Values Added: Special Shame Edition (Ann Althouse & Glenn Loury)

[Bloggingheads]

[bkjazfan]

In recent history high profile conservative blacks are considered to be "off the reservation." There are a few that come to mind: Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas. In the 80's and perhaps today they are hit with derogatory terms like boot lickers and Uncle Toms. Ebony Magazine every year rates the 100 most inflential blacks in the country and Clarence Thomas has never made the list. Feature that: a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is not considered influential. I would venture to say if he was as liberal justice his name would certainly be on the list.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Ebony Magazine every year rates the 100 most inflential blacks in the country and Clarence Thomas has never made the list.

He made the cover of Emerge.

[Brn]

Since Glen mentioned the story, it is worth pointing out that Newt Gingrich's daughter says that the whole Gingrich divorced his wife on her deathbed story is wrong

[bkjazfan]

That picture from Emerge is par for the course.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

That picture from Emerge is par for the course.

The cover was from 1996, by way of providing additional information. It's a little later than the 80s that you referred to, but closer to then than to now.

[badhatharry]

I love Glenn in this diavlog. He ends this wonderful rant with the question:

"What is revealed about the intellectual inadequacy of this grand edifice we've constructed."

Hayek answered the question this way: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

The most important lesson in all of this is humility.

[harkin]

I really think you have to put the Emerge cover in its proper context, a successful black man who thinks for himself and practices/espouses conservative values must be destroyed lest he influence other blacks to think/act likewise. A valuable and taken-for-granted voting bloc of government dependents must not be allowed to think for themselves. Notice its usually the left that trots out the ugliest racial stereotypes? Now watching them try and brand non-black Cain supporters as racists wishing to conceal their racism is a lesson in mental contortion.

And there are still people supporting Day Of Rage/Occupy/Obamaville? Imagine if the Tea Party had murders, rapes, assaults, riots, disease, filth, crime, negative effects on local businesses etc. Even UC Berkeley is sick of these useful idiots who equate freedom of speech with freedom to camp and trespass while handing someone else the bill.

Now that some in the movement (when they aren't figuring out ways to steal the cash) are saying they will move to college campuses, you have to wonder if the schools are looking forward to an occupation by mobs who want to do plenty but alas never want to pay the bill. Those administrators and public unions sure arent going to want to actually have to financially support the cause they celebrate when it's on someone else's turf.

"What is revealed about the intellectual inadequacy of this grand edifice we've constructed."

Glenn's beautiful use of language always delights, especially when it can be used to describe the nanny state.

[Starwatcher162536]

I wonder if it's an act; I've seen Perry speak off script where he seemed, not eloquent, but informed over a number of different issues. It's possible he is only acting ... dumb. Many areas where Perry's base is located when he was campaigning for Governor have a less of stellar view of education. In these areas where much of Perry's instincts were cultivated being smart and knowledgeable is viewed as somewhat effeminate and do not mesh well with Perry's tough guy cowboy public image.

[chamblee54]

Mr. Loury talks about the noteworthiness of Mr. Cain's campaign vis a vis the phenomenon of BHO becoming the POTUS.
I agree that it is noteworthy that the full blooded descendent of slaves is the darling of the "conservative" party, compared to a half white candidate being nominated by the "liberal" party. My thought is that BHO blazed the trail for dark skinned people to hit the political bigtime. We would not have Herman Cain as the darling of the Repubs if it were not for the success of BHO four years ago.
I smiled when I saw this pairing. Ms. Althouse and Mr. Loury are always entertaining.
chamblee54

[Starwatcher162536]

...maybe because people are tired of hearing about how historic this all is? I myself have already incurred much fatigue hearing about Obama's blackness. Not much interested in hearing about it all over again with respect to Cain.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I wonder if it's an act; I've seen Perry speak off script where he seemed, not eloquent, but informed over a number of different issues. It's possible he is only acting ... dumb. Many areas where Perry's base is located when he was campaigning for Governor have a less of stellar view of education. In these areas where much of Perry's instincts were cultivated being smart and knowledgeable is viewed as somewhat effeminate and do not mesh well with Perry's tough guy cowboy public image.

