[the_dude]

Another vote for Samuelson .. I find him to be outstanding in his ability to detach the partisan positions and analyze an issue logically.

However, since I'm a fiscal conservative (and he pretty much is too) that isn't really in the spirit of this post.

On the other side, I guess I read Krugman the most. Not because he is reasonable (I keep a small bucket at the foot of the desk for when I read his columns) but because he will tell me things that some conservative authors do not want me to know. I don't think you can be intellectually honest unless you truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

[kenberg]

As you saw, I earlier mentioned Samuelson. I don't keep a diary of what I read, but I am pretty sure that around the time that we had the great budget surpluses and everyone was speaking of how the only problem would be that there were technical issues ion how to retire debt efficiently, he was recommending that we don't spend all of that money until we see it. A good recommendation almost any time.


I also suggested Gerson. He is religious, which I am not, and a Bush supporter which I am definitely not. Here is a column he recently wrote about our felons and second chances.

http://www.washingto...1010303883.html

I don't have to agree with everything he says, but I find him interesting.

[y66]

Ross Douthat was on Kojo* today talking about the "evolving institution of marriage". I read his column regularly but I've never heard him on the radio before.

Except from a recent column of his on this topic:

For a long time, the contours of America’s culture war seemed relatively straightforward. On one side was the country’s growing educated class, who tended to be secular, permissive and favorably disposed to the sexual revolution. On the other side were the social conservatives of middle America — benighted yahoos or virtuous yeomen, depending on your point of view, but either way a less-educated and more pious demographic, with more traditional attitudes on sexuality and family.

Decades of punditry, pop sociology and prejudice have been premised on this neat division — from the religious right’s Reagan-era claim to be a “Moral Majority” oppressed by a secular elite, to Barack Obama’s unfortunate description of heartland America “clinging” to religion. Like any binary, it oversimplified a complicated picture. But as a beginner’s guide to the culture war, the vision of white-collar social liberals and blue-collar cultural conservatives was, for a substantial period, more accurate than not.

That may no longer be the case.

rest of story

I used to enjoy reading David Brooks. I have this crazy idea that he's really a closet liberal and that one day he'll find his inner-Biblical namesake and start writing from the heart.

* local radio guy

[y66]

Calling all noble savages ...

My favorite blogger recently referred to this review of Jamie Galbraith’s "The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too".

Excerpts:

The general theses can be simply stated. First, while conservatives toyed with laissez-faire, they quickly abandoned it in all important areas of policy-making. For them, it now serves as nothing more than an enabling myth, used to hide the true nature of our world. Ironically, only the progressive still takes the call for “market solutions” seriously, and this is the major barrier to formulating sensible policy. Second, the “industrial state” has been replaced by a predator state, a coalition of relentless opponents of the very idea of a “public interest”, whose purpose is to master the state structure in order to empower a high plutocracy with nothing more than vile and rapacious goals. Finally, the “corporate republic” created by the likes of Dick Cheney is highly unstable, a formula for national failure. Progressives must wrest control from the reactionaries before it is too late for restoration of America as the world’s financial anchor, technological leader, and promoter of collective security.

...

Economic freedom is reduced to the freedom to shop, including the freedom to buy elections, and anything that interferes is a threat. “Market” means nothing more than “nonstate”, a negation of use of policy in the public interest.... The policy “mistakes” in Iraq or New Orleans or at Bear-Stearns do not result from incompetence—indeed they only appear to be failures because we apply inappropriate measures of success. There is no common good, no public purpose, no shareholder’s interest; we are the prey and governments as well as corporations are run by and for predators. The “failures” enrich the proper beneficiaries even as they “prove” government is no solution.

[kenberg]

I see that the review is from 2008 which explains why I thought I had heard of the book. I haven't read the book but the review certainly is encouragement to do so.

People, no doubt myself included, think far too often in quick labels. Free market certainly sounds good, who can be opposed to free, and marketing sounds good but what does it all mean?

Over the weekend we visited a couple. The guy is a fiscal conservative and I hope we are still friends. After enough wine we got to what he really proposes. The investment bankers, the auto companies, etc, would all be left on their own to fail if that's the way it went. If the economy crashed, government would accept responsibility to see that people are fed and housed but would not intervene in any other way. After further discussion of how it would all go, I summed up his position as being that government would agree to house up to 80 million people, 20 or so to a room, and feed them beans. Beyond that, the market would take care of things. He agreed that this correctly stated his view, and allowed that it might require some further thought. We plan to serve some really good wine at our next gathering.

