tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post3783521369557229873..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Why do people support austerity? A conjecture.Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-8287488868513346482013-07-07T04:23:56.160-04:002013-07-07T04:23:56.160-04:00In my opinion, the support of austerity has nothin...In my opinion, the support of austerity has nothing to do with wasting crisis opportunities or perception of austerity as a morally virtuous idea. This support is linked to long-term stability instead of short-term gains. Current support of austerity policies is perfectly aligned with the current position of the U.S. economy in the economic cycle. Figure 1 illustrates the phases of economic cycle. <br /> <br />Figure 1. Economic cycle <br />(source: http://www.retailinvestor.org/images/businesscycle.jpg) <br />Currently, the U.S. economy is moving from the early upswing to the late upswing phase. There are all signs of this: there is slow growth of inflation rate, Treasury yields show gradual increase, commodities show a tendency to increase as well, stock market demonstrates rather strong performance, and property prices started picking up in 2012. <br />What is the major goal of economic policy? It is commonly thought that core goals are maintaining stable GDP growth, moderating inflation and keeping employment as close to the full employment level as possible. However, at different stages of economic cycle, it is reasonable to set different objectives in order to reach long-term development. During recession, the major task is to reduce the depth of the trough, and this opinion is commonly supported. <br />The major arguments are around the actions during the recovery phase: should the government try to accelerate economic growth as much as possible, or should it slow the growth to achieve a prolonged period of recovery. <br />In my opinion, the primary objective of economic policy during upswing should be to accumulate a safety reserve for the next recession. The common methods of supporting the economy during the recession cycle are government spending, tax cuts, interest rates and other monetary instruments. As a result of the 2008-2009 recession, the government accumulated a significant budget deficit (due to the combined effect of spending and tax cuts) and interest rates decreased to a record low level. Therefore, the primary target of economic policy should be to replenish the budget using the combination of reduced spending and tax increases, and gradually increase interest rates. The latter measure might also attract more foreign investments into the country, therefore balancing the moderating effect of austerity policy on economic development. <br />Of course, accelerating the economy will quickly produce beneficial results (compared to austerity), but the collapse during recession will also be of the same magnitude as the current rise, and the reserves for alleviating the effects of recession will be exhausted. Therefore, the austerity policy is justified by the logic of economic cycles and long-term expectations. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16750093366316836087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-992931346349626792013-07-06T06:27:29.179-04:002013-07-06T06:27:29.179-04:00In my opinion, the support of austerity has nothin...In my opinion, the support of austerity has nothing to do with wasting crisis opportunities or perception of austerity as a morally virtuous idea. This support is linked to long-term stability instead of short-term gains. Current support of austerity policies is perfectly aligned with the current position of the U.S. economy in the economic cycle. Figure 1 illustrates the phases of economic cycle. <br /> <br />Figure 1. Economic cycle <br />(source: http://www.retailinvestor.org/images/businesscycle.jpg) <br />Currently, the U.S. economy is moving from the early upswing to the late upswing phase. There are all signs of this: there is slow growth of inflation rate, Treasury yields show gradual increase, commodities show a tendency to increase as well, stock market demonstrates rather strong performance, and property prices started picking up in 2012. <br />What is the major goal of economic policy? It is commonly thought that core goals are maintaining stable GDP growth, moderating inflation and keeping employment as close to the full employment level as possible. However, at different stages of economic cycle, it is reasonable to set different objectives in order to reach long-term development. During recession, the major task is to reduce the depth of the trough, and this opinion is commonly supported. <br />The major arguments are around the actions during the recovery phase: should the government try to accelerate economic growth as much as possible, or should it slow the growth to achieve a prolonged period of recovery. <br />In my opinion, the primary objective of economic policy during upswing should be to accumulate a safety reserve for the next recession. The common methods of supporting the economy during the recession cycle are government spending, tax cuts, interest rates and other monetary instruments. As a result of the 2008-2009 recession, the government accumulated a significant budget deficit (due to the combined effect of spending and tax cuts) and interest rates decreased to a record low level. Therefore, the primary target of economic policy should be to replenish the budget using the combination of reduced spending and tax increases, and gradually increase interest rates. The latter measure might also attract more foreign investments into the country, therefore balancing the moderating effect of austerity policy on economic development. <br />Of course, accelerating the economy will quickly produce beneficial results (compared to austerity), but the collapse during recession will also be of the same magnitude as the current rise, and the reserves for alleviating the effects of recession will be exhausted. Therefore, the austerity policy is justified by the logic of economic cycles and long-term expectations. <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16750093366316836087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52283800039217083792013-06-03T00:14:29.865-04:002013-06-03T00:14:29.865-04:00"I shouldn't have to starve my child to g..."I shouldn't have to starve my child to get him to study hard. That would be called child abuse. This article is ludicrous"<br /><br />What about no dessert until you've studied for two hours tonight? Strict, yes. But cruel?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-26802235293858602842013-05-31T12:31:40.156-04:002013-05-31T12:31:40.156-04:00Another explanation of austerity: http://www.count...Another explanation of austerity: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/31/austerity-is-confusing-only-to-liberals/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-44889413925292954582013-05-30T11:39:42.275-04:002013-05-30T11:39:42.275-04:00I meant political DNA, you troll you!I meant political DNA, you troll you!CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-44123355979230859432013-05-29T16:45:02.719-04:002013-05-29T16:45:02.719-04:00Doesn't everyone share most of their DNA with ...Doesn't everyone share most of their DNA with Hitler?<br /><br />Just sayin'...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-28770588214016837022013-05-29T15:42:41.064-04:002013-05-29T15:42:41.064-04:00mattski,
my response may come too late, but in an...mattski,<br /><br />my response may come too late, but in any case, my personal philosophy summarized in three paragraphs is the following:<br /><br />Each individual has certain inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinness. You may recognize this phrase, as it is in the United States Declaration of Independence. The government exists to protect these rights, and not to violate them in pursuit of whatever goal it sees fit. A culture that recognizes the rights and value of each individual regardless of gender, race, religion, income, intellectual capacity, and so on is the best safeguard against tyrannical governments that see individuals as a means to an end. Now, I do understand that by participating in a society individuals are asked to make compromises that lead to its better functioning. So not all liberals (including FDR) are Hitlers simply because they believe in redistributive taxation, and neither are all conservatives. But collectivists, liberal or conservative, do share DNA with Hitler. The issue has to do with who has the burden of proof. <br /><br />For someone like me, when the government wants to reduce the autonomy of a person it must make a strong case that the benefit justifies the infringment on the individual. For example, just because I think that shooting at targets with semi-automatic weapons is silly and barbaric does not give me the right to ban people from using them, unless the government can show that doing so will have a meaningful impact on the murder rate. Similarly, given that only one out of eight of the 684,000 mostly blacks and latinos stopped in NYC in 2011 under the stop-and-frisk program were eventually accused of a crime, mayor Bloomberg's policies share DNA with Hitler's, even though as a person and policy-maker Bloomberg clearly is no Hitler. To add one more, I feel the same way about the French government's decision to ban public school students from wearing Jewish Kippahs or Muslim headscarves.<br /><br />In contrast, for a collectivist (communist, nationatist, racist, etc.) it is the individual who has the burden to prove that they should be given a particular freedom, as rights belong not to individuals but to the government, which can delegate them in any way it sees fit. So if you believe that it is OK for the government to force an individual to serve a group that you feel is worthy of that service, then at some level you are like Hitler even if you are the nicest person on the planet.