People Should Read Ta-Nehisi Coates on “Conventional Views”, Richard Cohen, and the Washington Post

This is beyond the remit of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Nevertheless, every American who has given, still gives, or contemplates ever giving money to the Washington Post for any purpose needs to read Ta-Nehisi Coates:

Ta-Nehisi Coates: Richard Cohen in Context:

I read the entire column. I saw the preceding grafs where Cohen offers a rough history of the Dixiecrats and segregationists wing of America. And then I read this:

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled—about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York–a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts—but not all—of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.

The problem here isn’t that we think Richard Cohen gags at the sight of an interracial couple and their children.

The problem is that Richard Cohen thinks being repulsed isn’t actually racist, but “conventional” or “culturally conservative.”

Obstructing the right of black humans and white humans to form families is a central feature of American racism. If retching at the thought of that right being exercised isn’t racism, then there is no racism. 

Context can not improve this. “Context” is not a safe word that makes all your other horse-shit statements disappear. And horse-shit is the context in which Richard Cohen has, for all these years, wallowed. It is horse-shit to claim that store owners are right to discriminate against black males. It is horse-shit to claim Trayvon Martin was wearing the uniform of criminals. It is horse-shit to subject your young female co-workers to “a hostile work environment.” It is horse-shit to expend precious newsprint lamenting the days when slovenly old dudes had their pick of 20-year-old women. It is horse-shit to defend a rapist on the run because you like “The Pianist”. And it is horse-shit for Katherine Weymouth, the Post’s publisher, to praise a column with the kind of factual error that would embarrass a j-school student.

Richard Cohen’s unfortunate career is the proper context to understand his column today and the wide outrage that’s greeted it. We are being told that Cohen finds it “hurtful” to be called racist. I am sorry that people on the Internet have hurt Richard Cohen’s feelings. I find it “hurtful” that Cohen endorses the police profiling my son. I find it eternally “hurtful” that the police, following that same logic, killed one of my friends. I find it hurtful to tell my students that, even in this modern age, vending horse-shit is still an esteemed and lucrative profession.

Things to Read on the Evening of November 13, 2013

Must-Reads:

Should-Reads:

Should Be Aware of:

The Role of a Central Bank and of a Central Banker: Cutting-Edge Economics from 188 Years Ago: Wednesday Focus

On the eve of Janet Yellen’s confirmation hearing for the post of Federal Reserve Chair, a correspondent who, I fear, does not wish me well directs me to George F. Will’s Sunday Washington Post column: The Enigma of Janet Yellen as Fed Chair. There is no “enigma” here. It is now nineteen years since her first senior policymaking job at the Federal Reserve. Her views on monetary policy, financial regulation, and the role of the Federal Reserve are well-known. And, as is also well-known, with Janet Yellen you get what you order.

The middle of Wills’s op-ed contains five paragraphs about how Fed Chair Arthur Burns and Will-supported President Richard Nixon behaved very badly indeed when in office, warping monetary policy away from its proper course in the interest of boosting Nixon’s already-high reelection prospects. It contains a hint that there is something wrong

about what [Janet Yellen] considers appropriate–and inappropriate–relations between a Fed chair and government’s political officers.

And then having dropped that hint, Will pulls back.

Continue reading “The Role of a Central Bank and of a Central Banker: Cutting-Edge Economics from 188 Years Ago: Wednesday Focus”

Things You Should Read at Lunchtime on November 13, 2013

In a Good World, Would We Have to Deal with “Global Imbalances”?

Attention Conservation Notice: 3500 words noting Dani Rodrik’s belief that countries with large positive or negative current-account balances are imposing costs on others in our world economy, and reposting Barry Eichengreen’s and my piece telling you why you should read Charlie Kindleberger’s World in Depression. Also Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises.


The extremely smart Dani Rodrik is meditating this morning on export-led growth miracles, and alternatives: The large, dangerous external imbalances that underpin the fastest-growing economies’ performance:

Led by China… [some] developing countries have registered record-high growth rates over recent decades… [plus] advanced economies… such as Germany and Sweden. “Do as we do,” these countries’ leaders often say, “and you will prosper, too.” Look more closely, however, and you will discover that these countries’ vaunted growth models cannot possibly be replicated everywhere, because they rely on large external surpluses to stimulate the tradable sector and the rest of the economy… not all countries can run trade surpluses at the same time.

In fact, the successful economies’ superlative growth performance has been enabled by other countries’ choice not to emulate them. But one would never know that from listening, for example, to Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, extolling his country’s virtues…. As the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf, among others, has pointed out, the German economy has been free-riding on global demand.

Continue reading “In a Good World, Would We Have to Deal with “Global Imbalances”?”

Things to Read on the Evening of November 12, 2013

Must Reads:

Should Reads:

Should Be Aware of:

Oh Dear: Megan McArdle Relies on John Cochrane, and so Goes Badly Astray…

Www imf org external pubs ft wp 2013 wp1301 pdf

We find Megan McArdle writing: Why It’s So Hard to Kill Keynesianism:

We all know how stimulus works, right? The government spends money, and then the people who get that money spend it again, which increases gross domestic product and makes us all richer.
The interesting thing about this model is that economists abandoned it more than 30 years ago, as John Cochrane points out:

How many Nobel prizes have they given for demolishing the old-Keynesian model? At least Friedman, Lucas, Prescott, Kydland, Sargent and Sims. Since about 1980, if you send a paper with this model to any half respectable journal, they will reject it instantly.

But people love the story. Policy makers love the story. Most of Washington loves the story. Most of Washington policy analysis uses Keynesian models or Keynesian thinking. This is really curious. Our whole policy establishment uses a model that cannot be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Imagine if the climate scientists were telling us to spend a trillion dollars on carbon dioxide mitigation–but they had not been able to publish any of their models in peer-reviewed journals for 35 years.

Continue reading “Oh Dear: Megan McArdle Relies on John Cochrane, and so Goes Badly Astray…”

Cheaper and Better Ways than Expanding Medicaid to Get Health Insurance Coverage to the Working Poor?

The excellent health-care weblog The Incidental Economist: argues with itself on the best route forward for Medicaid:

First:

Austin Frakt:

Start by paying a primary-care physician $80 a month to see each [Medicaid] patient, whether he is healthy or sick. That’s what so-called concierge doctors charge, and it would give Medicaid patients what they really need: first-class primary-care physicians to manage their chronic cardiovascular and metabolic conditions. […]

Then throw on top of that a $2,500-a-year catastrophic plan to protect the poor against financial ruin. The total annual cost of such a program would be $3,460 per person, 42 percent less than what Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion costs.

-Reihan Salam, National Review Online quoting Avik Roy

Interested in what health policy wonks and primary care providers think of this proposal…

Continue reading “Cheaper and Better Ways than Expanding Medicaid to Get Health Insurance Coverage to the Working Poor?”

How Much Should We Fear the Debt When Interest Rates Are Low?: Tuesday Focus

Of Debt Growth Interest Rates and History Bloomberg

Over at Bloomberg News, the smart and very industrious Carmen Reinhart lays out why she fears the debt–thinks that expansionary fiscal policy to rebalance an economy is unwise even when monetary policy is hobbled by the zero lower bound on interest rates and even when long-term interest rates remain low:

Carmen Reinhart: Of Debt, Growth, Interest Rates and History:

Continue reading “How Much Should We Fear the Debt When Interest Rates Are Low?: Tuesday Focus”