Well, David Brooks has done it again. His latest column works as a nice book end with the Cohen piece from two days ago.
That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
No shit. But why?
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name.
Well, the name of their theory should be called the "You're Wrong and Stupid" theory as that is largely the only concept in which they are capable of working. That and rich corporations are Jesus.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.
Yep. Every climate change scientist is an apocalyptic nut. Any person who is smart and a liberal is a condescending and arrogant elitist trying to force his opinion on the poor, sweet and innocent conservative whose ignorance is purely imagined by the fascist progressive. Please ignore the profoundly ignorant things conservatives say as they are really the fault of Katie Couric.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.
Either with us or agin' us! Liberals/Progressives=all bad and Hitler.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency.
Well, their ideology dictates that fucking people over is enlightened self interest.
The good news is that Americans (based on several polls) want taxes raised, want to end subsidies (which distort the market just as much as taxes), and will undoubtedly now blame the right for any problems that result from a possible government shut down.
In other words, a very massive turn out at the polls next November. So please, do continue...:)
40 comments:
>The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name.
More accurately - Brooks, and people who think in slogans like Mark, haven't the slightest clue how wealth is created, how we can encourage wealth creation, and how that might benefit large swathes of Americans. They seem to believe that wealth springs from either the government or from magic. (I'm actually not being sarcastic on that last part, Mark really isn't coherent on this subject. I don't think he's thought beyond "people richer than me should pay more taxes!")
>The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.
That one is funny. Mark, you wouldn't, by chance, consider yourself something of a scholar, would you? Someone who is due respect and legitimacy simply by virtue of being a scholar? That would explain a lot.
Back to square one in your therapy Mark.
Perhaps it's time to invest a few dollars in a professional, as opposed to the amateur head-shrinkers here.
We are trying to help, but it doesn't seem to be sticking with you.
Several lefties on here were posting about individual articles and various happenings leading up to the 2010 election (like the one on July 12, 2010 called Sweet). Didn't hold much sway come November 2010 did it? But this time around, it will be totally different right?
Hey, The word Obama doesn't appear on the front page of this blog at all right now. If the upcoming election becomes a referendum on Obama, too many people here aren't going to have much to say.
On November 13, 2007, we learned on this blog that every problem has a point of origin. Mark told us "And don't give me the "They have Congress now" bullcrap because clearly that hasn't worked out."
I'd bet that statement has an expiration date that has passed...
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.
Thomas Sowell is a Professor of Economics. To be sure, he didn't win a Nobel Prize like Krugman did... but on the other hand I don't think he was involved in running a company into bankruptcy as Krugman was, so I suppose the two cancel out.
So how is "accepting the legitimacy of a scholar and intellectual authority" like Thomas Sowell working out for you, Mark?
"More accurately - Brooks, and people who think in slogans like Mark, haven't the slightest clue how wealth is created, how we can encourage wealth creation, and how that might benefit large swathes of Americans. They seem to believe that wealth springs from either the government or from magic."
It's conservatives that somehow think that the wealthy magically create wealth by sprinkling fairy dust in the stock market, commodities trading floors, and hedge funds. They think that the magic of the market will somehow trickle down to everyone else.
Speculators never create wealth. They only buy and sell the fruits of other people's labors, driving up the price by creating false scarcity.
The people who create wealth are the ones who actually do the work, build factories, manufacture products, write software, cook meals, and grow food.
People who actually invest in new business and create new markets, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, are actually creating wealth.
Hedge fund managers, Wall Street Bankers and day traders provide a marginal service that has become a bloated cancer threatening to engulf the entire economy.
All wealthy people and all businesses are not equal. Our system rewards the leeches much more handsomely than the creators, because the leeches spend so much time and effort insinuating themselves into the halls of power so they can manipulate the system, while the creators are too busy actually making real wealth.
