Things to Read on the Afternoon of January 2, 2015

Must- and Shall-Reads:

 

  1. David Leonhardt:
    About Writing What We Wished to Read:
    “Four particularly satisfying projects started in a similar way: A few of us here wanted to read something that we hadn’t been able to find. So we set out to write it…. Our election-night vote tracker…. The project on the growing number of Americans who aren’t working, despite being of working age…. The lack of cross-country comparisons on the state of the middle class and poor in various countries…. The interactive… that allowed readers… to understand the playoff scenarios for every N.F.L. team…”
  2. Yael T. Abouhalkah:
    Brownback’s Tax Cuts Are Not Wooing Jobs to Johnson County:
    “The mantra from… Brownback… to… Johnson County… [was] that his steep income tax cuts, geared toward high earners, would bring a flood of jobs over the state line from Missouri. But… the tax reductions… in 2013… failed to… employment growth to Johnson or Wyandotte counties…. The Missouri side of the region added 8,400 workers on nonfarm payrolls between November 2013 and November 2014… 1.5 percent…. The Kansas side… only 1,900 employees… 0.4 percent. Overall, the metropolitan region grew a paltry 1 percent…. The governor and other true believers need to acknowledge the obvious: Simply slashing taxes is not the way to woo people to Kansas, and especially to Johnson County, where people expect good services…”
  3. Simon Wren-Lewis:
    On the Stupidity of Demand-Deficient Stagnation:
    “Demand deficiency when inflation is persistently below target… should not occur, because it is easy to solve technically…. The huge waste of resources that we see in the long and incomplete US recovery, the even slower UK recovery and the absence of recovery in the Eurozone are all unnecessary…. We have become fixated by the labels ‘monetary’ and ‘fiscal’ policy, and created an independent institution to handle the former…. Within the existing institutional framework, there is plenty to be done to convince fiscal policy makers that reducing deficits should not be a priority in the short term, or in trying to improve the monetary policy framework so liquidity traps happen less often. Yet it would be better still if we had an institutional framework which was a little more robust to failures on either front. We need to regain the possibility of money-financed fiscal stimulus in a liquidity trap…”
  4. Robert Lucas:
    Rational Expectations Panel:
    “One thing economics tries to do is to make predictions about the way large groups of people, say, 280 million people are going to respond if you change something in the tax structure, something in the inflation rate, or whatever…. Neurophysiology is exciting, cognitive psychology is interesting… Freudian psychology…. Kahnemann and Tversky haven’t even gotten to two people; they can’t even tell us anything interesting about how a couple that’s been married for ten years splits or makes decisions about what city to live in–let alone 250 million. This is like saying that we ought to build it up from knowledge of molecules or–no, that won’t do either, because there are a lot of subatomic particles…. We’re not going to build up useful economics… starting from individuals…. Behavioral economics should be on the reading list…. But to think of it as an alternative to what macroeconomics or public finance people are doing or trying to do… there’s a lot of stuff that we’d like to improve–it’s not going to come from behavioral economics… at least in my lifetime…”
  5. Paul Krugman:
    “I find myself in meetings with international financial types. It’s all the usual discussions, and they don’t like to talk domestic U.S. politics, but then at some point, somebody says, what if we had another major financial crisis? What if we really needed something like TARP again? What are the chances that something like TARP could actually happen in this political environment? And everybody goes quiet, and looks down at their blotter…”
  6. :
    Interview with Kenneth Arrow | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis:
    “Arrow: I think the answer is yes, that learning models will turn out to be more accurate…. The first experimental work tended to show that static markets come to equilibrium very quickly… [but] that asset markets show all sorts of anomalies and do not come into the long-run equilibrium within the length of the experiment…. October ’87 is a wonderful example…. At least as far as the financial markets are concerned, there is increasing evidence against rational expectations, even at the macro level…”

Should Be Aware of:

 

