Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

That would be high praise if it came from a credible source.

"[I]t is not clear to me that Dick Schmalensee is voting for George W. Bush this election."

Please crush him anyway. It'll be a morale booster for our side.

I live about 40 miles from UCSD and 7:30AM is a fictitious number on the dial, BUT, this should be one of the most valuable of all possible debates!

(Indeed, I have a hard time believing that *anyone* even half-informed about what the Bush administration's policies have been is voting for George W. Bush this election.)

shouldn't this read

(Indeed, I have a hard time believing that *anyone* even half-informed is voting.)

Or is it not ok to apply economic utility and statistics to the individual decision to vote or not vote?

P.S See you there :)

Oh, I'll be there. The UCSD Faculty Club is a nice place, but nowhere near Cal's (I bussed tables at the WFC for two years as an undergrad)

Octobers can run from chilly mornings suitable for a strong cup of coffee, to warm noon with a bracing onshore breeze to tuck you in at night. Or it could be Santa Ana season. In which case, don't forget the Nomex undergarments.

Oh, and you probably already know this but make sure to check out the Sutart collection (http://stuartcollection.ucsd.edu/).

If you've been to the Club before you know that the Niki de Saint Phalle Sun God is right next door, as well as the Robert Irwin Violet V Forms, but the Jenny Holzer Green Table is very close by, yet hidden. The Table is well worth a visit before or after intellectal warfare.

"The public is invited." Indeed; the public is invited to register in advance and pay $50 per person.
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/soc/Roundtable10_07.asp

Then how do you explain Fundamentalist Christian Cosmologists?

Brad,

We all know Bush is completely and utterly fiscally irresponsible. But what about trade? Jagdish Bhahwati isn't impressed with Kerry, to say the least - and he's a Democrat. The Economist said some of Kerry's policies are "protectionism by any other name," or something like that.

I don't think Kerry's a protectionist. Nor are the people surrounding Kerry. Nor are the 10 Nobel winners who endorsed him, like Akerlof. And as Bhagwati said, Kerry's Senate record is great.

But do his plans - those for corporate taxes and the manufacturing sector, for instance - really reak of protectionism?

I'm not voting for Bush and actively support Kerry, but it would be nice to have *complete confidence* of Kerry's trade positions.

Brian, I think the key gripe about Kerry's trade positions is that they're half-hearted. For example, aiming taxes at offshore corporations is sound policy, sure, but when he touts it as a cure for the exporting of manufacturing jobs, it sounds like slapping a bandage on a sucking chest wound. I think most companies believe taxed overseas labor is still cheaper than untaxed domestic labor. The only way around that mindset is to apply protectionist-level taxes, but pro-free-trade Kerry only mentioned closing loopholes or giving tax breaks (I forget which).

Thing is, I'll take sound policy with minimal effect over disastrous policy, any day. The alternative is like eating rat meat because steak just ain't good enough.

Dragonchild,

You indicate, although probably unintentionally, that Kerry has wrapped certain policies in protectionist rhetoric. When he or any candidate talks about shipping jobs overseas, it sounds like nothing more than talk, and for good reason.

I say bring your boogie board, fins, leave your suit behind and head on down to Black's.

Brad, why does *anyone* stand up for W. Bush's plans?

"The public is invited." Indeed; the public is invited to register in advance and pay $50 per person."

oh ug.

Anoyne want to meet at Mission Hills Cafe instead (better cheaper food)? We can have a cell phone smugled into center of the roundtable and pipe the feed to the cafe...or would that trample someones copyright?

The Prof must remember to wear his Adam Smith necktie.

As for *complete confidence* in a candidate's purity on international trade theory (which one by the way, the ridiculously oversimplified theory from 2x2x2 model that everyone seems to use for their very strong theoretical certainties?):

Don't turn down a pretty OK steak for rat meat, especially rat meat that bites back.

I believe Kerry has only ever said closing loopholes that encourage off shoring. This is hardly protectionism.