<br /><br />I hope this answers your question.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-34612950455413912642013-05-28T05:21:19.608-04:002013-05-28T05:21:19.608-04:00The really odd thing is, there ARE necessary struc...The really odd thing is, there ARE necessary structural reforms, but they aren't these stupid reforms everyone is suggesting.<br /><br />The ECB is totally corrupt and operated for the benefit of Germany. Worse, people have noticed and trust in EU institutions is very very low. And meanwhile the ECB is wrecking the European economy.<br /><br />Hmm, perhaps some structural reform? Maybe putting the ECB under the control of the European Parliament or something?<br /><br />But that's not the kind of structural reform they're talking about. They're pushing a preconceived set of unrelated structural "reforms" which have nothing to do with the current problems. A bit like the disaster of welfare "reform" in the US.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74138573943592822862013-05-28T05:18:46.749-04:002013-05-28T05:18:46.749-04:00"The Bolsheviks (Austerians) argued that cond..."The Bolsheviks (Austerians) argued that conditions shouldn't be improved at all, in fact the opposite, to encourage revolution "<br /><br />The biggest danger of this is that, when you have a revolution, you never know what you're going to get. Stalin?<br /><br />The only way to get the post-revolutionary results you want is to lay the groundwork in people's minds (something both the Bolsheviks and Austerians seemed to understand). <br /><br />However, while you're doing this, why not try to implement what you can of the improvements NOW? That is far better at proving to people that your ideas are right than anything else. It's also better at proving that your opponents are obstructionists. <br /><br />And, most importantly, if your ideas are actually wrong, it would be good to test them now so that you can fix them and not screw up after the revolution -- this was the big failure of both the Bolsheviks and the Austerians.<br /><br />In short, the "why bother to fix things when the revolution is coming, let us hasten the revolution" philosophy is a philosophy of laziness, and a philosophy of intellectual laziness. It makes no sense.<br /><br />Even if you that, in practice, things will not really get fixed until the revolution (a belief I am strongly leaning towards), you should still be trying to make things better NOW.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-82592143220003943602013-05-28T05:12:23.347-04:002013-05-28T05:12:23.347-04:00Trouble is, most people want to be rent-seekers. ...Trouble is, most people want to be rent-seekers. So, aspirationally, they vote for the rent-seeker party... even though that party has no interest in sharing the rent with the voters!Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-42262871777369699132013-05-28T05:10:32.781-04:002013-05-28T05:10:32.781-04:00"The fact is, we just don't know how inst..."The fact is, we just don't know how institutions really work."<br /><br />Study the "institutionalists", Noah!<br /><br />I realize your college and PhD curriculum was woefully deficient of actual economics, but surely you at least read a FEW of the institutionalists? You must have read Veblen. And J.K. Galbraith<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_economics<br /><br />We do know quite a lot about how institutions really work. But a lot of the work is not in so-called "economics". Heck, have you ever read _The Peter Principle_?<br /><br />The trouble is that most of our knowledge has been declared to be "not economics" by the high priests of the free-market-worshipping cult. Now, if you want to understand this stuff, you will probably need to go educate yourself in a lot of ways which aren't considered economics...<br /><br />Nobody ever said doing actual intellectual work was easy. But they may not have told you that most of what you learned for your PhD was a waste and that you would have to start fresh and learn your subject from scratch...Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-57056632348070135972013-05-27T18:38:12.803-04:002013-05-27T18:38:12.803-04:00the Nazis also gravitated towards the welfare of t...<i>the Nazis also gravitated towards the welfare of the group, and we saw the results.</i><br /><br />Yes, we have to agree to disagree, and I'm grateful for your civil engagement. Thank you, CA!<br /><br />But, when you say stuff like that... Certainly there is a kernel of truth in what you say. That is, High Criminals almost invariably attempt to justify their crimes with some absurd appeal to morality. And what is morality? It is doing right by other people. So from my perspective, of course criminals like Hitler are going to justify their behavior with some egregious argument or other. So what?! Are they really, in fact, acting in the interests of the "group" we call humanity? Of course not. The proof is in the pudding.<br /><br />Do you feel like FDR was Hitlers soulmate? Do you feel the Swedish social-democratic model is on the slippery slope to the final solution? <br /><br />Inquiring minds want to know.mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-54611826673828500182013-05-27T00:40:49.300-04:002013-05-27T00:40:49.300-04:00mattski,
