J. Bradford DeLong's Blog, page 2102
February 5, 2011
Why Doesn't the House of Representatives Dominate Our Government?
Mr. Wilson, August 13, 1787:
In Convention: He did not mean to enlarge on a subject which had been so much canvassed, but would remark as an insuperable objection against the proposed restriction of money bills to the House of Representatives that it would be a source of perpetual contentions.... The President here could not like the Executive Magistrate in England interpose by a prorogation, or dissolution.... The House of Representatives will insert other things in money bills, and by making them conditions of each other, destroy the deliberative liberty of the Senate.
He stated the case of a Preamble to a money bill sent up by the House of Commons in the reign of Queen Anne... in which the conduct of the displaced Ministry who were to be impeached before the Lords was condemned; the Commons thus extorting a premature judgment without any hearing of the Parties to be tried, and the House of Lords being thus reduced to the poor & disgraceful expedient of opposing to the authority of a law a protest on their Journals against its being drawn into precedent...
Indeed. It is a mystery to me why no Speaker of the House ever laid down the principle that the House does not assent to any amendments to its money bills, but simply repasses the bill in its original form. And once any Speaker has established that principle, it is the House where all the action is.
February 4, 2011
Liveblogging World War II: February 5, 1941
British forces in Eritrea begin their attack on the town of Keren, key rail junction leading to Asmara and Massawa. The Italians will defend the town for a month and a half before retreating.
Mark Thoma on the Inequality Wildcard
Mark Thoma reads Ken Rogoff and comments:
Economist's View: Rogoff: The Inequality Wildcard: Kenneth Rogoff says "it would be very wrong to suppose that gaping inequality is stable," and that "it is very likely that countries’ abilities to navigate the rising social tensions generated by gaping inequality could separate the winners and losers in the next round of globalization."...
Most of the solutions I've seen are long-term -- things like improving education and infrastructure with the hope that things will turn around many years down the road. We should do those things, but it is unlikely to be enough and it will be a long time before we know if it is working or not. In the meantime, if we leave the problem unaddressed and present trends continue -- and there's no sign that they won't -- the level of inequality will grow even larger and create even more volatile conditions. Even if I thought all of the present inequality was the fair outcome of a level playing field, I would still call for something to be done now (and I have). But I don't think what we are seeing is anywhere close to the result of an equitable system delivering gains to deserving, high-skilled individuals -- gains that are amplified as markets expand with globalization. Wages have not kept up with productivity as they should have since the "Great Decoupling" in the 1970s. Instead wages have been stagnant even as income continued to grow. There's something else driving this wedge, something that goes beyond rewarding people for their productivity.
Josef Goebbels Liveblogs World War II: February 4, 1941
Josef Goebbels:
Goebbels on Churchill: England will one day pay a heavy price for this man. When the great catastrophe breaks over the island kingdom, the British people will have him to thank. He has long been the spokesman for the plutocratic caste that wanted war to destroy Germany. He distinguishes himself from the men behind the scenes only through his obvious cynicism and his unscrupulous contempt for humankind.
He wants war for war’s sake. War is an end in itself to him. He wished it, pushed for it, and prepared for it out of a stupid, destructive drive. He is one of those characters of the political underworld who rise through chaos, who announce chaos, who cause chaos. For countless people the war brings vast suffering, for countless children hunger and disease, for countless mothers and women streams of tears. For him, it is no more than a big horse race that he wants to take part in.
He now has what he wanted. England is in the middle of the gravest struggle in its history, from which it will be lucky to emerge with its mere existence.
Ken Layne: Historys Only Accurate Reagan Book Re-Released Today As E-Book
Ken Layne:
History’s Only Accurate Reagan Book Re-Released Today As E-Book: We do not throw around a lot of praise for “political books” here at Wonkette, because almost all political books are awful. The Clothes Have No Emperor is an exception. This droll accounting of the Reagan presidency was published in 1989, and your editor still has the dog-eared, scribble-annotated trade paperback on his bookshelf. It’s the only honest history of the Ronald Reagan 1980s. And now it’s available again, as an eBook/iPad thing you can download. If there’s any possible antidote to the hundred-foot-long shit sandwich of Reagan Worship pummeling America this weekend, you’ll find it within the pages of this book by Paul Slansky.Thrill to Nancy telling Ronnie what to say for eight wacky years, etc.!