While trade has always been in our overall interest, there is no reason to offer tax subsidies for international investing and for out-sourcing jobs. Simply asking for the tax code to be revised to limit such subsidies and tax international investments equitably is in no way protectionism.

Will there be an online transcript or a web archive of this debate?

Very nice. Having the "smartest economist" quote repeated in the debate blurb, and getting on the cover the the Rolling Stone (ok, the first issue of "The Economists' Voice"). Somebody's having a good week.

Wouldn't go around bragging about a Harvard-only education, though. Not after Summers outted the place for encouraging rampant grade inflation.

Rathergate proves that CBS and the elite media ARE NOT LIBERAL!
Public Enquiry Project ^ | 9/21/04 | Adrian Spidle

Posted on 09/21/2004 9:44:47 AM EDT by AdrianSpidle

Ask Ralph Nader if the elite media are liberal. If you have any, ask your Lefty friends if the EM are liberal (Here in Massachusetts my friends are mainly lefties). They'll all answer, correctly, that the elite media is controlled by corporate interests and thus not liberal.

Well, how in the hell do you reconcile the obvious bias Dan Rather has so clumsily reaved with the EM being corporate controlled? Let me explain:

1 - The elite media is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. This is very different from "liberal" or "lefty

2 - Big business is obviously also pro-Democrat. Why, do you ask, would big business be pro-Democrat? Well here's why:

3 - Big business is addicted to the corporate welfare that big government Democrats surreptitiously shower on them in return for contributions both legal and illegal, and, perhaps most importantly and most cynically:

4 - Big business wants big government to take over their responsibilities for employee health care and retirement funding. Can anyone familiar with the financials of the major American corporations not plainly see how much more money there would be for sleazy corporate managers to play with if they had no more line items for employee health care and employee retirement funding? If you need more evidence just read BUSINESS WEEK and FORTUNE magazines. They read like compilations of Democrat talking points.

5 - Listen my friends, in this modern world, the Democrats represent the RICH, mainly those who inherited their money or acquired it through advancing up the bureaucracies of big business, big education or big healthcare. These cynical and sometimes criminal types hope to buy social peace and/or assuage their guilt by giving a multitude of pittances to the great unwashed while making hardworking, productive citizens and small businessmen pay for it.

6 - Republicans represent the little guys who are willing to work hard to improve the lives of their families.

I hope this clears things up for you guys who might be having a little trouble figuring this all out. I simply followed my late and sainted father's admonition to "Follow the money" when things seem a bit confusing.

source:

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/09/rathergate_prov.html

I'd like to second the request for a transcript or an on-line video.

If that is not possible, please take as accurate blow-by-blow notes as you can (those who are there and able to take notes) then post them.

This should be good.

Bonus points to Delong if he mentions that not only is Bush a catastrophic failure with respect to the economy, but that invading Iraq the way Bush did _strengthened_ Al Qaeda

Repeatedly excuses are made for conservative economists who do all they can to foster Republican policies, but who are supposed to know such policies are harmful deep deep deep down. To deep down for me.

Hey, look! Arrogant Adrian is back! (and here I thought that Stable Dictum was his 14th avatar...)

I'm always curious about two kinds of people - those who claim that Clinton/the Democrats fouled up the economy, particularly for small businesses, in the 90's (hmmmmm... is that why the NASDAQ did so well during the period) and those who claim that Bush's economic policies are leading us forward into a new era of prosperity for big businesses and small (hmmmmm.... is that why the S&P500 is down from 1426 on 11/3/00 to approximately 1128 now? And why the NASDAQ National Composite, over the same period, is down from 1570+ to 863?) Source for both values: Interactive Data Corp. via FactSet Research Systems)

Let's face it, Adrian, Subtle, etc. - the policies Bush and his cohorts have foisted on this country have led our markets straight into the toilet. And Subtle Dictum, old boy, think carefully - if the bond market is so happy with the prospect of a Bush victory in November, why is the yield curve flattening out like an IHOP pancake - historically a very bad sign for equity markets?

I noticed today that the OCED lowered its expectations for US GDP growth next year.

