Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Brad, did you email the people on the list? I doubt they read your blog - sadly for them.

Kudlow signed on for another voyage, but I thought I saw a helicopter pick him up off the poopdeck just as the white whale began to churn the whirlpool around the Bush Pequod.

Bush and Cheney were seen finishing their whiskey sours on the beach weeks ago.

The rest of us are chained below decks, water rising, funds for rescue cut in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Breathe in; it goes faster.

I am trying to think of some one in history that matches Larry Kudlow in foresight and knowledge...
Could the man be in a class all his own?

Hi, I'm a third-year student EECS in Berkeley and taking an introductor y course in your department, PEIS 101. As we're studying economic nationalism now, one of the articles we are reading is a critique called "Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession" by Paul Krugman. He strongly argues against the idea and rhetoric of "national competitiveness" from an economist's standpoint.. my question then is, why would you describe "international competitiveness" as a hypothetical sellling point of a good economic policy in a letter written to economists? Is Krugman out there on this?

You're really angling for that "America's Most Beloved Economist" award, aren'tcha?

btw, Giles, have you been reading Brad's site all over the past week?

Giles:
1-fiscally responsible -you are in a small minority on this -even allowing for tick or cross in five years.
2-create more employment -the augmented unemployment rate and some of anne's links contradict that. the unemployment rate is a weak reed to rely on right now.
3-economic growth -check out NBER graph tracking real GDP growth, this recovery is subpar compared to other postwar recoveries -one of anne's links again, I think.
opportunities for all Americans
4-improve corporate accountability -if Bush quotes are accurate, then this was a dodge
5-strengthen the nation's intnl competitivenes -OK you got me there.

I will need some stats countervailing those posted by anne and the augmented unemployment wage guy before I belive your score on 1-4, Giles.

I haven't thought much about intnl competitiveness. Any one have stats or anecdotes or facts and figs on that? How should that be measured here? It is so broad it could be a boilerplate buzzword, as one poster suggests.

Oops, missed one point, let's call it
4a--opportunities for all Americans -anne again to the rescue, some of her links show subpar real income growth for majority of workers. And then there is opportunity loss from state and local cutbacks. Check out shut doors in UC and California State schools. And these folks are going to take slots and Commuinity Colleges that are funded by... what? all I've heard about is more cutbacks for CA community colleges, but I haven't kept track lately. Maybe they have found more money in the last few days.

And for those non-CA people, my opinion is that for general, technical, and professional education, the state campuses and community colleges are important. I don't think UC has a nursing program to produces new nurses anymore. The are all research oriented grad programs. New nurses are all from community colleges and state schools. If there is still a UC campus with a nursing school that produces new nurses, it is very small compared to the rest.

The thing about Luskin is he heard Krugman was on Brad's ship. so he thought he'd just slide on over and stalk about.

The day isn't far off when Luskin wakes up and realizes Krugman was spot-on.

Interesting that so far, among the economists who signed the original letter, none has piped up this time. The only recidivist is not an economist.

Check today's WSJ editorial page. I think Martin Feldstein is signing on for another trip. So amend my earlier comment. One recidivist economist, one recidivist non-economist.

Interestingly, Feldstein argues that a tax change that could have only a small impact on the deficit could have a "adverse effect on long-term growth." He manages to say the benefits would be small without specifying a magnitude for the cost.

I note that part of the justification for leaving Luskin gave is opposition to the Medicare drug benefit. I'm for one, although not the one we have. I also note that he didn't say anything about tax cuts or the fiscal position of the government.

Luskin seems to believe he's signing on to Kudlow's side, not DeLong's. (I think Brad is right, though - Luskin's plan of signing on to the tax cuts but not the proposed new spending doesn't really make sense.)

http://tinyurl.com/yuyby

To J Mann:

Please explain how it doesn't make sense to be FOR tax cuts and AGAINST increased spending.

This is the same guy who "stalks" Krugman, yes?

So his credibility is nil.

To fasteddie:

According to Luskin, he took a video camera to one of Krugman's public lectures and stood in line to get one of Krugman's autographed books. I don't see why that should be labelled as "stalking." I think Krugman simply overreacted to the unexpected encounter with one of his critics he'd never met before in person.

Of course, Luskin is not an economist -- he dropped out of Yale.

http://www.trendmacro.com/a/about/luskincv.asp

Dan:

I apologize for not being more clear. It's perfectly rational to be for tax cuts and against new spending. (In fact, IMHO it's more rational than for tax cuts AND for new spending).