In this day and age if you can't debate you can't run. It's sort of come down to that, unfortunately.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

Glenn's beautiful use of language always delights, especially when it can be used to describe the nanny state.

I think Glenn was talking, not just about government intervention, but monetary policy. Unless we want to go back to carrying around gold in our pockets we need to have a monetary system. The question is how it should operate. What should the Fed do? Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has? Should we tie the monetary supply to the NGDP as Scott Sumner is advocating?

The people who make these decisions and suggestions come out of the academy, as Glenn points out. What do they really know and what skin do any of them have in the game as they manipulate things? Usually, no matter how things go if their recommendations are followed, they walk away clean. Should we put our trust in any of them? Things may go well for a while, but I suspect there will always be a day of reckoning...unintended consequences.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has?

What do you think the difference is between these two things?

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I wonder if it's an act; I've seen Perry speak off script where he seemed, not eloquent, but informed over a number of different issues. It's possible he is only acting ... dumb. Many areas where Perry's base is located when he was campaigning for Governor have a less of stellar view of education. In these areas where much of Perry's instincts were cultivated being smart and knowledgeable is viewed as somewhat effeminate and do not mesh well with Perry's tough guy cowboy public image.

I actually think the focus on intelligence in the discussion is overemphasizing that bit wrt Perry's problems. The huge debate flub wasn't about intelligence, and neither are some of the other debate screw ups (like the attempt to call Romney a flip-flopper). He's not a great debater, apparently, and way behind in getting up to speed.

Then again, I don't actually think Obama's appeal was based on the idea that he's smart. I thought that was a weird claim. Basically, people who like Obama already include that as something they find appealing, but it's not the motivating force. Also, I don't think anyone assumes intelligence makes one a good president, all else equal. Clinton usually gets credit for being smart and successful, but the intelligence of Nixon and Carter is often remarked upon by their critics.

Originally Posted by Brn

Since Glen mentioned the story, it is worth pointing out that Newt Gingrich's daughter says that the whole Gingrich divorced his wife on her deathbed story is wrong

I don't see a denial. But of course, someone of Gingrich's stellar moral character wouldn't do something like that.

[chamblee54]

Originally Posted by Brn

Since Glen mentioned the story, it is worth pointing out that Newt Gingrich's daughter says that the whole Gingrich divorced his wife on her deathbed story is wrong

The comments to that article are enlightening.
Apparently, the first wife has told this story before. The daughter is telling a different story. Also, the daughter does not dispute that the divorce was discussed at the hospital visit, or that papers were signed. Also, there are reports that Mr. Gingrich did not like to pay child support.
The first wife is still alive.
chamblee54

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Then again, I don't actually think Obama's appeal was based on the idea that he's smart. I thought that was a weird claim. Basically, people who like Obama already include that as something they find appealing, but it's not the motivating force. Also, I don't think anyone assumes intelligence makes one a good president, all else equal. Clinton usually gets credit for being smart and successful, but the intelligence of Nixon and Carter is often remarked upon by their critics.

I suspect that different Obama supporters had different reasons. For me, "smart" wasn't exactly it, but it was certainly close. After 8 years of W., it was refreshing to me that there would be someone in the office who was thoughtful and somewhat reflective. Maybe because I am kind of an academic and so is the president, so it's some kind of cultural affinity that's idiosyncratic to me.

As for intelligence making a good president; i don't think it's sufficient, but I do think it's necessary. (again, intellgience in a broader sense than assessed by the WAIS; thoughtfulness/reflectiveness/openness to new information). Which brings me back to W.

I have to think being the anti-W was a big part of Obama's appeal more broadly and this was part of that.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

What do you think the difference is between these two things?

How do you expect someone who doesn't know what the FDIC is to answer this question?

The current dual mandate of the Fed is maximum employment and stable prices, which speaks to inflation. It tries to find the sweet spot between those two tasks by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.

Krugman has all sorts of recommendations to boost the economy primarily in the realm of having the government either borrow money or use tax revenue to stimulate the economy, thereby increasing (theoretically) aggregate demand. In my uneducated opinion, I think Krugman's recommendations are much more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with.