the Nazis also gravitated towards the we...mattski,<br /><br />the Nazis also gravitated towards the welfare of the group, and we saw the results. I only wish that they had gravitated towards individual rights. You should read "The Road to Serfdom". The worst crimes have been committed in the name of some "common good". So I do not see conservatism as being closer to authoritarianism than liberalism. But then again, there are different types of each. You keep repeating one-sided stereotypes and regard anyone who doesn't buy into them foolhardy. But who is more likely to be biased, you being a liberal, or me being neither a liberal nor a conservative? I suppose we have to agree to disagree.<br /><br />Absalon,<br /><br />since the proposal is to use the carbon tax to replace the payroll tax, the net effect is neutral so there is no reason for Republicans to oppose it. In fact, several Republicans who are sceptical about climate change support it just because they strongly dislike the payroll tax. Even Norquist said as much, before Koch pulled his ear causing him to change positions:<br />http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/norquist-carbon-tax-swap-for-income-tax-cut-wouldn-t-violate-no-tax-hike-pledge-20121112<br />I am not saying that it is an easy sell, but it is definitely worth fighting for. And, to bring the discussion back to my original point and close it from my part, this is my disagreement with Krugman. I much rather fight for a carbon tax, for more infrustructiral investment, for education and health care reform, and so on than for continuing stimulus spending on transfer payments and entitlement programs. Again, I think Jeffrey Sachs (also a liberal economist) is correct, and Krugman is wrong. What can I tell you, this is my honest opinion.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-70828654769343753182013-05-26T12:58:49.756-04:002013-05-26T12:58:49.756-04:00CA, more Sunday reading for you!
http://www.media...CA, more Sunday reading for you!<br /><br />http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-another-survey-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed-npr-listeners-best-informed/mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-67550627281599859742013-05-25T14:12:03.836-04:002013-05-25T14:12:03.836-04:00but a Republican could (and many do) say the same ...<i>but a Republican could (and many do) say the same thing you wrote about Murdoch about CNN, MSNBC, Soros, Hollywood, or academia.</i><br /><br />Sorry for the delayed response, CA. Yes, many Republicans argue that the mainstream media and academia is biased. I think there is sufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that the facts have a liberal bias. Broadly speaking, conservatives tend to attach themselves to ideas and doctrines to a greater extent than liberals. Broadly speaking, liberals are more inclined to accept uncertainty as the price for gaining knowledge. That is why science is liberally biased in the eyes of some conservatives. That is why conservatism is closer to authoritarianism than liberalism. I understand if you disagree.<br /><br />At a certain point, the insistence that there is symmetry between right and left becomes absurd, CA. Sure, there are some similarities, but denying the qualitative differences is foolhardy. There are differences. Left gravitates towards the welfare of the group, towards the search for knowledge of the world. Right gravitates towards the welfare of me-first and the embrace of abstract platitudes as a remedy for the chaos and uncertainty of the real world.mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88316790072918772122013-05-24T02:36:23.468-04:002013-05-24T02:36:23.468-04:00Why did the US introduce the welfare state? Could ...Why did the US introduce the welfare state? Could it possibly have been in response to a crisis called the Great Depression?<br />Why did they maintain it (and a somewhat veiled hegemony)? Could it have been in response to a crisis called the Cold War?<br />And what happened as soon as the age of crises seemed to be over? A massive (and on-going) attempt to dismantle that welfare state.