  1. Alicublog:
    Mario Cuomo, 1932-2015.:
    “Jacob Weisberg ’94: ‘Cuomo has also often indulged, as in a speech he gave at Harvard in 1992, in old-fashioned liberal cant. Talking about the culture of dependency, he said, was blaming the victim. Welfare, he insisted, was a small part of the federal budget. Reform, he said, was “not the solution”. He has excused the rise in single-parent families by calling it “nothing new”. This is truly inexcusable.’ Cuomo’s POV was certainly passing out of favor, and Weisberg’s into it; very shortly thereafter, Clinton and Gingrich would make pauper-punching a bi-partisan sport, and their heirs are still trying to make poor people’s lives more miserable and peddling marriage-makes-you-rich hokum. I’d say Cuomo will be missed, but I think we’ve been missing him a long time already.”
  2. Hunter Walker:
    Jim Webb’s Defense Of His PAC Doesn’t Add Up:
    “The statement claimed Hong Le Webb was paid ‘for her activities relating to various aspects of multiple website designs’…. She received $13,800 for overseeing the redesign of the committee’s relatively simple site…. The firm that executed the design seems to have been paid less. It received $10,000…. In addition to the money paid to Webb’s family, the records show the committee only used about 20% of the money it spent to support its stated mission of contributing to political candidates and groups…. The fact so little of the donor money taken in by Webb’s PAC went to its stated purpose was entirely ignored in Owens’ statement…”
  3. John Cassidy:
    Interview with James Heckman:
    H: I want to distinguish between two different ideas…. The part of the Chicago School that has been justified is the claim that people react to incentives…. The other part of the Chicago School, which Stiglitz and Krugman have criticized, is the efficient-market hypothesis. That is something completely different…. I think you could fault the regulators as much as the market. From about 2000 on, there was a decision made in Washington not to regulate these markets. People like Greenspan were taking a very crude and extreme form of the efficient-markets hypothesis and saying this justified not regulating the markets. It was a rhetorical use of the efficient-markets hypothesis to justify policies. C: What about the rational-expectations hypothesis, the other big theory associated with modern Chicago? How does that stack up now? H: I could tell you a story about my friend and colleague Milton Friedman. In the nineteen-seventies, we were sitting in the Ph.D. oral examination of a Chicago economist who has gone on to make his mark in the world. His thesis was on rational expectations. After he’d left, Friedman turned to me and said, ‘Look, I think it is a good idea, but these guys have taken it way too far.’… It didn’t have any empirical content. When Tom Sargent, Lars Hansen, and others tried to test it using cross equation restrictions, and so on, the data rejected the theories. There were a certain section of people that really got carried away. It became quite stifling. C: What about Robert Lucas? He came up with a lot of these theories. Does he bear responsibility? H: Well, Lucas is a very subtle person, and he is mainly concerned with theory. He doesn’t make a lot of empirical statements. I don’t think Bob got carried away, but some of his disciples did. It often happens. The further down the food chain you go, the more the zealots take over…. We knew Keynesian theory was still alive in the banks and on Wall Street. Economists in those areas relied on Keynesian models to make short-run forecasts. It seemed strange to me that they would continue to do this if it had been theoretically proven that these models didn’t work. C: What about the efficient-markets hypothesis? Did Chicago economists go too far in promoting that theory, too? H: Some did. But there is a lot of diversity here. You can go office to office and get a different view…. [Fischer Black] was very close to the markets, and he had a feel for them, and he was very skeptical. And he was a Chicago economist. But there was an element of dogma in support of the efficient-market hypothesis. People like Raghu [Rajan] and Ned Gramlich [a former governor of the Federal Reserve, who died in 2007] were warning something was wrong, and they were ignored. There was sort of a culture of efficient markets—on Wall Street, in Washington, and in parts of academia, including Chicago…. Everybody was blindsided by the magnitude of what happened. But it wasn’t just here. The whole profession was blindsided…. It is what I see as the booster stage—the rational-expectation hypothesis and the vulgar versions of the efficient-markets hypothesis that have run into trouble. They have taken a beating—no doubt about that. I think that what happened is that people got too far away from the data, and confronting ideas with data. That part of the Chicago tradition was neglected, and it was a strong part of the tradition. When Bob Lucas was writing that the Great Depression was people taking extended vacations—refusing to take available jobs at low wages—there was another Chicago economist, Albert Rees, who was writing in the Chicago Journal saying, No, wait a minute. There is a lot of evidence that this is not true. Milton Friedman—he was a macro theorist, but he was less driven by theory and by the desire to construct a single overarching theory than by attempting to answer empirical questions. Again, if you read his empirical books they are full of empirical data. That side of his legacy was neglected, I think. When Friedman died, a couple of years ago, we had a symposium for the alumni devoted to the Friedman legacy. I was talking about the permanent income hypothesis; Lucas was talking about rational expectations. We have some bright alums. One woman got up and said, ‘Look at the evidence on 401k plans and how people misuse them, or don’t use them. Are you really saying that people look ahead and plan ahead rationally?’ And Lucas said, ‘Yes, that’s what the theory of rational expectations says, and that’s part of Friedman’s legacy.’ I said, ‘No, it isn’t. He was much more empirically minded than that.’ People took one part of his legacy and forgot the rest. They moved too far away from the data…”