I couldn't have said it better myself, anonymous. I was just about to say something along these lines but you beat me to it. Hap, I don't think you want to go down the path of how wealth is created with your ideology. I'll be more than happy to oblige you, however:)
Thomas Sowell is an intellectual and highly intelligent man. His problem is not necessarily himself but the fact that he has been co-opted by the right wing blogsphere as some sort of holy light that has grown into libertarian catechism. And, of course, intelligent people can often be wrong which he is on a number of levels. He has no answer for how to regulate the derivative or the credit default swap for example. His answer is "The free market will sort it out." Given what transpired over the last 10 years, that's simply not viable.
>I was just about to say something along these lines but you beat me to it.
(Sigh, an anonymous bailed you out and now you do your "that's just what I was going to say!" act.) That's your problem Mark - you have never been able to say anything even remotely as coherent as that, and that's despite his bits of silliness.
>I'll be more than happy to oblige you, however:)
Be my guest. Hint - the government doesn't (or very very rarely) create wealth, no matter how much you may wish it does.
>Hedge fund managers, Wall Street Bankers and day traders provide a marginal service
Stop right there. Marginal how? Because you don't like it? Don't think it is useful to anyone? What if other people find such services useful?
>All wealthy people and all businesses are not equal.
Thank you Captain Obvious. :)
>Our system rewards the leeches much more handsomely than the creators, because the leeches spend so much time and effort insinuating themselves into the halls of power so they can manipulate the system, while the creators are too busy actually making real wealth.
You're not making much sense here. What is an example of a leech, and what "halls of power" are they in?
>He has no answer for how to regulate the derivative or the credit default swap for example. His answer is "The free market will sort it out." Given what transpired over the last 10 years, that's simply not viable.
Come now Mark. That's an answer, you just don't like it. You're simply declaring that the only valid answer is your magic fix-anything salve of "regulation."
Hap, I'm well aware that the government doesn't create wealth. That's your faulty schematic reasoning playing tricks with you again. Everyone on the left does not believe that the government creates wealth. The government can sometimes make markets more efficient but that's about it. Honestly, you really need to clean that plaque out of your head. I would recommend a cessation in right wing blog reading.
>Hap, I'm well aware that the government doesn't create wealth.
Good job. I'm glad we've gotten this far. Now - do you think the government can destroy wealth? What things can the government do that either destroys wealth, or inhibits its formation?
>That's your faulty schematic reasoning playing tricks with you again.
Sorry, I don't take lectures from intellectual posers.
>Everyone on the left does not believe that the government creates wealth.
Good thing I'm not talking about everyone on the left then, huh. Just you. (Though to be fair, I think there are no small number of people on the left who believe that the government is a fabulous force for good, if only the right people are in charge of it.)
>The government can sometimes make markets more efficient but that's about it.
If you say so. I've yet to see a convincing example of such. Do you have one?
Thomas Sowell is an intellectual and highly intelligent man... And, of course, intelligent people can often be wrong which he is on a number of levels.
And yet if someone says essentially the same thing about Krugman or Obama, they "do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities." By your standard, Obama doesn't accept the legitimacy of his own Office of Legal Counsel or his own Deficit Commission, but you seem to be okay with that.
Why is that? Are you just saying anyone who disagrees with your opinion past a certain degree is doing "the dance of the low sloping foreheads"? That's what it sounds like.
Taxes do distort market outcomes but that doesn't mean that we should completely do away with them. Subsidies are just as bad as taxes by the way. I will also agree that there is over regulation in some areas of our country that can impede innovation. Reagan saw this and made efforts to correct it. The question was at what cost, though?
Government is a force of good and it can sometimes improve market outcomes simply because of the fact that it protects property rights. This is Economics 101, Hap. Police and the courts protect those who produce the goods and services we purchase. In addition, there are times when the government can promote efficiency and promote equity. The invisible hand doesn't always work due to externalities like pollution or silliness like the CDO. These are external costs. Obviously if there are monopolies and oligopolies (market power), the government can intervene and correct the poorly distributed resources in whatever market we see these sorts of issues. Or do you not agree with anti-trust laws?
Health care is a great example of this. We see nearly perfect inelastic demand and so the supplier has a quite a bit of power to raise the price. Health care costs have gotten so out of control that the market is no longer efficient. This is where the government can help and, thankfully, it has.