As a reader of blogs, you will be delighted by the blog-like chronological items that make up this complete assessment of the Reagan production. As a hater of Washington media, you will recoil with recognition at this damning pile of evidence proving that today’s idiot-beltway hero-worship dingbat crap factory truly began in 1980, when the Washington press corps was presented with a narrative by Reagan’s handlers: America wanted to “feel good again,” and the empty-eyed smiling face of Ronald Reagan was exactly the way to “bring fun back” to a nation crippled by recession, unemployment, lost wars and humiliation in the Middle East. (Hah, sound familiar?)
Like SPY Magazine and The Bonfire of the Vanities, this is one of those essential documents of the 1980s — a time of idiocy and fraud, and a time we can now see as the Birth of a Nation’s Stupidity. We are going to be re-reading it again this afternoon, instead of working.
It’s one of those Radiohead-style “choose how much you want to pay” deals, so go on over and pay a fair price for something that will help you not go insane over this Stupid Bowl Weekend.
Almost All Newspapers Have Reporters That Are Smarter than They Are
Apropos of Felix Salmon:
Three takes on JP Morgan and Madoff: [T]urn to the Huffington Post, where Peter Goodman has recently taken over as business editor after leaving the NYT. His headline is stark — “Bernie Madoff’s Relationship With JPMorgan Should Shock No One” — and, freed from the institutional constraints of the NYT, he lets loose:
Far from shocking, this is really just an appropriate plotline in a story that is finally becoming clear beyond argument: Those lines between criminal fraud and legitimate banking have been blurry for a long time. One can reasonably argue that they pretty much got erased during the Internet bubble and into the real-estate boom.
Goodman goes on to compare JPM unfavorably to Madoff.... Clearly, Goodman is enjoying his newfound freedom at HuffPo — the fact that he can write the kind of material which would be unthankable in the blogs or pages of the NYT. But at the same time, as journalists move back and forth with increasing regularity between mainstream outlets and newer, more vivacious sites, it’s going to be harder for the MSM to hold on to its ability to stay above the fray. Goodman was writing Henriques-style reports only a few months ago, and now that he’s left, it’s pretty clear what he was thinking all along. The same can be said for other NYT departures, like say David Cay Johnston.
The more that this kind of thing happens, the more obvious it becomes that NYT reporters are uncomfortably hiding their opinions, inevitably letting them seep out the edges of their reporting, and at the same time desperately trying to maintain a veneer of impartiality and objectivity. It’s a tough act to maintain, and it shatters completely if and when the NYT’s bylines regularly appear elsewhere expressing strongly-held and even extreme opinions.
The world of journalism is becoming increasingly personality-based, with copper-bottomed institutions being replaced by a multitude of individual voices.... [T]he wall between news and commentary... has... already been breached by having reporters like Gretchen Morgenson also write columns. And in coming years I expect we’ll see much more voice and opinion in news articles, if only because that’s the best way of getting the best content out of the NYT’s smartest reporters.
A correspondent emails:
It's not that the NYT will no longer be impartial: it is that the NYT will--if it manages the transition well--be smart. It has long been obvious that the NYT and the WP have reporters who are much, much smarter than their editors let them be in print: people whom you learn a lot from talking to and only a little from reading what they write. The fact that this gap has recently yawned wider in the WSJ and the Economist is a worrisome trend...
Econ 210a: Memo Question for February 9
Econ 210a: Memo Question for February 9:
What, if anything, remains "revolutionary" about the British Industrial Revolution? Can it still be viewed as a decisive turning point in economic history?
James Galbraith Emails...
JG:
According to a note in my in-box, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was published on February 4, 1936.
Joe Romm: ABC on the role Global Warming Plays in Extreme Weather
JR:
Another terrific ABC News story — on the role global warming is playing in extreme winter weather « Climate Progress: Earlier this month, ABC ran one of the best climate change stories ever to appear on a major network’s evening news show: “Raging Waters In Australia and Brazil Product of Global Warming.” On Friday they aired another very good piece — and now we know the secret of their accurate reporting. As they explain:
ABC news contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if the extreme winter like the one we’re having is the way of the future. The consensus: global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year-round — and that means winter with more snow....
The dividing line between good climate reporting and bad climate reporting is almost always whether the reporter talked to real climate scientists. Typically, the more a reporter talks to, the better the story. It is very hard to get the story wrong if you talk to several of the leading climate scientists in any specific subfield...
J. Bradford DeLong's Blog
- J. Bradford DeLong's profile
- 90 followers