OHHH BIG vote of confidence for the awol, vacation prone, gullible, incompetent of a President: GWB

Honey, bring the gasoline, it's time to clear away the srub out here.

Brad, have a good debate. Find a student with a digital camcorder and put the video stream up somewhere.

P.S. Any Adrian = index finger on scroll wheel

Let me preemptively extend a welcome to San Diego. Some might criticize me for the rush to welcome, but I say that not extending a welcome would only let an imminent threat grow more dangerous by the day.

Anyhow, $50 is kind of rich for a grad student. However, I should be able to make it to the departmental seminar. I'll warn you beforehand that the temperature in the lecture room could be anywhere from 65 to 110 degrees depending on the weather and the status of the A/C (a boolean variable usually set to 0).

Student with a digital camcorder?! Not with the level of support that we get!

Wait a second, we have one grad student who went to Berkeley as an undergrad and is independently wealthy (but I repeat myself)....

Hey, that's a good question - Brad, can you have some one record the debate and webcast it? That would serve as a much needed public good - and it means that if the papers got a hold of it, you could give the media some useful soundbites.

devgirl
likes the idea more and more - surely intelligent economists can devise a way to do this

"(Indeed, I have a hard time believing that *anyone* even half-informed about what the Bush administration's policies have been is voting for George W. Bush this election.)"

That's really not good, Brad, because a reasonable proportion of that half of the country that is going to vote for Bush is actually fairly more than half-informed, and to not understand their reasoning and basis for their conclusions means that analysis dependent upon that sort of understanding will be off.

We can observe that a certain proportion of Bush support is based on ignorance of one sort or another, but the fact is that so is a certain amount of Kerry support; a terribly high proportion of voters don't act on an acute degree of knowledge. But even among those who do, premises do differ. Whether that's based on some sort of ultimate correct knowledge is, at the least, beyond my confident ability to say.

"IT is not clear to me that Dick Schmalensee is voting for George W. Bush this election"

That's brave - going into a debate with someone who doesnt even disagree with you - go trooper go!

As an MIT PhD myself, with all the rivalry that brings, I hope you kick his ass. Nothing personal against Schmalensee -- I don't know the man, but it's plain irresponsible for him to provide a rationale for Bush's policies.

Funny, my mom always told me to "follow the money" too, and it seems to lead straight to the Republican party...But, I get the feeling Arrogant Adrian isn't really motivated by government policies or any ideas based in actual facts.

1. The media is liberal because what Republicans consider liberal nowadays is in fact basically center on the political spectrum. The Republican party is very far right, and so they perceive the media as being far left...of them. Since Republicans don't understand nuance very well, this just translates into the media is full of bleeding liberals.

Separation of church and state is center on the spectrum, not left. Nader is far left on the spectrum, not Kerry. Rush Limbaugh is far right on the spectrum, not center.

2a. Big business is NOT pro-Democrat. Kenneth Lay is a Republican and good friend to George Bush. Big business only wants to back the winner, so it backs both equally.

2b. Leaders of big business may tend to be Democrats. This may be because leaders of big corporations tend to be well-educated and well-educated people tend to be liberal.

3. Corporate welfare are things like steel subsidies, and handing out government contracts without open bidding, both of which happened under Bush. Corporate welfare is not something like lowering corporate taxes in order stimulate growth, which happened under Clinton. Whereas Bush's policies generate no growth, Clinton's policies generate positive economic growth.

4. Government expenditure under Bush is bigger than when it was under Clinton. The belief that the Republican party stands for small government no longer holds. IT'S JUST NOT TRUE ANYMORE.

5. Both Kerry and Bush are rich. Americans are rich. Just because Bush wears boots and jeans and talks stupidly doesn't mean he didn't go to Yale and Harvard, and more importantly, have his Dad pay for him. He acts less rich than he is so he doesn't have to give any of his money away. HE'S A CHEAP BASTARD. Maybe this is what you mean by "little guys who are willing to work hard to improve the lives of their families." Oh, poor average American family who can only afford a twenty-seven inch TV as opposed to the thirty-five inch flat screen that they really wanted. Shame on you.