I don't have a problem with people that are critical of Krugman. I have disagreed with him on here several times especially in his latest calls for another stimulus. Nor do I have a problem with being critical of the president as long as it is rational and based in fact. Blaming him for our economic sluggishness while ignoring Libya, the tsunami and the situation in Greece--all of which have had a detrimental effect on our economy--simply isn't accurate.
And I really don't think you can make the comment that he isn't listening to his own deficit commission. His recent call for greater cuts today as well as his recognition of political realities makes that statement false.
That's an answer, you just don't like it
My feelings don't enter in to it. The fact that he says things like this is illustrative of a complete disconnect from reality. It's the same fantasy as the socialist fantasy with the same ignorance-that nature of people is such that they are greedy and imperfect. Odd, that he and people like you can't see this considering how he accused liberals of having starry eyes about human nature in "Conflict of Visions." They certainly do when it comes to socialism and so do libertarians when it comes to laissez faire economics and enlightened self interest.
Essentially, people suck and need to have laws so they don't fuck things up for the rest of us. Again, this is Economics 101.
>Or do you not agree with anti-trust laws?
Was going to write a longer comment but it got too long. Suffice it to say that I think the effectiveness of anti-trust laws is vastly overrated. In some cases, an abusive monopoly is probably fairly easy to identify - it hires goons to drive competitors out of business for example. Beyond that, asking courts to become expert enough in a particular industry such that they could objectively assess anti-trust seems awfully wishful. In the last big one I know of, the Microsoft case, bore this out - regardless of what you feel about Microsoft, the judges in the case didn't have a clue what they were talking about. And why should they? They don't work in the industry. (Yes, I do.)
>Health care is a great example of this.
It's funny. You say a bunch of stuff that is reasonable, or at least not crazy. And then you drop this turd. It's like you can't take concepts and apply them to the real world. How in the world can you look at an industry in which the government is already massively involved in, and then say, "Hmm. If only the government was just a little more involved, things would be ok!"?
>We see nearly perfect inelastic demand and so the supplier has a quite a bit of power to raise the price.
No. This makes no sense. Have you ever heard of generic drugs? Getting second opinions? Multiple doctors that will do the same procedure? The only area of health care that is even plausibly perfectly inelastic is life-threatening care, ie emergency room stuff. Since the vast majority of health care is not life threatening care, I have no idea why you think your claim holds any water.
>Government is a force of good and it can sometimes improve market outcomes simply because of the fact that it protects property rights.
Ironic you should mention this given the GM bailouts. You were against the administration stiffing bondholders in favor of the unions then, I take it? :) Anyway, I generally agree with you. My primary criticism is that you seem to ascribe completely unwarranted competence and powers to the government:
>government can promote efficiency and promote equity.
>the government can intervene and correct the poorly distributed resources in whatever market we see these sorts of issues.
>externalities like pollution or silliness like the CDO. These are external costs.
Why do you think the government is good at doing any of these things? As in, why do you think the government possesses the knowledge required to correct problems like the ones you mention above? Why wouldn't you suspect that the "cure" is quite possibly worse than the disease? After all, the government isn't in the business of solving problems. It is in the business of perpetuating itself and getting (where relevant) re-elected. This is why it boggles my mind when you blithely assume that getting the government involved in something is going to improve it. The opposite is far more likely. At least corps have to convince us to voluntarily part with our money.
And then you drop this turd.
Well, what is your solution? No big deal if you don't have the time. It's a very complex problem. And it's not necessarily more involvement that would be a solution. It's being more effective at managing those complexities.
Hap, people are always going to need health care. They won't leave the market if the price is raised. The various suppliers in the market know this and can set the price however high they want to set it. People are going broke paying for health care.
>The fact that he says things like this is illustrative of a complete disconnect from reality.
Uh huh. Translation: you don't like his opinion, so you want to declare it out of bounds. Funny - a teacher (but a real reflective one!) trying to tell an economist that his opinions on economics aren't valid. You really conform to the stereotype sometimes, don't you.