Afternoon Must-Read: Yael T. Abouhalkah: Brownback’s Tax Cuts Are Not Wooing Jobs to Johnson County

Yael T. Abouhalkah:
Brownback’s Tax Cuts Are Not Wooing Jobs to Johnson County:
“The mantra from… Brownback…

…to… Johnson County… [was] that his steep income tax cuts, geared toward high earners, would bring a flood of jobs over the state line from Missouri. But… the tax reductions… in 2013… failed to… employment growth to Johnson or Wyandotte counties…. The Missouri side of the region added 8,400 workers on nonfarm payrolls between November 2013 and November 2014… 1.5 percent…. The Kansas side… only 1,900 employees… 0.4 percent. Overall, the metropolitan region grew a paltry 1 percent…. The governor and other true believers need to acknowledge the obvious: Simply slashing taxes is not the way to woo people to Kansas, and especially to Johnson County, where people expect good services…

Afternoon Must-Read: David Leonhardt: About Writing What We Wished to Read

David Leonhardt:
About Writing What We Wished to Read:
“Four particularly satisfying projects…

…started in a similar way: A few of us here wanted to read something that we hadn’t been able to find. So we set out to write it…. Our election-night vote tracker…. The project on the growing number of Americans who aren’t working, despite being of working age…. The lack of cross-country comparisons on the state of the middle class and poor in various countries…. The interactive… that allowed readers… to understand the playoff scenarios for every N.F.L. team…

Lunchtime Must-Read: Simon Wren-Lewis: On the Stupidity of Demand Deficient Stagnation

Simon Wren-Lewis:
On the Stupidity of Demand-Deficient Stagnation:
“Demand deficiency when inflation is persistently below target…

…should not occur, because it is easy to solve technically…. The huge waste of resources that we see in the long and incomplete US recovery, the even slower UK recovery and the absence of recovery in the Eurozone are all unnecessary…. We have become fixated by the labels ‘monetary’ and ‘fiscal’ policy, and created an independent institution to handle the former…. Within the existing institutional framework, there is plenty to be done to convince fiscal policy makers that reducing deficits should not be a priority in the short term, or in trying to improve the monetary policy framework so liquidity traps happen less often. Yet it would be better still if we had an institutional framework which was a little more robust to failures on either front. We need to regain the possibility of money-financed fiscal stimulus in a liquidity trap…

My Equitable Growth “A-List” from the Fall of 2014: Daily Focus

The Financial Times has regrouped, reconfigured, and relaunched what was its , now calling it “Exchange”. When I first saw the title “A-List”, I was envious–it seemed so perfectly right.

