Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nanjeanne

(4,962 posts)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:50 PM Feb 2016

James Galbraith Smacks Down the Faux-Liberal Economists In Analysis of Sanders

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday's date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald
Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the
congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study. I found nothing there.

<SNIP>
It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme. On the contrary, with
respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case. Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his
work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.

For the record, in case you're curious, I'm not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

<SNIP>
When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today's political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Read whole letter here: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

James Galbraith: American economist who writes frequently for the popular press on economic topics. He is currently a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and at the Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin. He is also a Senior Scholar with the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and part of the executive committee of the World Economics Association, created in 2011. Son of John Galbraith
38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
James Galbraith Smacks Down the Faux-Liberal Economists In Analysis of Sanders (Original Post) Nanjeanne Feb 2016 OP
Wow noretreatnosurrender Feb 2016 #1
Yeah. It was a joy to read! Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #2
Taken to the woodshed noretreatnosurrender Feb 2016 #4
Galbraith fans will luv this... Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #18
Wonderful. Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #30
k n r snagglepuss Feb 2016 #3
He is a VERY smart man. hifiguy Feb 2016 #5
Read the entire letter noretreatnosurrender Feb 2016 #6
It was hard to pull excerpts . . . it's all just perfectly perfect. Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #7
Perfectly perfect noretreatnosurrender Feb 2016 #8
Yup, economists not trapped in the revolving door... tokenlib Feb 2016 #9
Krugman should be embarrassed too. Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #10
What I have trouble with is that Krugman has always called jwirr Feb 2016 #21
His prerogative, and he always seemed like a play it safe guy, Obama he did not get behind either. Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #24
Cabinet post? It's his turn ?? N/t tokenlib Feb 2016 #29
I believe that a read of The Culture of Contentment, by John Galbraith, would clarify just djean111 Feb 2016 #11
ding a ling... (Kand R) NT ghostsinthemachine Feb 2016 #12
From Daily Kos noretreatnosurrender Feb 2016 #13
K&R n/t myrna minx Feb 2016 #14
So that's an endorsement then. Gregorian Feb 2016 #15
"They throw a kitchen sink at Bernie, and he remodels the kitchen with it. " Jopin Klobe Feb 2016 #31
Busted!!! Waiting For Everyman Feb 2016 #16
What's the son of a New Deal Keynesian know? Octafish Feb 2016 #17
+1 mmonk Feb 2016 #37
First rank historian, too. Octafish Feb 2016 #38
K&R abelenkpe Feb 2016 #19
K & R Duppers Feb 2016 #20
Krugman's not going to be able to resist this Arazi Feb 2016 #22
Me too. n/t Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #26
Damn! frylock Feb 2016 #23
Is he assuming there was no rigor just because there was no reference at the bottom of the page? JudyM Feb 2016 #25
Possibly, but when you're going after someone like that you would or should present Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #27
I agree, but it's not clear whether they were actually incorrect and just didn't provide citations. JudyM Feb 2016 #34
"rigor" with no footnotes/references ... Jopin Klobe Feb 2016 #32
Krugman was never a Progressive. Odin2005 Feb 2016 #28
"Free Trade" ... Jopin Klobe Feb 2016 #33
Kick kristopher Feb 2016 #35
I'm old I suppose but James's father and Keynes were the economics mmonk Feb 2016 #36

tokenlib

(4,186 posts)
9. Yup, economists not trapped in the revolving door...
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:11 PM
Feb 2016

Trickle Down is still the "Horse and Pigeon theory" that his father spoke of. You feed them both enough food, and they leave nothing but crap for the masses.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
10. Krugman should be embarrassed too.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:12 PM
Feb 2016

Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
February 18, 2016

The Honorable Alan Krueger
The Honorable Austan Goolbee
The Honorable Christina Romer
The Honorable Laura D'Andrea Tyson

Dear Alan, Austan, Christina and Laura,
I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday's date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald
Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the
congressional counterpart to the CEA.

You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and
Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to
your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study. I found nothing there.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
21. What I have trouble with is that Krugman has always called
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:33 PM
Feb 2016

himself an FDR economist. What is he doing now? Why support Hillary?

