tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post1536776410128832574..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Taylor seems to agree with the Keynesians, but claims he doesn'tNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58173231361369902032011-07-07T06:24:20.685-04:002011-07-07T06:24:20.685-04:00On China, my understanding is most of its stimulus...On China, my understanding is most of its stimulus was bank-funded infrastructure projects. Such a strategy (as far as I know) would have worked just as well here <i>if we had deeply negative real interest rates like the Chinese do</i>, negating the need for federal subsidies on municipal bonds (as far as I know, infrastructure projects can be started <i>very</i> quickly if fully self-funded by local governments, as most of the red tape is attached to the use of federal and state funds).<br /><br />And of course, a functional and lax banking sector with loose lending standards would have been necessary as well.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15522209631824888717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-5814148197673631922011-07-06T17:22:43.071-04:002011-07-06T17:22:43.071-04:00Perhaps political "unfeasability" would ...Perhaps political "unfeasability" would be turned around with messaging as simple and potent as the economic nonsense mastered by the Republicans. How about saying that we will never start reducing the deficit anyway as long as we tolerate 9% unemployment; that people will be unable to fuel growth in the economy until they are making enough money to spend more and pay taxes -- and feeling confident they will continue to earn enough money to spend (and pay more taxes); that the economy will never grow enough to create jobs until we do something, collectively as a people, about 9% unemployment; that the national priority therefore must be on jobs, jobs, jobs, and not just make-work jobs, but good, high-paying, long-term jobs; that we have neglected our roads, bridges, electric grid, etc., etc., for over 30 years and merely catching up with other countries that have raced ahead of us -- i.e., doing things for the country that it genuinely needs for the future, not just picking up paper on the National Mall -- will require millions of good, high-paying, long-term, non-exportable jobs for many years to come? Do the sodding and paper-picking for the short-run (with shoring up the states to minimixe layoffs, plus cushioning unemployment), deep infrastructure for the next generation.<br /><br />No resonance likely if the President of the United States of America, in a national address with most Americans watching (like the State of the Union) makes a speech like that? Now that is as defeatist as it gets.KISSWebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13917779875188133814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74691580882745241342011-07-04T14:43:35.675-04:002011-07-04T14:43:35.675-04:00So the tax cuts, which Taylor supported, where ine...So the tax cuts, which Taylor supported, where ineffectual, the government spending, which Taylor opposed, was not sufficient, and the effectiveness of the Keynesian position is politically unfeasible because of the obstructionism of the Republican party to which Taylor gives economic and political cover. <br /><br />So, according to John Taylor, John Taylor is responsible for the failure of the stimulus to work. Sweet.Allan C. Lanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-11921254062347927892011-07-04T11:33:42.587-04:002011-07-04T11:33:42.587-04:00That Taylor post is from August, 2010, back when p...That Taylor post is from August, 2010, back when people took the numbers in it seriously, back when they didn't look at what he was actually proposing to do to seniors. Sure there's a political leaning in taking that nonsense seriously, but one could then because the numbers weren't obvious fabrications and the cost to human life wasn't clear.<br /><br />I don't know Taylor's beliefs now. Maybe he's one of those entitled people who thinks others with less money should simply live in poverty and poor health. Maybe he has an irrational belief in the benefits of reducing taxes for the ultra-rich and the very rich and the merely rich. Maybe not. <br /><br />I remember when that version of Ryan's plan came out. It said little. It pretended to have a CBO score but you had to read the links to understand CBO was using Ryan's own numbers because he refused to let them grade his tax plan. The plan then had no specifics about Medicare so you couldn't tell he meant shifting the costs to seniors. This was before we heard distortion after distortion about the plan: that it was "just like" Congress' own plan, that it wouldn't be a burden but an opportunity for seniors to deal with insurers.<br /><br />BTW, if you read Ryan's plans - later version passed by the GOP House included - the mandate the purchase of insurance. Weird, huh?jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01372999828751252978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88521234867046742212011-07-04T11:20:14.770-04:002011-07-04T11:20:14.770-04:00The key totally feeble effort at a rhetorical tric...The key totally feeble effort at a rhetorical trick in Taylor's response is "political and operational feasibility." He wants to argue that rapid increases in Government consumption are impossible (operationally unfeasible) except uh for China and WWII and dozens of other examples.<br /><br />So he slips "political" in to make the claim true and then argues as if he had a case that large spending increases are operationally unfeasible. <br /><br />This is pathetic. It is not rare for invalid arguments to be based on an equivocatin -- using two different meanings of one word. But to attempt it with the space bar, just writing two words and pretending they are one is unusually poor argument -- for a Republican.<br /><br />Of course what Taylor's work shows is that our problem is that there are still Republicans. A compromise between Blue dogs and Democratic Democrats would have ended the recession.<br /><br />I certainly agree with him that we can't deal with severe recessions (or many other problems) so long as the Republican party is anything like as powerful as it is.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64568472077851629092011-07-03T13:34:55.042-04:002011-07-03T13:34:55.042-04:00はい、がんばります!はい、がんばります!Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-91039258440556604362011-07-03T13:18:24.015-04:002011-07-03T13:18:24.015-04:00"あなたは経済学者ですか?"
いいえ、ただのサラリーマンです。
日本での研究..."あなたは経済学者ですか?"<br /><br />いいえ、ただのサラリーマンです。<br /><br />日本での研究が有意義かつ楽しいものになりますように!himaginaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409531853330541896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30976005056277053812011-07-03T01:53:39.547-04:002011-07-03T01:53:39.547-04:00ありがとう、himaginary!
今東京の青山学院大学で研究しています。
あなたは経済学者です...ありがとう、himaginary!<br /><br />今東京の青山学院大学で研究しています。<br /><br />あなたは経済学者ですか?Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-14750895347295149572011-07-02T22:05:23.027-04:002011-07-02T22:05:23.027-04:00"Mark Thoma points out that this is not the f..."Mark Thoma points out that this is not the first time John Taylor has criticized the ARRA for not including enough government purchases."<br /><br />Or, a year earlier:<br />http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/one-year-later-and-more-evidence-that.html<br /><br />What seems queer to me is that BEA already did similar analysis as early as in late 2009 and few have referred to it:<br />http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2009/12%20December/1209_gre.pdf<br /><br />FYI, I made some graphs from those BEA numbers in my Japanese blog (I know your Japanese is better than my English, so I don't bother to translate it):<br />http://d.hatena.ne.jp/himaginary/20100214/ARRA_and_GDPhimaginaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409531853330541896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80243093636283687592011-07-02T15:47:45.889-04:002011-07-02T15:47:45.889-04:00Did he forget an intercept?Did he forget an intercept?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88533926017876679022011-07-02T14:14:09.452-04:002011-07-02T14:14:09.452-04:00Daniel Kuehn has a quick methodological critique:
...Daniel Kuehn has a quick methodological critique:<br /><br />http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-really-dont-understand-how-john.htmlAndrew Bossiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00353842153288646125noreply@blogger.com