2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJames Galbraith Smacks Down the Faux-Liberal Economists In Analysis of Sanders
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>
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>
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
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Giant, Well Deserved Smackdown!
Nanjeanne
(4,962 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)I agree, it was a joy to read.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,962 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Just like his father.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)It has all kinds of good stuff.
Nanjeanne
(4,962 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Thank you so much for posting this. This just made my day.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)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)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)himself an FDR economist. What is he doing now? Why support Hillary?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)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.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)what is wrong today, and what Bernie wants to fix (with our help) -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture_of_Contentment
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.
ghostsinthemachine
(3,569 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)This is from a diary on Daily Kos about this issue:
Im 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 didnt 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 isnt 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
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)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)... now THAT'S beautiful ...
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Thank you, Mr. Galbraith!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)A great deal that he's used to help make this a better world.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)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.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Duppers
(28,125 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)I eagerly await his response
Great letter - an utter smackdown
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)JudyM
(29,251 posts)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)everything, IF you already have it.
JudyM
(29,251 posts)I'm hoping the former. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... is not even CLOSE to "rigor", thorough, or even a good High School essay on "Mud-pies -- Pro or Con?" ...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)His Not-A-Real-Nobel Prize was for supporting "Free Trade" bullshit.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts).. 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 ...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)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.