[y66]

I have no idea who's behind The Christian Century. But I think it's interesting that a web site with this name had this to say about the Ryan plan.

Excerpts:

Quote

An honest, serious budget plan wouldn't use fuzzy math. It also wouldn't hide behind a bait-and-switch argument. The ostensible linchpin of Ryan's deficit-reduction plan is his idea of converting Medicare into a voucher program and Medicaid into a state-administered block grant. But he also curbs benefits in both programs, and it's those cuts, not the reforms, that would actually save money. Public health-care costs are too high, but that's not because they're public; all health-care costs are too high. Ryan's proposal masks this fact with boilerplate language about the benefits of privatization and local control.

If Ryan thinks the poor and the elderly should have to spend more on health care, he should say so directly—that would at least be honest. And it would certainly carry political risks, but it still wouldn't be courageous. Courage requires moral clarity, a commitment to defending what's right. Ryan is using the deficit as an excuse to shrink the government via tax relief for the rich and program cuts that largely target the poor—while sparing military spending. That isn't courageous; it's simply wrong.

In fact, one of the most effective responses to the deficit would be to preserve some existing laws. Letting the 2010 health-care reform law go forward, instead of repealing it, would control health costs for everyone and drive down the deficit. And allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled would do a lot to increase revenue. Those positions aren't flashy enough to win praise in the op-ed pages, but they are serious and courageous.

[P_Marlowe]

y66, on 2011-April-25, 13:51, said:

I have no idea who's behind The Christian Century.
<snip>

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_Century

[PassedOut]

y66, on 2011-April-25, 13:51, said:

I have no idea who's behind The Christian Century. But I think it's interesting that a web site with this name had this to say about the Ryan plan.

Quote

In fact, one of the most effective responses to the deficit would be to preserve some existing laws. Letting the 2010 health-care reform law go forward, instead of repealing it, would control health costs for everyone and drive down the deficit. And allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled would do a lot to increase revenue. Those positions aren't flashy enough to win praise in the op-ed pages, but they are serious and courageous.

Taking these 'serious and courageous' measures would be a giant step in the right direction, but even more will be needed as the US population ages. Sadly, the free lunch crowd opposes both of those measures, so the politics are tough. Obama has pandered to the free lunchers by pledging to maintain the Bush cuts for folks making less than $200 thousand, so he's part of the problem too.

[kenberg]

Sticking to the theme of this thread I continue to find Samuelson and Gerson very much worth reading. Gerson, perhaps partly from his Christian faith but I like to think mainly from his fundamental view of life, stresses the need for a generous approach to the less fortunate. Why such an attitude is not universal eludes me but if it is, some on the right have done a good job of hiding that fact. Samuelson is a bit too eager to cut medicare and social security, so that it sometimes appears that that is his only plan, but I still find much of what he has to say worthwhile.

Compare these two with, say, Charles Krauthammer. CK reminds me of the old story of a public speaker collapsing during a talk. As they hauled him offstage they collected his notes, where he had written in the margin "Argument weak here, shout like hell".

Possibly in vague conformance with the thread, I just saw Atlas Shrugged. Maybe my expectations were suitably lowered due to the terrible reviews, but I enjoyed it. Not great, but I enjoyed it. The movie began with six people in the audience including me and my wife. At the end there were four. The other guy in the audience spoke with me in the Men's room afterward to explain that this was real life and Hollywood tried to keep us from seeing it.

[y66]

P_Marlowe, on 2011-April-25, 14:51, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_Century

It seems these guys really are Christians. That explains it.

[PassedOut]

y66, on 2011-April-26, 06:51, said:

P_Marlowe, on 2011-April-25, 14:51, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_Century

It seems these guys really are Christians. That explains it.

Quote

...advocating higher criticism of the Bible, as well as the Social Gospel, which included concerns about child labor, women's suffrage, racism, war and pacifism, alcoholism and prohibition, environmentalism and many other political and social issues. The magazine was a common target for criticism by fundamentalists during the Fundamentalist - Modernist debate of the early 20th century.

Don't know the Christian Century magazine, but I do know other ethical Christians who work to put Jesus' teachings into actual practice. Many years ago, a Catholic classmate from San Lucia introduced me to a nearby commune of Catholic Worker folks. Before that I had never even heard of Dorothy Day, but I saw that the Catholic Worker people worked hard every day to live the way Jesus taught. And those I met were among the warmest, most welcoming folks I've ever known -- even to those of us who disagreed with them on certain issues.

But we all know that religious beliefs and ethical behavior don't always go hand in hand. On the contrary: Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

Quote

On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Seems strange, but I'm sure most of us have observed that to be true. Probably has to do with a religious tendency to accept positions without thinking them through.