What I meant is that since Luskin *is* for tax cuts but against new spending, I don't think it makes sense for him to characterize himself as "signing on" to the Bush economic plan. Almost everyone in the country might sign on to some part of the plan - Brad's question is whether last year's signers are willing to say that the plan, as written, is good for the country.

Why is it that Brad won't link to Luskin?

I'm against de-linking as a general rule, but can't recall Brad's reasons, which may well be substantial.

It does seem to me that linking can't do much harm, and is closer to the spirit of blogging, especially when you're discussing something on someone else's blog.

J Mann, thanks for clarifying. It sounds like everyone is arguing about confusion over a simple question: What's in the Bush economic plan, besides the tax cuts?

Regarding DeLong's representation of what Luskin supports: I don't see what's so difficult about saying that Luskin supports only the tax cuts. I find no evidence that Luskin is "an enthusiastic endorser of the proposed Bush 2005-2009 budgets". Why did DeLong claim that he is? And now DeLong is claiming that he has caught Luskin in a contradiction about what he supports. Frankly, I think somone who is not Don Luskin is clouding the issue. And it's not helping things by NOT providing links to Luskin's statements.

Well, the first time he went ballistic it was in reaction to my statement that "Not even Donald Luskin will sign on to the Bush budget plan proposed last week." If he's going to go ballistic when I say he's not an enthusiastic supporter of the budget plan, I would think I'm allowed to infer that he is an enthusiastic supporter, aren't I? If he goes ballistic when I say he's not an enthusiastic supporter and goes ballistic again when I say that he is, what am I supposed to infer? That he's poor and stupid?

Prof. DeLong, you are conflating "economic plan" with "budget plan". Now, unfortunately, Donald Luskin is poorly tempered and inconsistent, but he has a valid point: he is a supporter of the Bush economic agenda (defined narrowly in terms of tax policy), and your attempts to confuse that with the Bush budget (including social programs, etc.) is unfair.

Of course, I'm not sure how steel tariffs get exempted from the economic plan. Or the farm bill, which has unambiguous economic consequences. I've done the run-around with Mr. Luskin before; he's a slippery fellow.

the facts are simple. please, decide for yourselves:

Feb 2003:
the Treasury releases the "250 Economists Endorse" letter, which Luskin has signed. cf http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js28.htm

the text of the letter is not in doubt, but feel free to click through if you need to fact-check. the letter begins, "[w]e enthusiastically endorse your economic growth and jobs proposal.."

Feb 2004:
DeLong seeks signatories to make a similarly enthusiastic endorsement of "another set of Bush administration budget proposals." cf http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000204.html

DeLong interprets Luskin's reservations about the Bush budget ("I'm not signing up for steel tariffs or a farm bill or Medicare prescription benefits or abstinence counseling in Baghdad [or] anything else.") as falling short of enthusiastic endorsement. ("Not even Donald Luskin will sign on to the Bush budget plan proposed last week.")
cf http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000278.html

Luskin gets pissy, because his headline was, "SIGN ME UP, DELONG."
cf http://www.[*].com/2004_02_08_chronArchive.asp#107656317449749872

DeLong corrects his post. ("Donald Luskin protests that I have misinterpreted him: that he is in fact an enthusiastic endorser of the proposed Bush 2005-2009 budgets.")

Luskin gets pissy again. ("DeLong has gone from fraudulently saying that I would not sign today last year's letter endorsing Bush's 'economic plan' to now fraudulently saying I am 'an enthusiastic supporter of the proposed Bush 2005-2009 budgets.'")
cf http://www.[*].com/2004_02_08_chronArchive.asp#107661368770903879

DeLong gets confused. ("He [has] now managed to deny (a) that he is not an enthusiastic endorser and (b) that he is an enthusiastic supporter.")

Dan says, "I don't see what's so difficult about saying that Luskin supports only the tax cuts."

Brad repeats himself using shorter words.

how precisely anyone is not arguing from the facts escapes me.

wcw

* as a capitalist, Luskin will understand that I refuse to promote his site unless he pays me. to find it, type 'luskin stupid' into Google and it'll be your first hit. copy-'n'paste the missing domain into the respective URLs.

Isn't Greenspan for Bush's tax cuts and against the excess spending?

here's his testimony to Congress.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2004/february/testimony.htm

I don't see it.

The original "250 Economists Endorse" statement made no mention of the Bush Budget:
"We enthusiastically endorse your economic growth and jobs proposal.  It is fiscally responsible and it will create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans.  Moreover, it will improve corporate accountability and strengthen the nation’s international competitiveness."

