I have a policy of not discussing items that directly refer to me in this blog, but I will make an exception today because the issues raised by Robert Samuelson are important. In his column Samuelson makes two key arguments. First, that the Reinhart-Rogoff conclusions about high debt leading to slow growth still stand even after the errors in the original paper were corrected, and second, that this work was never really the basis for austerity anyhow.
|By: Dean Baker Thursday April 25, 2013 4:00 pm|
|By: Dean Baker Monday March 18, 2013 6:40 am|
Okay, that’s not exactly what Robert Samuelson said, but pretty close. He actually told readers:
What frustrates constructive debate is muddled public opinion.
|By: Dean Baker Monday February 25, 2013 5:45 am|
If we don’t get the Robert Rubins of the world again playing crazy games at government insured banks, is it necessary to spend a lot of time worrying about the $7.3 trillion in insured deposits? (Wait, I forgot Robert Rubin is still a highly respected person in DC policy circles, maybe we should be worried.)
|By: Dean Baker Monday February 18, 2013 8:13 am|
Robert Samuelson is convinced that the U.S. economy is suffering from psychological problems
|By: Dean Baker Monday January 28, 2013 7:40 am|
It’s always entertaining to read Robert Samuelson’s columns on Monday mornings. They are so deliciously orthogonal to reality. Today’s column, asking whether America is in decline, is another gem.
|By: Dean Baker Monday December 17, 2012 2:10 pm|
Samuelson warned that the last time the Fed tried to target both inflation and unemployment was in the 1970s and complains that this ended disastrously. Both parts of Samuelson’s claim are wrong.
|By: Dean Baker Monday September 3, 2012 11:45 am|
Robert Samuelson gives President Obama a low grade for his economic performance following his initial six months in office (so do I). Let’s examine the basis for his assessment.
|By: Dean Baker Monday August 20, 2012 2:00 pm|
Robert Samuelson devotes his column today to misrepresenting a new article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, claiming that it shows the Ryan-Romney Medicare plan would save money. In fact, the article compares costs of Medicare Advantage plans with the current traditional Medicare plan. It notes that in many cases the former are lower, however it does not attribute the savings to the more efficient delivery of care. It notes that lower costs may be due to cherry picking healthier patients, which has been the finding of other research
|By: dakine01 Thursday August 16, 2012 7:15 pm|
I laugh when I see where someone has butt shot himself while thinking of all the “butt calls” I have received from family and friends. And I get a little sad when I see legislators in my home state embarrassing themselves with their diatribes against teaching evolution. (Note: Gravity is still considered a theory as well, maybe some of these folks complaining about teaching evolution “cuz it’s only a theory” should maybe be invited to test that gravitational theory from the top of the capital building – rhetorically speaking of course.)
But then, I wind up reading something that is so incredibly stupid and disingenuous, that I am moved to take a whack at it on my own.
|By: Dean Baker Monday August 13, 2012 11:15 am|
Governor Romney’s decision to select Paul Ryan as his running mate has condemned the country to 90 days of ridiculous news stories and columns about a choice on the size and role of government. The debate is silly because its explicit assumption is that Paul Ryan wants a small role for government. It is flatly wrong to describe Mr. Ryan as a supporter of small government. He is more accurately described as an opponent of government interventions that redistribute income downward and a supporter of government policies that redistribute income upward.