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
24. His prerogative, and he always seemed like a play it safe guy, Obama he did not get behind either.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:53 PM
Feb 2016

I have no idea why he thinks Hillary is a safe bet any longer, he should look at the polls
and her trustworthiness numbers for the GE.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
11. I believe that a read of The Culture of Contentment, by John Galbraith, would clarify just
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:12 PM
Feb 2016

what is wrong today, and what Bernie wants to fix (with our help) -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture_of_Contentment

Prof Galbraith traces the growth of a stultifying contentment in the western industrial world represented by the G7 group of countries. He pays particular attention to the self-serving economic comfort achieved by the fortunate and politically dominant community and contrasts this to the condition of the underclass which he sees as being for the first time in these countries stalled in poverty.


This is an essay published in 1992. As true today as it was then. Doubled and tripled down, actually.
I am not voting for more of the same.

noretreatnosurrender

(1,890 posts)
13. From Daily Kos
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:38 PM
Feb 2016

This is from a diary on Daily Kos about this issue:

I’m not an economist, and quite frankly economic talk makes my head spin pretty quickly. I think this is a trait I share with the majority of Americans. Because of that, we rely on people who are gifted enough to analyze the data and then present it for public consumption in a way that is easily digested. Obviously this relationship only works if the people presenting the data have honored the public trust and put in the work to make an informed decision in the first place.

That didn’t happen here. This was nothing but a group with obvious business and political allegiances writing a piece to hit Sanders. I would call it an “artful smear,” but in hindsight it isn’t really artful at all. Brazen? Sure. Crass? Yeah. Not artful, though. Just ugly.


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/19/1487878/-Joint-Economic-Committee-Executive-Director-Calls-Out-Krugman-et-al-Over-Hit-Piece

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
15. So that's an endorsement then.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:41 PM
Feb 2016


I love how even in the debates, Bernie turns every available opportunity to spread message. Oh yeah, this feels that way. It starts out with Krugman scaring me before noon, with his thumbs down on Bernie's plan, and a week later it's bouncing back in his face, with Bernie (now dressed as Shaft) walks up the stairs to Fox Brown's place. What were we talking about again...

They throw a kitchen sink at Bernie, and he remodels the kitchen with it.

Jopin Klobe

(779 posts)
31. "They throw a kitchen sink at Bernie, and he remodels the kitchen with it. "
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 09:15 PM
Feb 2016

... now THAT'S beautiful ...

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
17. What's the son of a New Deal Keynesian know?
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:49 PM
Feb 2016

A great deal that he's used to help make this a better world.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
38. First rank historian, too.
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:33 PM
Feb 2016
Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.


James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

Fall of 1963. What a coincidence.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
22. Krugman's not going to be able to resist this
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:35 PM
Feb 2016

I eagerly await his response



Great letter - an utter smackdown

JudyM

(29,251 posts)
25. Is he assuming there was no rigor just because there was no reference at the bottom of the page?
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:54 PM
Feb 2016

Or does he know that for a fact? Maybe they actually did evaluate it rather than dismissing it out of hand...?

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
27. Possibly, but when you're going after someone like that you would or should present
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 08:09 PM
Feb 2016

everything, IF you already have it.

JudyM

(29,251 posts)
34. I agree, but it's not clear whether they were actually incorrect and just didn't provide citations.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 11:02 PM
Feb 2016

I'm hoping the former. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Jopin Klobe

(779 posts)
32. "rigor" with no footnotes/references ...
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 09:19 PM
Feb 2016

... is not even CLOSE to "rigor", thorough, or even a good High School essay on "Mud-pies -- Pro or Con?" ...

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
28. Krugman was never a Progressive.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 08:24 PM
Feb 2016

His Not-A-Real-Nobel Prize was for supporting "Free Trade" bullshit.

Jopin Klobe

(779 posts)
33. "Free Trade" ...
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 09:22 PM
Feb 2016

.. that phrase always makes me laugh (ruefully) ...

... you would, too, if you ever saw the MOUNTAINS of books of REGULATIONS regarding "Free Trade" ...

... the only thing even CLOSE to "free" are the slaves that they use ...

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
36. I'm old I suppose but James's father and Keynes were the economics
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 02:54 PM
Feb 2016

I learned in college before corporations started providing money and "chairs" to sell their brand of economics in academia. Our economic theories have never been disproven, just swamped by corporate money to get rid of "liberal" professors.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»James Galbraith Smacks Do...