>Odd, that he and people like you can't see this considering how he accused liberals of having starry eyes about human nature
No idea what you are talking about. Seriously. Sowell argued precisely that people are not perfectable, and are tragic - they will always put themselves first. "greedy and imperfect", if you want to say it that way. Near as I can see, you think putting those same people in positions of power will make things better. And I think you're a special kind of stupid for believing that.
>Essentially, people suck and need to have laws so they don't fuck things up for the rest of us.
Not really. People put themselves first and so you have to be aware of what is and what is not possible when trying have a country full of them. This is another example of your weird inability to apply concepts to the real world. If you believe that people always put themselves first, then why would you believe that schemes like Obamacare, which essentially are trying to make one set of people pay more for the health care of another set of people, are likely to work?
"Government is a force of good and it can sometimes improve market outcomes simply because of the fact that it protects property rights."
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
What a major step for you, Mark!
I am shitting myself with happiness.
People have a right to their stuff. Now, the question becomes: How much vig do I owe to the guy that lets me keep my stuff?
How much?
10%?
"I will also agree that there is over regulation in some areas of our country that can impede innovation."
Just to be clear. You are saying that government intervention MIGHT impede innovation?
Because this was brought up a week or so ago, and I don't remember you saying the same thing...
Not that I disagree with you entirely, homo sapiens may need a little time to adjust to what's going on these days. It's moving pretty fast. (historically speaking)
OK, government impedes innovation. Just making sure we have a fact to build on in the future.
If it is true that government impedes innovation, then is it possible that more government is the answer to 'sustainable' growth?
Which is desirable, right?
How much innovation needs to be stifled to balance that equation?
I want sustainable growth... don't you?
Stifle private sector growth, which is the root of all evil according to Mark, and the world is a better place.
Argue with that.
>Well, what is your solution?
Has it ever occurred to you that there isn't a solution? Or at least, the theoretical "solution" you desire isn't attainable by us mere humans, and your attempts to "solve" it will only make things worse?
>They won't leave the market if the price is raised.
No, again, you are making a very broad generalization that is very clearly not true. People will go without quite a lot of healthcare if the price is too high, and that isn't alays a bad thing.
>The various suppliers in the market know this and can set the price however high they want to set it.
Huh, weird. I could swear that you might be able to improve that situation by.. trying to figure out why more suppliers haven't entered the market. Remember, people are imperfect. The surest way to get businesses to enter a market is that they see precisely the phenomenon you believe occurs - endlessly rising prices. Endlessly rising prices = an opportunity to make money! Of course, if entry to the market is restricted by, say, the government, then that will artificially hold up prices, won't it. Also, if prices are rising not because these mythical suppliers of yours can simply raise prices whenever they want to but because the cost of business in the field is rising due to, say, insurance, then that wouldn't attract competition then, would it.
why would you believe that schemes like Obamacare, which essentially are trying to make one set of people pay more for the health care of another set of people, are likely to work
We need some plaque cleaning again. The health care law is not single payer nor is it government run health care. It's an exchange much like the one that is running in MA right now. This is one of the most frustrating things with debates like this. You are blatantly lying about this law. Cease being dishonest otherwise we can't have a substantive discussion.
government intervention MIGHT impede innovation?
I've said for awhile that we are over regulated in some areas on under regulated in others. I'd say tech and manufacturing for the former and the the financial sector for the latter. A word of caution, though, that this is a very general comment and shouldn't be taken completely without the various complexities involved.
It's a very careful balancing act and no one really has all the answers. That's why I put devout believers of centrally planned economies and devout believers of completely free markets in the same category of fantasists.
People will go without quite a lot of healthcare if the price is too high, and that isn't alays a bad thing.
Well, they might for awhile but then when they are about to die they go in and that's when it costs insane amounts of money which we pay for one way or another--government heavily involved or not.
Hap, people in the health care industry are making billions of dollars. It's an every growing market likely to get larger with the baby boomers needing care. The new health care plan won't impede this for a variety of reasons. One of the main ones is that the insurance industry just got 30 million new customers.