So now that it has been abandoned, I am going to pick up the name. I am going to set up my own A-List by asking: what, in my view, was the Washington Center for Equitable Growth’s A-List of people to pay attention to in the fall of 2014? What things I read led me to say “this is a must-read!” and “this is about ‘equitable growth'”?

As with all revealed-preference exercises, there is no thought behind the list. It should, ideally, be combined with a top-down conscious assessment of influence and worth, for both conscious classifications and unconscious emergence can easily lead us astray. But I want to leave that for some future date.

So this is what a look back at my preferences as written in electrons by the “must reads” I have posted at http://equitablegrowth.blog reveals: a list of 101:

My most striking reaction to this emergent list is how many people are not on it. I think everyone on it deserves to be in the top 101. But I also can think of at least three times as many other people who deserves to be in the top 101 as well, as measured by their intelligence, insight, thoughtfulness, and ability to draw me in an keep me awake.


446 words

In Which Martin Wolf, Eric Rauchway, and Paul Krugman Watch Those Crying “Flood, Flood!” in Surtur’s Fire, and Warn of an Even Bigger Fire Next Time: Daily Focus

The erudite Eric Rauchway has a very nice review of Martin Wolf’s excellent The Shifts and the Shocks:

Eric Rauchway:
Debt Piled Up:
“Martin Wolf… holds that we knew how to avoid, counter and cure these troubles…

…we have simply–largely out of wilful ignorance and lack of courage–failed…. This system was vulnerable to shocks, which bankers and regulators either failed to predict or succeeded in ignoring…. Ben Bernanke… collapses in unreliable securities were ‘unlikely to seriously spill over to the broader economy or the financial system’–a view that Wolf describes as ‘almost clueless’…. Keynes is only one of a canonical series of economists who remain right, and ignored…. Wolf asked… Summers whose analyses he finds useful…. Summers suggested Walter Bagehot… Kindleberger… Keynes… Minsky…. The same Summers who served a US government that ignored their recommendations. We know what to do, but we will not do it: hence the impatience of Wolf, and also of Paul Krugman….

Wolf says finance desperately needs a bit of that old-time repression now… more capital… deprived of their ability to generate money at whim…. Both these solutions were… also Keynes’s ideas, published and defended before the Great Depression…. Even though he has carefully reinvented the Keynesian wheel, Wolf despairs of seeing anything like the necessary reforms implemented, mainly because they would inconvenience terribly rich people…. And so this politically moderate Commander of the British Empire, a stalwart of the Financial Times features pages, concludes his book with a chapter title borrowed from… James Baldwin…. It is in the nature of the system that there will be another shock, and surely we will see ‘fire next time’.

I keep going around and around and around this without resolution. Back before World War I, you see, there was a deflation caucus–a great mass of wealth committed to investments in long-term nominal bonds and in real estate rented out in long term leases at fixed nominal rates. This deflation caucus had a very strong material interest in the hardest of hard monies and, by virtue of its wealth, a dominant political voice.

Since every nominal asset comes with a nominal liability, arithmetic tells us that, as far as economic material interest is concerned, the soft money-caucus has as much at stake at the margin as does the hard-money caucus. But back before World War I a great deal of the soft-money caucus did not have the vote. Combine the restriction of the formal franchise with wealth’s dominance of the informal franchise and it is not surprising that–except in times of total war or revolution–hard money ruled in the North Atlantic core of the global economy from the days of Sir Isaac Newton to World War I. In between World Wars I and II ,as the material power of the hard money caucus ebbed, it made sense that its ideological power would wane only with a lag.

Since World War II, however, there has been no material hard-money caucus: all of the rich have broadly diversified portfolios. And everyone has the franchise. Since World War II, the stakes in the zero-sum hard-money soft-money debate are now very low. Since World War II, we all have a common interest in full employment and shared prosperity–we are all the 100%.