<br /><br />It is irrelevant whether or not policy SHOULD change outside a crisis. The reality of life is that, outside a crisis, those in power, by definition, are quite happy with the status quo and unwilling to change it. <br />The only chance one EVER has of significant change is in the face of a crisis which looks severe enough that it might actually even hurt god's chosen people, namely the 1% of any particular nation. <br /><br />For a similar example of this dynamic, look at, eg, the history of environmental laws, or the on-again off-again history of the US' interest in alternative energy.name99https://www.blogger.com/profile/13655602051960088825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-36560549552661960422013-05-22T12:58:30.058-04:002013-05-22T12:58:30.058-04:00CA If you look at the article on a carbon...CA If you look at the article on a carbon tax at the Washington Post it says that the proposal for a carbon tax is just one item on a list of possibilities put together by staffers. The article itself says in the second sentence: "But it’s been even more obvious that the policy is politically toxic." <br /><br />Given the Republican hostility to taxes of any kind and their refusal to believe in global warming, a carbon tax will remain toxic for the foreseeable future.<br />Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-43550575419923116362013-05-21T14:54:08.752-04:002013-05-21T14:54:08.752-04:00mattski,
but a Republican could (and many do) sa...mattski, <br /><br />but a Republican could (and many do) say the same thing you wrote about Murdoch about CNN, MSNBC, Soros, Hollywood, or academia. So why is it that the ignorant are misled by Murdoch and Koch and not by your rich guys? Could it be that you think so because it is convenient, in the same way that it is convenient for conservatives to believe that they hold the truth and that the mainstream media are preventing you and every other liberal from seeing this? <br /><br />The point is that your class warfare rhetoric takes us nowhere. First, it does not seem to be supported by the data. One can find many rich people supporting a progressive platform, and many middle income people supporting a conservative platform. Last time the GOP presidential candidate got 47% of the vote. I listed some names of billionaires to show that this is about the same as the percentage of super-rich who support the GOP. So I see no class division. Billionaires are divided, the population is also divided. Yes, there are special interests, but those are mostly industry-related rather than class-related (the Koch's do what they do not because they are rich, but because they have a vested interest in fossil fuel).<br /><br />Absalon,<br /><br />You are so very wrong about the carbon tax. Here is what the non-academia has to say, in fact within the last month:<br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/04/25/carbon-tax-on-the-table-in-the-senate/<br />http://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/four_reasons_why_obama_should_push_for_a_carbon_tax_partner/<br /><br />Cuts to entitlements are unavoidable given projections. See page 23 of this report. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf<br />Spending on major health care programs is expected to increase from less than 5% to over 6% relative to GDP in just the next 10 years. This is a 30% increase in the share of our income spent on Medicare and Medicaid. How are we going to pay for this? Are we going to increase the average tax rate by 30%? This is a significant tax increase only to cover the cost of these programs (not to mention closing the deficit)! And things get worse beyond 10 years.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4362216839632315382013-05-21T14:30:10.148-04:002013-05-21T14:30:10.148-04:00I happen to be an expert on this. In ye olden days...I happen to be an expert on this. In ye olden days Minas Tirith's economy had entered into a vicious downward circle (The Ring Recession). So Professor Aragorn, son of Austerion, recommended plundering the neighboring realm for its riches. Things looked a bit dicey but after a bloody huge war they toppled the tyrant Sauron. There wasn't much to plunder in the lava fields but curiously the economy was humming along again. Anyway, not one to waste a crisis he also launched some major institutional reforms such as replacing the inefficient stewardship with a dynamic monarchy. No guesses as to who became the Philosopher-King. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9376383292121366982013-05-20T20:50:19.372-04:002013-05-20T20:50:19.372-04:00CA, how do you account for the fact that Republica...CA, how do you account for the fact that Republican platform positions taken on their own poll miserably with the public? How do you account for single payer health care being highly popular? <br /><br />You want a good rule of thumb? The ignorant are easily misled. And the <i>obstacles</i> to implementation of your list of issues/reforms comes first from monied business interests and second from Rupert Murdoch's low-information clientele.mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-41885149688318825722013-05-20T18:31:56.190-04:002013-05-20T18:31:56.190-04:00CA