They have in common that they are short term remedies which need to be adjusted as conditions change.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I suspect that different Obama supporters had different reasons. For me, "smart" wasn't exactly it, but it was certainly close.

One reason I'd debate the focus on intelligence is that it doesn't seem to distinguish him from Hillary, to me. The kinds of things you mention, the temperament, I think gets at it more and is a somewhat different issue. But like you said, I'm sure this varies from person to person.

I have to think being the anti-W was a big part of Obama's appeal more broadly and this was part of that.

Agreed, but I don't think the issue is intelligence per se.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

One reason I'd debate the focus on intelligence is that it doesn't seem to distinguish him from Hillary, to me. The kinds of things you mention, the temperament, I think gets at it more and is a somewhat different issue. But like you said, I'm sure this varies from person to person.

Well, yes. Although in my case, I would have been almost as happy with Hillary. I think it's a temperament thing with Obama that gets labeled "intellligence" (I think we agree somewhat inaccurately).

But then, I think in the general, almost any Dem nominee was going to benefit from a similar constrast with Bush, it's just that Obama had some academic signifiers. Well, any nominee except Edwards or Gravel. Neither of them are smart people. For different reasons.

[Brn]

It is always good to see the attitude "I don't like X, therefore I will continue to believe every horrible thing about X that I hear, regardless of the evidence" out in the open. Please continue, because you are self-refuting.

Originally Posted by Brn

It is always good to see the attitude "I don't like X, therefore I will continue to believe every horrible thing about X that I hear, regardless of the evidence" out in the open. Please continue, because you are self-refuting.

Well, we don't have any evidence, because the piece you cited did not even include an explicit denial, and there are multiple sources confirming that he indeed did serve her with divorce papers, but we can all rest assured that this never happened, because of Newt's impeccable moral standards. He just does not seem like the kind of man who would do something like this.

[chamblee54]

Originally Posted by Brn

It is always good to see the attitude "I don't like X, therefore I will continue to believe every horrible thing about X that I hear, regardless of the evidence" out in the open. Please continue, because you are self-refuting.

The bad news is not an issue. If you don't like someone to begin with, you are not going to start liking them because of rumors of dirty conduct. ( an exception might be if the dirty conduct is something you approve of.)
One example might be Katrina. I really don't think W did that bad of a job. However, I was angry with W because of the war in Babylon. If someone wanted to trash him because of Katrina, I enjoyed it.
I have not liked Mr. Cain since his days in radio. I am not going to start liking him because I think the dog stories are not true. (For the record, I am neutral about the veracity of the dog stories. I also don't care.)
This story makes him look worse. I thought it was pretty cool to catch Mr. Cain telling a lie. I have since decided it would be tougher to catch him telling the truth.
chamblee54

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

How do you expect someone who doesn't know what the FDIC is to answer this question?

My expectations and your answer line up quite well.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The current dual mandate of the Fed is maximum employment and stable prices, which speaks to inflation. It tries to find the sweet spot between those two tasks by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.

Krugman has all sorts of recommendations to boost the economy primarily in the realm of having the government either borrow money or use tax revenue to stimulate the economy, thereby increasing (theoretically) aggregate demand. In my uneducated opinion, I think Krugman's recommendations are much more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with.

The Fed doesn't tax or spend. It buys and sells US debt, and acts as a lender of last resort. So when Krugman advocates fiscal stimulus, that's an argument that Congress should do something, not the Fed.

[harkin]

Not a fan of Newt, too wishy-washy and willing to say things not clearly thought out ahead-of-time. Plus he was clearly in the right when Bill Clinton called his bluff and he folded like a cheap suit, allowing government spending growth to continue to the disaster we see today.

And if he's nominated, how will he ever compete with Saint Zero on the morality and intelligence scale?

"a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party."

Channeling $16 bil to your political cronies (alright it's actually hundreds of billions but this is one example actually admitted to by the liberal msm) - OK

Discussing divorce with a cancer patient - not fit for office.

Change You Can Believe In!

[BornAgainDemocrat]

I don't get Ann's point that OWS has to have an end. I don't see that it has to be continuous either. What's wrong with spontaneous repetition, not going away but gradually building? Change venues, etc..