So whence come the many policy disasters since 2007? How are we to explain what has happened? We have managed to throw away between 5%-10% of the potential wealth of the North Atlantic, and we appear to have thrown it away permanently. How? Why? And why can’t we fix it?

And, of course, why haven’t we drawn the obvious and transparent lessons from the past seven years of what we need to do in order to keep this from happening again? Let me turn the microphone over to Paul Krugman:

Paul Krugman:
“I find myself in meetings with international financial types…

…It’s all the usual discussions, and they don’t like to talk domestic U.S. politics, but then at some point, somebody says, what if we had another major financial crisis? What if we really needed something like TARP again? What are the chances that something like TARP could actually happen in this political environment? And everybody goes quiet, and looks down at their blotter…


713 words

Lunchtime Must Read: Robert Lucas Rejects the “Microfoundational” Project

Robert Lucas’s rejection of the very idea of microfoundations:

Robert Lucas:
Rational Expectations Panel:
“One thing economics tries to do is to make predictions about the way large groups of people…

…say, 280 million people are going to respond if you change something in the tax structure, something in the inflation rate, or whatever…. Neurophysiology is exciting, cognitive psychology is interesting… Freudian psychology…. Kahnemann and Tversky haven’t even gotten to two people; they can’t even tell us anything interesting about how a couple that’s been married for ten years splits or makes decisions about what city to live in–let alone 250 million. This is like saying that we ought to build it up from knowledge of molecules or–no, that won’t do either, because there are a lot of subatomic particles…. We’re not going to build up useful economics… starting from individuals…. Behavioral economics should be on the reading list…. But to think of it as an alternative to what macroeconomics or public finance people are doing or trying to do… there’s a lot of stuff that we’d like to improve–it’s not going to come from behavioral economics… at least in my lifetime…”

Over at Project Syndicate: Try Everything

NewImage
Over at Project Syndicate: Try Everything: When it became clear in late 2008 that the orgy of deregulation coupled with global imbalances was confronting the global economy with a shock at least as dangerous as the Great Crash that had initiated the Great Depression, I was alarmed but hopeful. We had, after all, seen this before. And we had models from the Great Depression for how to mitigate the damage–basically, try everything that might work to boost demand and production and reduce jobless workers, and reinforce success.

In the United States, for example, after 3 1/2 years during which Herbert Hoover had focused on restoring business confidence via balancing the budget, in 1933 the new President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried everything: abandoning the gold standard, monetary reflation, deficit spending–at least to the extent of no longer making budget-balance an immediate priority–direct employment by the government, government loan guarantees, corporatist industry-level cartelization, aggressive antitrust policy to break up monopolies, and yet more. These policies sometimes conflicted with each other. A serious chunk of them were counterproductive. But Roosevelt tried everything, and reinforced success, and in the end the United States economy was much healthier than those that had remained with the Gold Bloc.

Thus in late 2008 the correct policy course appeared to me to be obvious: Recapitalize banks? Yes. Guarantee loans? Yes. Use Fannie and Freddie to resolve underwater mortgages? Yes. Drop short-term interest rates to zero? Yes. Engage in quantitative easing? Yes. Deficit spending? Yes. Change the regime of monetary policy-making so that businesses and savers would be confident that their previous expectations would be validated and the economy would not suffer from deflation or lowflation? Yes. And then, as events evolved, reinforce those policies that seemed to be working, and gradually drop those that seemed to be ineffective or counterproductive.

Yet that was not what we did. There was a remarkably large amount of root-and-branch opposition to different possibly-helpful policies: Recapitalizing the banks would simply reward institutions and executives who had caused the problem, and generate moral hazard and more problems with the future (alas, an objection that had a point–even though big bank shareholders lost 80% of their wealth in the crisis). Resolving underwater mortgages would reward feckless borrowers who ought to be punished. Expansionary fiscal policy was, logically, Ineffective by necessity. Expansionary monetary policy could only produce inflation and not recovery. Expansionary fiscal policy would do more harm because higher debts would reduced confidence than good by encouraging spending. Quantitative easing would, somehow, generate a new financial crisis. As near as I can see, all of these arguments could not and cannot be made with a straight face by people who had done their intellectual homework. But they were and are made by many.

