession. If the European Central Bank had met its inflation target of ‘close to but below 2 per cent’, the oil price collapse would have been harmless....
A year ago it was said that the eurozone was only one shock away from deflation. Since then, we have had two: Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the fall in the oil price. Shocks happen.... But beware the second-round effects, those that come with a delay. There are already signs that German pay negotiators are dropping the ECB’s 2 per cent inflation target in their wage formulas....
My expectation is that QE will fall short for a number of reasons. The size of the purchases may not be large enough... may simply not work as well in an economy with a smaller capital market and a different system of housing finance.... A helicopter drop would work but sadly, I fear, it would be too unconventional for the continental European mind. A slightly more realistic possibility would be a combination of QE, an external stimulus from oil and a fiscal boost...
Afternoon Must-Read: Paul Krugman Has Been on a Serious Roll All of This Just-Past Weekend!
Paul Krugman has been on a serious roll this weekend. All worth reading and pondering:
On Econoheroes http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/on-econoheroes: "Joe [Stiglitz] and I do tend to get quoted, invoked, etc. on a frequent basis in liberal media and by liberals in general, usually with (excessive) approbation.... [The] people playing a comparable role in right-wing discussion... tend not to be highly cited or even competent economists. So don’t tell me that Greg Mankiw or Robert Barro are famous economists and also conservative. Indeed they are. But are they omnipresent on the conservative scene?... ‘mankiw economy’... get[s]... 5200 hits... ‘stephen moore economy’... get[s] 65,700... ‘stiglitz economy’... get[s] 43,800.... This [is] a real asymmetry.... The right does not turn to these eminent conservative economists for guidance and support; it prefers the hacks."
History and Policy Failure http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/history-and-policy-failur: "I’ve been having a hard time reading Barry Eichengreen’s Hall of Mirrors... a very good book.... But the recent history is painful, because I was watching in real time, warning desperately that what did happen, would happen..."
Deflation As Betrayal http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/deflation-as-betrayal: "southern Europe played by the rules [of the Euro], but in its time of need the rules [of the Euro] were changed, hugely to its disadvantage..."
Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Ideology http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/orthodoxy-heterodoxy-and-ideology: "Not that there’s anything wrong with being heterodox... but a lot of what we’ve been seeing misidentifies the problem... gives aid and comfort to the wrong people.... Standard macroeconomics does NOT justify the attacks on fiscal stimulus and the embrace of austerity...austerians had to throw out the models and abandon statistical principles to justify their claims..."
Where Are The Friedmans Of Yesteryear? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/where-are-the-friedmans-of-yesteryear: "Modern conservatism doesn’t have Friedman-like figures.... Who would be the conservative counterparts [to Stiglitz and me]? Who gets cited by, say, Republican governors seeking authority for their tax cuts, or published on a regular basis on conservative opinion pages? I’d say Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer.... And it’s not as if Moore and Laffer are guys who may lack academic cred but have proved themselves as working analysts..."
Reaganomics Undefended http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/reaganomics-undefended: "this piece by Robert Samuelson, attacking me over my debunking of the Reagan legend, is really strange... Samuelson declares me ‘totally wrong,’ then seems to agree with me about the economics..."
Emerging Markets After The [Taper] Tantrum :
"The [taper] tantrum has subsided, and US interest rates have retraced much of their rise. But EM currencies haven’t rebounded... One guess is that we’re seeing retroactive evidence that the EM thing was a bubble..."
[For the Love of Carbon http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/opinion/paul-krugman-for-the-love-of-carbon.html: "Why is this environmentally troubling project an urgent priority in a time of plunging world oil prices? Well, the party line, from people like Mitch McConnell, the new Senate majority leader, is that it’s all about jobs.... [But] you can’t consistently claim that pipeline spending creates jobs while government spending doesn’t.... If Mr. McConnell and company really believe that we need more spending to create jobs, why not support a push to upgrade America’s crumbling infrastructure? So what should be done about Keystone XL? If you believe that it would be environmentally damaging... you should be against it, and you should ignore the claims about job creation. The numbers being thrown around are tiny.... The jobs argument for the pipeline is basically a sick joke coming from people who have done all they can to destroy American jobs..."
J. Bradford DeLong's Blog
- J. Bradford DeLong's profile
- 90 followers