[Brn]

Really? "My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive" is not a refutation of what Glen said (and Chris Matthes and many, many others say) http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/398...:39&out=17:45? "As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me... I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer", which was prior to the hospital visit, isn't a refutation of the "Newt served his wife with divorce papers in the hospital" story? And that this divorce "which [my mom] requested" isn't a refutation? What do you want, a video tape of the event?

Maybe both Mr. Gingrich and his daughter are wrong, but if two people at an event say X happened and one says Y, which is more likely to be the truth?

This attitude that you are exhibiting is the one thing that drives me nuts about political discussions. It isn't enough to disagree with Mr. Gingrich's political views. Instead he has to be turned into a Bond villain, to hell with the facts. This is exactly the same as when Rush Limbaugh accuses the president of trying to deliberately ruin the economy. It isn't enough just say that he is implementing bad policies - his motives have to be evil.

Originally Posted by Brn

Really? "My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive" is not a refutation of what Glen said (and Chris Matthes and many, many others say) http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/398...:39&out=17:45?

I don't know what Glen said (I didn't listen to the whole dialog), but based on what you are citing as a refutation, I presume he said that Newt's wife was dying. Obviously, that's not true (what would be the point of asking for a divorce, if she's dying anyway), but that was not the point I was arguing.

Originally Posted by Brn

"As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me... I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer", which was prior to the hospital visit, isn't a refutation of the "Newt served his wife with divorce papers in the hospital" story?

No, because the allegation isn't that Newt filed for divorce when she was recovering from surgery, but that he pressured her to sign papers related to the divorce (i.e., divorce papers).

Originally Posted by Brn

And that this divorce "which [my mom] requested" isn't a refutation?

See the above. Also, it's only natural that his wife would file for divorce, since Newt is not burdened in any way by being married.

Originally Posted by Brn

Maybe both Mr. Gingrich and his daughter are wrong, but if two people at an event say X happened and one says Y, which is more likely to be the truth?

When there is the word of an adult who is not accused of wrongdoing against the word of an adulterous wretch and a 13-year-old girl (who may or may not have been present), I trust the adult. I also trust the adult more because it's consistent with Newt's reckless disregard for his marriages and marital partners. Also, although I am hardly an expert on Newt's various actions, when I looked into it, it appeared that the allegations of the first wife were supported by at least one other individual.

Originally Posted by Brn

This attitude that you are exhibiting is the one thing that drives me nuts about political discussions. It isn't enough to disagree with Mr. Gingrich's political views.

Who says that I disagree with his political views, insofar as they are consistent and coherent? He's mostly an opportunist without core convictions anyway, so I wouldn't know with what I should disagree.

Originally Posted by Brn

Instead he has to be turned into a Bond villain, to hell with the facts.

Of course he's a Bond villain, he's a politician, for Pete's sake.

Originally Posted by Brn

This is exactly the same as when Rush Limbaugh accuses the president of trying to deliberately ruin the economy. It isn't enough just say that he is implementing bad policies - his motives have to be evil.

No, that's just stupid, not evil. If Obama were deliberately trying to ruin the economy (and succeeded), he'd destroy his own re-election chances. As for Newt, he didn't do this to his wife because he wanted to hurt her, but simply because he didn't care enough about her not to do it. He did what was to his own advantage and recklessly disregarded the interest of his then-wife. Just like he didn't care enough about her to remain faithful to her - same thing with the mistress with whom he was cheating on his first wife, he cheated on her, too.

Because he loved his country too much. Right.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I can't imagine anyone actually cares about the marital history of a politician after the Clinton affair. We need to establish a unified standard here.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

The comments to that article are enlightening.
Apparently, the first wife has told this story before. The daughter is telling a different story. Also, the daughter does not dispute that the divorce was discussed at the hospital visit, or that papers were signed. Also, there are reports that Mr. Gingrich did not like to pay child support.
The first wife is still alive.
chamblee54

From what I've seen of people, even those who like their kids don't like paying child support. Not necessarily because they feel they shouldn't have to, but because they see the ex-wife spending the money in ways that don't always have anything to do with the child.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I always liked Newt, probably because I began my interest in politics from 1992 to 1994, and volunteered for some local GOP candidates when I was a youngster. His problem is that he lacks discipline when it comes to message. He's too smart for the political process, really.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

The Fed doesn't tax or spend. It buys and sells US debt, and acts as a lender of last resort. So when Krugman advocates fiscal stimulus, that's an argument that Congress should do something, not the Fed.