But perhaps more damaging and more decisive in producing the grossly inadequate response two 2007-2009 that we have seen were those advocating their favorite stimulative policy at the expense of other policies. “Don’t do deficit spending–resolve underwater mortgages!” “Don’t do expansionary monetary policy–fiscal policy can do the job!” “There’s no need to raise expectations of future inflation–recapitalizing the banks is what is really needed!”

And we saw the latest of these the day after Christmas in the Wall Street Journal, with the extremely sharp Martin Feldstein’s “The Fed’s Needless Flirtation with Danger” http://www.wsj.com/articles/martin-feldstein-the-feds-needless-flirtation-with-danger-1419543510. The demand-stimulative policies advocated–investment tax credits, changing deductions to credits focused on increasing incentives to invest, shifting corporate tax burdens to those with low rather than high marginal propensities to spend–are all promising. They belong in the “try everything” basket.

But then there is the surrounding rhetoric.

It starts with the headline: “The Fed’s Needless Flirtation With Danger”. It continues with claims that the Fed’s policies “increase the risk of financial instability…”; that his recommended policies are a “safe and effective alternative”; that they are not an additional arrow in the quiver but rather replacements for “traditional Keynesian policies… [that] increase… national debt”.

The net effect, in my view at least, is at best a zero. Rather than having the effect intended of pushing us toward more effective demand-stimulus policies, the real-world effect is to diminish support for those demand-stimulus policies we are now undertaking without successfully assembling a coalition that can flick the switch and get us to undertake policies that we are not.

And when I look back at everything I have written since 2008, I find that I am also part of the problem. I find that I, too, have been too cocksure that my favorite policies recommended by my favorite theories have been the ones to push. And I have been insufficiently respectful of the wisdom of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that:

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something…


831 words

Afternoon Must-Read: Paul Krugman: “I find myself in meetings…

Paul Krugman:
“I find myself in meetings with international financial types…

…It’s all the usual discussions, and they don’t like to talk domestic U.S. politics, but then at some point, somebody says, what if we had another major financial crisis? What if we really needed something like TARP again? What are the chances that something like TARP could actually happen in this political environment? And everybody goes quiet, and looks down at their blotter…

Things to Read on the Afternoon of December 31, 2014

Must- and Shall-Reads:

 

  1. William Barnett, ed.::
    Rational expectations: A Panel Discussion: “Kevin Hoover: ‘Kevin Hoover: Bob, did you want to comment on that? You’re looking unhappy, I thought.’ Robert Lucas: ‘No. I mean, you can’t read Muth’s paper as some recipe for cranking out true theories about everything under the sun…. My paper on expectations and the neutrality of money was an attempt to get a positive theory about what observations we call a Phillips curve. Basically it didn’t work…. I thought my model was going to explain price stickiness, and it didn’t. So we’re still working on it…. I don’t think we have a satisfactory solution… but I don’t think that’s a cloud over Muth’s work. If Jack [Muth] thinks it is, I don’t agree with him. Mike [Lovell] cites some data that Jack [Muth] couldn’t make sense out of using rational expectations…. There’re a lot of bad models out there. I authored my share, and I don’t see how that affects a lot of things we’ve been talking about earlier on about the value of Muth’s contribution…. You know, people had no trouble having financial meltdowns in their economies before all this stuff we’ve been talking about came on board. We didn’t help, though; there’s no question about that. We may have focused attention on the wrong things; I don’t know…'”

