The constant backwards-looking nature of our political debate means we don’t put as much of a focus on that which could move us forward, regardless of the slip-ups in the past. But from a historical point of view, it’s important to properly assess the past so we learn something from it. In that spirit, I highly recommend Christina Romer’s honest take on the stimulus.
|By: David Dayen Monday October 22, 2012 11:00 am|
|By: masaccio Monday September 12, 2011 12:20 pm|
In the New York Times Economists Bowl, I call it Princeton 2, Harvard 0.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday August 3, 2011 7:06 am|
To the extent that there’s any fallout from the political gridlock in Washington, it’s that the country cannot execute the simple, fundamental steps to improve economic performance. Contractionary fiscal policy gets combined with an anti-expansionary debt limit deal to magnify the effects of the end of the stimulus.
|By: David Dayen Friday July 8, 2011 9:15 am|
Because we have a governing elite that doesn’t understand basic economic theory, the horrific jobs report will probably not change the mindset of the next 72 hours, which is to cement a deal to massively reduce the deficit, mostly through cutting spending. The White House has convinced themselves that this would increase confidence from the business community and lead to hiring. In fact, the President is so convinced this is a good idea that he, not the Republicans, is using the debt limit as a hostage. He threatened to veto any solution that didn’t equal at least $2 trillion-plus in deficit reduction.
|By: masaccio Thursday June 16, 2011 12:27 pm|
The Beltway Consensus is that we can only use government to create jobs if we stay inside three constraints:
1. We can’t tax the rich.
2. Any structural change to the economy must not affect the profitability of any corporate person.
3. Government can only create jobs by giving money to corporate persons in the hope they will hire people.
Can I have a side of ignorance with that stupid?