I never said the Fed taxes or spends. Perhaps you can show me how you came to think that I did.

As for Krugman, I thought you'd be familiar with his views of how the Fed should act to stimulate the economy. For instance, he thinks that the economy will do better if the dollar is devalued, He was also quite the fan of quantitative easing, another Fed activity.

Presumably Krugman thinks these actions will stimulate the economy in the ways in which he thinks the economy should be stimulated. Stimulation R Us.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I always liked Newt, probably because I began my interest in politics from 1992 to 1994, and volunteered for some local GOP candidates when I was a youngster. His problem is that he lacks discipline when it comes to message. He's too smart for the political process, really.

Don'tcha just wish Gingrich was the same but different?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I never said the Fed taxes or spends. Perhaps you can show me how you came to think that I did.

If you insist. This exchange began when, after specifically identifying your comment as dealing with monetary policy, you described the dual mandate, the Krugman view, and NGDP targeting as competing theories of how the Fed should act.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think Glenn was talking, not just about government intervention, but monetary policy. Unless we want to go back to carrying around gold in our pockets we need to have a monetary system. The question is how it should operate. What should the Fed do? Should it be in the business of boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests? Should it have the dual mandates it currently has? Should we tie the monetary supply to the NGDP as Scott Sumner is advocating?

I asked you what you thought the difference was between "boosting the economy as someone like Krugman suggests" and the dual mandate was, because of course Krugman and I think that more aggressive policy would be perfectly consistent with the dual mandate to stabilize prices and keep unemployment low, and that current Fed policy is not. You responded by describing the Krugman position as advocating fiscal stimulus and describing such policies as "more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with."

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The current dual mandate of the Fed is maximum employment and stable prices, which speaks to inflation. It tries to find the sweet spot between those two tasks by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.

Krugman has all sorts of recommendations to boost the economy primarily in the realm of having the government either borrow money or use tax revenue to stimulate the economy, thereby increasing (theoretically) aggregate demand. In my uneducated opinion, I think Krugman's recommendations are much more proactive than the role the Fed is tasked with.

I responded by saying that you were describing fiscal policy, which isn't what the Fed does, and then you switched to discussing a different position of Krugman's entirely: that the Fed should be pursuing a more expansionary monetary policy:

Originally Posted by badhatharry

As for Krugman, I thought you'd be familiar with his views of how the Fed should act to stimulate the economy. For instance, he thinks that the economy will do better if the dollar is devalued, He was also quite the fan of quantitative easing, another Fed activity.

Presumably Krugman thinks these actions will stimulate the economy in the ways in which he thinks the economy should be stimulated. Stimulation R Us.

A couple things about Krugman's views. For one, they are, as I suggested earlier, entirely consistent with the dual mandate, because Krugman bases these arguments on observations that inflation is too low and unemployment is too high. In other words, he is arguing that the Fed's excessive inflation hawkishness is violating the dual mandate. Also, the devaluation Krugman is discussing is inflation. Higher inflation is, of course, the result of more expansionary monetary policy, and Krugman thinks, correctly, that more quantitative easing and a commitment by the fed to tolerate higher inflation would have a beneficial effect on the economy.

But Krugman's advocacy of fiscal stimulus and more aggressive Fed action are distinct from each other. They describe different policies, and one could easily favor one while opposing the other, yet you seem unable to distinguish between the two.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Don'tcha just wish Gingrich was the same but different?

If you could erase the last 5 years of Gingrich's life, and subtract one marriage, he would be the perfect President of the United States.

[thouartgob]

Random updates on the topics discussed

Cain has his mind-swirling trying to remember which side of the Libyan conflict Obama was on

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1djyUhfN2

From the piece quoting Cain

“OK, Libya. President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Qadhafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say, ‘yes I agree,’ or ‘no I didn’t agree.’ I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason – nope, that’s a different one. I gotta go back to, see … Got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically, what are you asking me, did I agree or not disagree with Obama on?”