You may have a view on what the Republicans c...CA <br /><br />You may have a view on what the Republicans could or should be asking for. However, what they are demanding is cuts to entitlements - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.<br /><br />I might believe that something like a carbon tax would be a good idea. But it does not matter outside of academia because it is a political non-starter. Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23117228267536104962013-05-20T13:24:11.260-04:002013-05-20T13:24:11.260-04:00Absalon (and mattski),
"There is a point of ...Absalon (and mattski),<br /><br />"There is a point of view among the wealthy and their hirelings/lackeys/useful idiots that the fundamental structural problem is that the poor, middle class and elderly have too much money and the wealthy have too little. Everything else is a sideshow."<br /><br />Come on, you are better than making such oversimplifications. Among the most vocal advocates of the reforms I mentioned (and of Obama) are billionaires like Buffett, Soros, Penny Pritzker, James Crown, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, the list goes on. Who opposes them? Everybody keeps pointing to the Koch brothers, but it is people like Joe the plumber that are having the most influence on GOP reps, particularly those from sounthern states. I know it is popular for some on the left, particularly in academia, to romanticize the masses, but maybe because contrary to Krugman I have done blue collar work, I think there is a reason the founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy! So before you accuse me of playing with academic fantasies, just contemplate the possibility that it may be you who is guilty of that. CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78305091799752043642013-05-18T15:36:13.710-04:002013-05-18T15:36:13.710-04:00I am not sympathetic to class warfare rhetoric.
Y...<i>I am not sympathetic to class warfare rhetoric.</i><br /><br />Yes, this comes through in your writing. I think it represents a rather glaring blind spot in your outlook. As though you were wishing unpleasant facts away.<br /><br />May I paraphrase the great George Mitchell?<br /><br />[When the poor & middle class attempt to squeeze a nickel out of the rich, that is "class warfare." When the rich attempt (and often succeed) to squeeze a nickel out of the poor & middle class, that is called "business as usual."]mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52288827350902208042013-05-18T05:26:36.321-04:002013-05-18T05:26:36.321-04:00The more you hear about structural reform the more...The more you hear about structural reform the more it seems like just an argument for the status quo. The eschewal of empiricism is likely not because it works but precisely because it largely doesn't much like the old Business Process Engineering. "Yet there are deeper psychological reasons for sticking with traditional management. The assumptions of traditional management help preserve the illusion of being in control. A feeling of being in control is reassuring. Wall Street reinforces the illusion by rewarding companies that are able to present a facade of being in control. Objective evidence is irrelevant. The comforts of the mutual illusion are preferred to the discomfort of recognizing that traditional management has failed.<br /><br />You won’t however read this in HBR. HBR has too much invested in the status quo of traditional management. Too many established dogmas would have to be thrown out. You should no more expect Harvard Business Review to abandon the values, attitudes and philosophy embedded in traditional management than you should expect the Vatican to announce that it has begun to have second thoughts about the Virgin Birth." http://stevedenning.typepad.com/steve_denning/2010/07/what-hbr-wont-say-why-bpr-failed.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-66533091154105506942013-05-18T05:02:38.247-04:002013-05-18T05:02:38.247-04:00Although Anonymous has a plausible point, I don...Although Anonymous has a plausible point, I don't recall that it took many years of planning to set up the WPA, TVA, and CCC in the 1930s. Is hiring men to dig holes and other men to fill them up wasteful? What if the unused resources just rot, is that less wasteful? We see long-term unemployment that seems to be producing hysteresis, rendering millions of people, who were productive, unemployable. How many schools did the WPA build? How many Post Offices? How many government office buildings? How many courthouses? How many years did it take to plan them? Are we now less competent than we were in 1933 (my suspicion is, yes)?Procopiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17554355440319405363noreply@blogger.com