Health care is a great example of this. We see nearly perfect inelastic demand and so the supplier has a quite a bit of power to raise the price. Health care costs have gotten so out of control that the market is no longer efficient.
I call bullshit.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html
3.3%, Mark. It's a rare luxury you can buy where the profit margin is that low. The price whose fluctuation largely mirrors the fluctuations in the price of health care is the price of malpractice insurance.
But Obama and the Democrats haven't gone after them, have they? I wonder why.
While you're looking at that list, you might also note that the "greedy evil Big Oil" companies come in at 23, 31 and 67 on that list. Whereas companies like Microsoft, who you apparently think are Jesus, come in at... #4. Fourth highest profit margin in the US economy.
Government does NOT create efficiencies in the market. EVERY SINGLE regulation (even good regulation) puts a burden on a business. That is a fact.
Government is supposed to create reasonable regulation and enforce laws consistently to ensure business can operate to the best of their ability but EVERY SINGLE time Government steps into a market, it skews market forces. You know why big business, unions, and others bands of interests spend so much money on lobbying and buying legislators? Because this 'bribery' works and skews the market in favor of those interests by getting legislation passed.
That's why I put devout believers of centrally planned economies and devout believers of completely free markets in the same category of fantasists.
Typical lefty drivel. You have a lot of wiggle room in that with how big and intrusive you think government should be yet can't get called on it since you can claim you don't want the extreme.
It's funny. You say a bunch of stuff that is reasonable, or at least not crazy. And then you drop this turd. It's like you can't take concepts and apply them to the real world.
This! M has concepts and then screws up the application every time. Why is that? I read the posts and start to agree and then bam! strings of leftist tripe. so close yet so far.
Finally, the mystery of why jobs are not being created in this country has been solved.
"So far this year, Republicans have derailed every common-sense, bipartisan jobs bill we have brought to the floor."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
If they are bipartisan bills then, by definition, they have Republican support. Which means the Republicans are derailing bills that they support.
That's a bold strategy. Let's see if it pays off.
Government does NOT create efficiencies in the market. EVERY SINGLE regulation (even good regulation) puts a burden on a business. That is a fact.
No, it isn't. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes. I have listed the examples above as to how that happens. If you don't agree with them, fine. Then you don't subscribe to fundamental economics. How do you account for externalaties such as pollution?
Typical lefty drivel. You have a lot of wiggle room in that with how big and intrusive you think government should be yet can't get called on it since you can claim you don't want the extreme.
No again. It's only "lefty drivel" from your perspective which is the one yard line on the right side of the field. I'm at the 35 on the left side. Welfare capitalism works and the results are clear. We are the single power in a unipolar world.
? I read the posts and start to agree and then bam! strings of leftist tripe. so close yet so far.
In other words, you like some of what I am writing because you agree with it and then when you don't like it, it's lefty drivel. I know I'll never crack your ideological brick wall of libertarianism but it is fun to try. It always results in the same thing: personal attacks wrapped in either 8 year old boy temper tantrums or adolescent power fantasy.
I realize it's the shits when people come up with solutions that don't fit your ideology and it's likely to be worse if they work very well. Any chance you will ever admit that some Democratic policies have worked or will work?
Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
No wonder we can't have a debate. Outcome is not efficiency. Efficiency is the process to the produce the outcome.
I realize it's the shits when people come up with solutions that don't fit your ideology and it's likely to be worse if they work very well.
Your ideology makes you dense as a brick. I don't care where a solution comes from and will embrace what actually works. Too bad there isn't much coming out of the left that works. Why? Marxist and Welfare State philosophies don't work. So point to a solution that works where the benefits outweigh the costs associated with it.
In other words, you like some of what I am writing because you agree with it and then when you don't like it, it's lefty drivel.
No, I agree with some of the facts but your conclusions are almost always off. Kind of like identifying the symptoms of strep - swollen throat, white spots, and fever and then coming to the diagnosis of smallpox.
Kind of like identifying the symptoms of strep - swollen throat, white spots, and fever and then coming to the diagnosis of smallpox.