After the questioner rephrased the question, Cain said: “Here’s what I would have – I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is and I’m sure that our intelligence people have some of that information. Based upon who made up that opposition, OK, based upon who made up that opposition, might have caused me to make some different decisions about how we participated.

“Secondly, no, I did not agree with Qadhafi killing his citizens. Absolutely not. So something would have had to been – I would have supported many of the things they did in order to help stop that. It’s not a simple yes-no, because there are different pieces and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of the opposition?”

Now the actual video here is a little more enlightening and not as painful as watching Perry.

http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/v...=1275195602001

I don't think Cain is dumb but he has some issues when it comes to his being POTUS. One of the big issues that stands out here is that he has no interest what-so-ever in affairs of state in the way of say Sarah ... my mind is swirling here ... what was that name ? It's tough since I haven't heard it in the last 2 months or so ... Palin !!

[thouartgob]

Just a few Penn State related updates:

Sandusky Speaks

He only showers with boys and is Just A Big Kid At Heart

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AE02D20111115


A post that hits on 2 topics of the diavlog; Penn State and tangentially OWS.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...uth-penn-state

I post the following to enjoy the rhetoric a second time.

It happens because institutions lie. And today, our major institutions lie because of a culture in which loyalty to "the company," and protection of "the brand" — that noxious business-school shibboleth that turns employees into brainlocked elements of sales and marketing campaigns — trumps conventional morality, traditional ethics, civil liberties, and even adherence to the rule of law. It is better to protect "the brand" than it is to protect free speech, the right to privacy, or even to protect children.

If Mike McQueary had seen a child being raped in a boardroom or a storeroom, he wouldn't have been any more likely to have stopped it, or to have called the cops, than he was as a graduate assistant football coach at Penn State. With unemployment edging toward double digits, and only about 10 percent of the workforce unionized, every American who works for a major company knows the penalty for exercising his personal freedom, or his personal morality, at the expense of "the company." Independent thought is discouraged. Independent action is usually crushed. Nobody wants to damage the brand. Your supervisor might find out, and his primary loyalty is to the company. Which is why he got promoted to be your supervisor in the first place.

It is not a failure of our institutions so much as it is a window into what they have become — soulless, profit-driven monsters, Darwinian predators with precious little humanity left in them. Penn State is only the most recent example. Too much of this country is too big to fail.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

If you insist. This exchange began when, after specifically identifying your comment as dealing with monetary policy, you described the dual mandate, the Krugman view, and NGDP targeting as competing theories of how the Fed should act.

I never said they were competing theories, merely examples of the different ways in which economists' actions and theories affect the economy. The dual mandate isn't a theory, it's a mandate, although I guess when it was established there was a theory that it would be a great thing.

And I have shown you that Krugman's view of boosting the economy includes Fed policy changes. You asked me what the difference was between two specific examples I gave. I can now see that I misconstrued your question but that does not mean that I don't know the difference between monetary and fiscal policy.

So apparently you were asking me what about Krugman's view differs from the dual mandate. Well, I never said it did. I would imagine that everything Krugman advocates he believes will stabilize prices and encourage maximum employment eventually. Besides, the question itself actually doesn't make sense. It's like asking what the difference is between weight loss and the Atkins diet. The Fed has mandates. Krugman has ideas about how to achieve them. Am I wrong about this?

My main point was that economists think that their prescriptions will work because they think they will work. They study, make charts, analyze data and make educated guesses on both monetary and fiscal policy. They enter the halls of the government and help make laws based on their best guesses. Glenn spoke of the grand edifices they erect. And we need them because we need a central bank and a way to fund what the government does. The problem is that they affect us all in ways that we never imagine and sometimes they make things worse than if they had just stayed away. But they won't.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

...maybe because people are tired of hearing about how historic this all is? I myself have already incurred much fatigue hearing about Obama's blackness. Not much interested in hearing about it all over again with respect to Cain.

It is nice that Cain does well (or was doing well ) in the polls but when republicans start actually voting then we can start discussing about extend of Cain's historicity.