Then DeLong came along and implied that they all endorsed the budget:
"Last year the Bush administration rounded up all the tame economists it could find and had them sign a letter about how great the Bush administration's budget proposals were:"

And in the most recent incarnation, he mentioned both the economic plan AND the budget:
"Remember the text of last year's "economists' letter" supporting George W. Bush's then budget proposals? All who signed the letter announced that they supported Bush's economic policy..."

So I blame DeLong for the confusion. I'll happily retract the blame if DeLong has an explanation for this.

Not that hard to find. It was in the Q&A:

Greenspan Backs Bush Tax Cuts Extension

"I am in favor ... of continuing the tax cuts that are in dispute at this particular stage," Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in answer to a lawmaker's question, wading into a contentious election-year debate.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040212/bs_nm/economy_greenspan_dc_14

Luskin is like a character from Alice in Wonderland. Don't wast another minute or precious k's of memory on this moron.

Luskin was a toxic moron crank when I worked with him at WFNIA.

At least he's consistent.

>>I'll happily retract the blame if DeLong has an explanation for this.<<

Are you claiming that a *big* tax cut bill is not a budget proposal?

To me at least, my question is clear. The version in my latest post: "is there anybody out there who is enthusiastic about Bush administration economic policy, and this year's budget proposals that are its instantiation? Anybody at all? Please email me."

And the version in my first post: "if there is anyone--anyone at all--from the list of names below who enthusiastically supports the Bush budget as a fiscally-responsible program that will create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans, improve corporate accountability, and strengthen the nation's international competitiveness, please drop me a line so I can add you to this year's list. I'd like to know who is still on the sinking ship."

Seems to me you have to try really hard to even pretend to misunderstand.

I'm not claiming that a tax cut is not a budget proposal. It certainly is. I'm claiming that a budget is more than tax cuts; it includes a spending plan, which many (probably all) of us don't like.

The original letter mentioned nothing about spending, unless you think Bush's "economic growth and jobs proposal" included his spending plans. I'll bet none of those 250 economists did.

Glad to see gazzer believes anyone who holds elected public office must be absolutely brilliant.

>>So I blame DeLong for the confusion. I'll happily retract the blame if DeLong has an explanation for this.<<

Hey: Look at what I wrote that sent Luskin ballistic the first time: "Not even Donald Luskin will sign on to the Bush budget plan proposed last week..."

No ambiguity there.

Brad, Luskin alleges that you deleted his comments from this blog.

Is this true?

Yep. With some people the mendacity level is just too high to allow them to leave any comments at all. Luskin is surely one such--as this post should demonstrate.

Brad de Longq ?

Luskin is a nutcase. Stop trying to reason with the MadHatter, just ignore him, or get a restraining order if he stalks you.

Agreed, Luskin is a crackpot. Why stoop to his level? He very plainly neither claimed to be an "enthusiastic supporter" of the whole Bush agenda, nor claimed he won't sign that letter. There's no contradiction there: the misrepresentation here, Brad, is entirely on your part. If you want to talk of Luskin's "mendacity" you should first hold yourself to a higher level, but this instance is worse than anything he does: at least he provides links.

But he has to be one or the other, doesn't he? I mean, this is a yes/no thing: either you enthusiastically endorse the policies set out in the budget or you don't. This isn't one of those hard questions--like "Is 'no' the answer to this question?"

>>this is a yes/no thing: either you enthusiastically endorse the policies set out in the budget or you don't.<<

The original letter did not mention the "budget". It mentioned the "economic growth and jobs proposal". I don't think anyone would count steel tariffs, the farm bill, etc (Luskin's caveats) as part of that proposal. I'm glad Luskin opposed those things and, indeed, a consistent conservative/supply-sider should oppose such protectionism: these things were clearly not part of the economic agena, but were political appeasement of various pressure groups (I'm not saying the tax cuts don't fall into that category either, but at least there's an economic argument, or pseudo-argument, for them).

Anyway, I think you're wasting too much time on Luskin. The letter was signed by "economists" and it's rather debatable that he's one in the first place. Why not just write "this is what Luskin says, and he wants to sign the letter", and leave it at that?

Well, that would be fine--except he takes great offense when I put him in the category of those who want to sign a letter enthusiastically endorsing the economic policies and their instantiation in the budget proposals made at the start of last week.

>>Hey: Look at what I wrote that sent Luskin ballistic the first time: "Not even Donald Luskin will sign on to the Bush budget plan proposed last week...">Not even Donald Luskin will sign on to the Bush budget plan proposed last week: "...let's be clear.... I'm not signing up for steel tariffs or a farm bill or Medicare prescription benefits or abstinence counseling in Baghdad." But it is the same administration with the same policies that it had last year (better policies, in some respects: the free-trade forces within the administration are stronger than they were), when he signed on gladly. But I'm glad to have him aboard.<<

Luskin is not objecting to your claim that he won't sign onto the budget. My guess is that he went ballistic because you said he originally "signed on gladly" to the Bush budget plan.