I would say Marxy's approach is more like identifying the fever, and ignoring the swollen throat and white spots to come to a diagnosis of the flu.
"There are two broad reasons for the government to intervene in the economy-to promote efficiency and to promote equity."
This is from Chapter 1 of Greg Mankiw's Principles of Microeconomics. If you don't like this, that's fine. But your statement above is not rooted in even the basic principles of economics.
Marxist and Welfare State philosophies don't work.
I agree with you on the former but not on the latter. Why are you tying the two together? Or do you see both as the same thing? They aren't and this is very large flaw in your ideology. Anything remotely government related (other than the military) is Marxist. Sheesh...
Welfare states don't work, huh...are we or are we not the number one economy in the world? Did we or did we not become an economic powerhouse with the best military in the world while welfare programs flourished? Welfare capitalism works and it will continue to work. I'm sorry to inform you of this but I think you are going to continue to be disappointed. Well, probably outraged now that I think about it because facts are stupid things.
So point to a solution that works where the benefits outweigh the costs associated with it.
Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid.
Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
You mean like requiring a corporation to enter your home to inspect their gas lines/fittings?
This is from Chapter 1 of Greg Mankiw's Principles of Microeconomics.
And I venture that is as far as you read. Not to mention the scathing dismissals you have for other Mankiw quotations that you find less amenable. Your intellectual laziness never ceases to amaze.
Well stated Mark. I disagree, but I'm going to have to construct a rebuttal. I like having to think. I've got to step out for a bit, but perhaps I'll anon it tomorrow.
Thank you for the lack of foul language. Not that you should care, just being honest.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.
The members of this movement do not accept promises of future action as equivalent to actual action. The 1990 budget and the 1996 amnesty vote taught them that it's a bad idea.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303365804576432164007052674.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/why-conservatives-dont-want-trade-tax-hikes-promised-spending-cut
So your complaint here is that, after the people on the other side of the table spent a decade showing that they treat "negotiation" as "feed them whatever line of bullshit they'll swallow, but don't follow through", that now the people on this side of the table are "extremists" because they act as though the people on the other side of the table will treat "negotiation" as "feed them whatever line of bullshit they'll swallow, but don't follow through?"
It's things like this that make "can't think critically" sound really good coming from you.
For that matter, why bother compromising with people who consider unifying their own party and cutting the other party out of negotiations entirely to be "compromise"? What possible benefit could accrue to compromising with such people?
Sorry, anon, but "the left does it too" is a pretty weak response. This goes for your other post in the Murdoch thread as well not to mention that many of your statements aren't even true. The health care bill was a compromise with no public plan or single payer. The plan itself was a GOP plan from the early 90s and similar to Mitt's plan for MA. And they weren't shut out of negotiations. Refusing to budge is not being shut out. Casting the Democrats as the intransigent ones is total bullshit.
If one side wants the faucet all the way off, and the other side wants the faucet all the way on, only having the faucet half way on is not a compromise because the faucet is still on.
Well, that's a poor analogy because I know that the right wants defense spending to remain intact. So there is going to some spending...just on the things they like.
It's important to note here that subsidies (like taxes) also distort markets. Much of the fight right now is over the tax breaks and not the taxes themselves. We'd go a long way to solving the revenue issue if we ended subsidies and closed loopholes.
Sorry, anon, but "the left does it too" is a pretty weak response.
Funny how it doesn't seem so weak when you apply it to the 'right'.
The health care bill was a compromise with no public plan or single payer.
A "compromise" within one party. Admittedly, that party held clear majorities - and still that was the best they could do.
The plan itself was a GOP plan from the early 90s and similar to Mitt's plan for MA.
Is that supposed to matter to me?
Well, that's a poor analogy because I know that the right wants defense spending to remain intact.
I think it'd be more accurate to say the right wants to wait until after a downgrade in troop strength deployed to war zones before we cut defense spending. Damn those unreasonable right wingers, huh?
Maybe if Obama wanted to cut defense spending he should have stayed with only two wars the US is involved in. Even "time limited, scope limited kinetic military actions" cost money I bet.
Post a Comment