  2. Duncan Black:
    Does Anybody Remember MOOCs?:
    “They were all anybody who wrote about education would talk about for awhile. Where did that all go? Apparently administrators finally figured out that a ‘course in a box’ actually costs a lot of money, that it doesn’t scale nearly as well as they hoped, that they are a substitute for ‘learning from a book’ not ‘learning from a person,’ and you can’t charge $50,000 per year tuition simply because your prestigious name will be on the online course degree. I knew all of this because I saw people experimenting with online courses… 15 years ago. The technology, except maybe easy use of video (you could use video, it was just a bit more of a pain), was all there then…”

  3. Paul Krugman:
    Keynesians and the Volcker Disinflation:
    “Right-wing economists like Stephen Moore and John Cochrane–it’s becoming ever harder to tell the difference–have some curious beliefs…. One… is that the experience of disinflation in the 1980s was a huge shock to Keynesians, refuting everything they believed. What makes this belief curious is that it’s the exact opposite of the truth. Keynesians came into the Volcker disinflation… with a standard… model…. And events matched…. Cutting inflation would require a temporary surge in unemployment. Eventually, however, unemployment could come back down to more or less its original level; this temporary surge in unemployment would deliver a permanent reduction in the inflation rate, because it would change expectations…. [That’s] what the Volcker disinflation actually looked like…. It was the other side of the macro divide that was left scrambling for answers. The models Chicago was promoting in the 1970s, based on the work of Robert Lucas and company, said that unemployment should have come down quickly…. Those models were unsustainable in the face of the data. But… most of those guys went into real business cycle theory–basically, denying that the Fed had anything to do with recessions. And from there they just kept digging ever deeper into the rabbit hole…

  4. Laura Tyson and Lenny Mendonca:
    Obamacare and Effective Government:
    “When historians look back on the United States’ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act… they will not devote much attention to its regulations, its troubled insurance exchanges, or its website’s flawed launch… [but] on how ‘Obamacare’ encouraged a wave of innovation that gradually tamed the spiraling costs of a dysfunctional system, even as millions of previously excluded Americans gained access to health insurance…”

  5. Duncan Black:
    Eschaton: Um Because Even Proponents Never Had Any Explanation For How It Would Work?):
    “1) Destroy demand in the middle of a depression. 2) ??. 3) Cure depression!!! Nowhere have austerity policies been more aggressively tried — and generally failed to live up to results promised by advocates — than in Greece. After more than four years of belt tightening, patience is wearing thin, and tentative signs of improvement have not yet trickled down into the lives of average Greeks. At least US ‘trickle down’ isn’t completely implausible. Give money to rich people and maybe they’ll buy some stuff from the rest of us! I’m not sure how belt tightening is supposed to trickle down. Perhaps we should ask the Wookies on Endor.”

Should Be Aware of:

 

  1. Kaleberg:
    Liveblogging World War II: December 27, 1944: FDR Seizes Montgomery Ward:
    “I live in a former lumber town and the locals are angry that the timber business isn’t what it used to be. At one time, everyone worked cutting down trees and making wood products and was paid enough to buy a house and raise a family. Being a lumber man wasn’t always like that. In the late 19th century lumberjacks were poorly paid and the town was full of bars and whore houses. During WWI, the government seized the lumber business and imposed a labor contract to provide wood and wood products for the war effort. Employers rarely raise wages just because productivity is rising or business is good. It requires united labor action or government intervention, and usually both. P.S. The business is still here, but it is ever more automated. A logging truck with a loader turns two men into a whole crew. It’s also still dangerous. We lose one or two men, usually tree fellers, every year according to the local paper. The pay is still good, but you can’t run a whole town on it anymore.”

  2. Charles Murray (1979):
    Juvenile Corrections and the Chronic Delinquent:
    “The data do point unequivocally, we believe, to this: the grounds for debate about juvenile corrections must be shifted. The rhetoric that has guided national legislation and the policies of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is based on the premise that corrections “only makes kids worse.” That premise mayor may not be true on some dimensions. No one really knows. But in terms of delinquent behavior, corrections does not make kids worse. It makes them better. Much better, from the point of view of the community that must live with them.”