I messed up the syntax in my previous post; please disregard it. Here's my second try:

>>Hey: Look at what I wrote that sent Luskin ballistic the first time: "Not even Donald Luskin will sign on to the Bush budget plan proposed last week..."<<

This implies that he DID sign onto it originally. And you even said he did, in the same paragraph. Here is the full paragraph for all to see:
'Not even Donald Luskin will sign on to the Bush budget plan proposed last week: "...let's be clear.... I'm not signing up for steel tariffs or a farm bill or Medicare prescription benefits or abstinence counseling in Baghdad." But it is the same administration with the same policies that it had last year (better policies, in some respects: the free-trade forces within the administration are stronger than they were), when he signed on gladly. But I'm glad to have him aboard.'

Luskin is not objecting to your claim that he won't sign onto the budget. My guess is that he went ballistic because you said he originally "signed on gladly" to the Bush budget plan.

>>is Luskin enthusiastic about Bush administration economic policy, and this year's budget proposals that are its instantiation.<<

You continue to misrepresent the "250 economists" letter and the people who signed it. This is the root of this whole bloody argument. Please provide evidence that the letter referred to more than the supply-side tax cuts.

>>You continue to misrepresent the "250 economists" letter and the people who signed it. This is the root of this whole bloody argument. Please provide evidence that the letter referred to more than the supply-side tax cuts.<<

I refuse to believe that you are that naive. Whether one is in favor of a tax cut or not depends on what is going on in the rest of fiscal policy as well.

I also would point out that only in the World of Null-A was the dividend tax cut "supply side"...

I thought Luskin was perfectly clear from the outset.

>>Luskin wrote, "Sign me up, Mr. DeLong." But he also wrote, "...let's be clear.... I'm not signing up for steel tariffs or a farm bill or Medicare prescription benefits or abstinence counseling in Baghdad."<<

He is signing up for his edited version of the Bush plan which, to my way of thinking, is actually signing up only for the Luskin plan.

Could always go read what Luskin has to say I suppose: http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_02_08_chronArchive.asp#107661368770903879

Only if you sign a waiver promising to read the website for amusement value only, and not for intellectual, political, economic, or financial advice. You need also to recognize that although past performance is no guarantee of future results, it is the way to bet--and that someone like Luskin who thinks that the time to start another high-tech mutual fund is at the peak of the late bubble is more than a few coefficients short of a full covariance matrix.

Or you could just delete the comment...

>>Whether one is in favor of a tax cut or not depends on what is going on in the rest of fiscal policy as well.<<

Certainly. Avoiding a deficit means having outlays that are in line with revenues. But Luskin thinks it's better to have (a) tax cuts and more spending than (b) no tax cuts and more spending. You probably disagree, which brings up the real issue:
If this is the real beef you have with Luskin, why don't you argue this point instead of accusing him of self-contradiction?

come on brad!

Absolutely nobody supports the entire budget: Republican or Democrat; white, black or brown; conservative or liberal.

Every group has their pile of pork they love and the other guy's government waste and excess.

Why would this Luskin guy be different?

Mr Delong,

Either link Donald Luskin's complete remarks or admit that you're distorting what he's writing/wrote! Either pay attention (in the military we call it "attention to detail") to the exact words he's (Luskin)been using and put his entire remarks on or admit defeat.

Do you so easily change your students' essays in such a way, in your classes?

I've been "cutting and pasting" all of your, and his, points and counterpoints via your respective blogs on a blank piece of paper, and done some comparisons. Human error is a given for all of us, of course, but, unless you want to reach to Paul Krugman-like fraud, you'd better just apologize and let's get on with real debates!

Mr Luskin isn't lying here, and he's been entirely consistent, and understandable (and, grammatically correct). If he hadn't been, I'd not have written this post.

Come on, now!

(We'll see if my entire remarks get on, folks. I've taken the precaution of cutting and pasting my own remarks, so I can let others know if it happens to me. Still, I do appreciate Mr Delong's time with his blog).

Genius hath electric power which earth can never tame.

Any certainty is a delusion.

Newness is relative.

Nice site. Keep up the good work.

To go to war with untrained people is tantamount to abandoning them.

online free poker

partypoker

texas holdem

texas holdem

contact lens

airline tickets

discount airline tickets

country house plans

cheapest airline tickets

house plans

cctv

Bankruptcy

used cars

Spyware

Health insurance

texas holdem

radar detector

Home based business

Bankruptcy