[kenberg]

I forget where I first heard the advice that if a house guest starts talking about morality you should lock up the silver and keep a close watch on your daughter.

I read that piece about atheists in the paper. I really don't want to think of myself as a member of some silly minority group struggling for proper respect. There's enough of that going around already.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-April-30, 07:40, said:

I forget where I first heard the advice that if a house guest starts talking about morality you should lock up the silver and keep a close watch on your daughter.

I read that piece about atheists in the paper. I really don't want to think of myself as a member of some silly minority group struggling for proper respect. There's enough of that going around already.

I think it's useful to put forward non-strident information that tends to undercut religions. Part of the age-old atheist conspiracy.

[PassedOut]

On the other hand, students who believe in an angry, punishing god are less likely to cheat on math tests: Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior

Quote

Fear of supernatural punishment may serve as a deterrent to counternormative behavior, even in anonymous situations free from human social monitoring. The authors conducted two studies to test this hypothesis, examining the relationship between cheating behavior in an anonymous setting and views of God as loving and compassionate, or as an angry and punishing agent. Overall levels of religious devotion or belief in God did not directly predict cheating. However, viewing God as a more punishing, less loving figure was reliably associated with lower levels of cheating. This relationship remained after controlling for relevant personality dimensions, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender.

So fire and brimstone has its uses.

[kenberg]

From the study:

Quote

Neither religious devotion nor ethnicity had an effect on likelihood of cheating, but a sex difference was found showing higher cheating behavior among women

I always suspected this!

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-30, 10:53, said:

On the other hand, students who believe in an angry, punishing god are less likely to cheat on math tests: Mean Gods Make Good People: Different Views of God Predict Cheating Behavior


So fire and brimstone has its uses.

Threat has its uses. Fear has its uses. Fear-inducing threat captures the best of both worlds.

[kenberg]

This threat thing is a bit unpredictable. I shucked off religion in my early teens, and, as I remember my reasons, my resistance to being threatened (my minister was big on Hell) had more to do with it than logic.


To bring this back to politics, this may apply to the threat to not raise the debt ceiling. It's a really bad idea to issue a threat unless you intend to follow through. So are the Republicans really planning to not raise the debt limit? If yes, they are fools. If it is a threat where they assume it will not require follow through, they are dangerous fools.The thug's lament after his victim dies: No one was supposed to get hurt, I thought he would do as I told him to do.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-April-30, 11:12, said:

From the study:

Quote

Neither religious devotion nor ethnicity had an effect on likelihood of cheating, but a sex difference was found showing higher cheating behavior among women

I always suspected this!

In the UP we don't ever kid around in that way...

[kenberg]

It's true that I wasn't taking the whole study very seriously. But here is an expansion of what they say:

Quote

We controlled for religion devotion, as well as sex and ethnicity, both
of which predicted cheating behavior in our previous studies (with East Asians and women
cheating more). Consistent with predictions, higher God Negativity Scores were associated with
lower levels of cheating (Wald=- 4.16, odds ratio = .95, p = .04; see footnote 3). Neither
religious devotion nor ethnicity had an effect on likelihood of cheating, but a sex difference
was found showing higher cheating behavior among women (see Table 1).

They cite a Wald of -4.16 for those with high God Negativity scores but in fact the Wald from Table 1 for sex is 4.57. Now I actually have no idea what this means, but they seem to think it proves something. I suppose high numbers indicate that some effect is going on. Belief in a punishing God, or simply being male, are two items associated with less cheating. And for the sex angle, apparently this is consistent with previous studies that they have done.

Maybe one shouldn't joke about it, but I don't plan on taking it seriously.

[y66]

Why Are Libertarians Inflation Hawks? via Krugman
Jul. 21 2011 - 10:49 am
by Timothy B Lee

Quote

Two years ago, my friend Matt Yglesias wrote this post about what he sarcastically dubbed “the inflation people,” including some of my colleagues at the Cato Institute, who worried about the dangers of future inflation even as the economy was in the depths of a recession. I was irritated by the post and made a note to myself to check back in a few years and see how things turned out. Two years later, here’s how things look:

Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers, 12-Month Percent Change

Quote

I don’t think we have enough data yet to reach a decisive verdict. It’s possible that that the most recent measurement of 3.6 percent inflation portends a major price rise over the next few months—though the “core” inflation rate of just 1.6 percent suggests otherwise. At a minimum, we can say that Ben Bernanke’s most hawkish critics haven’t been proven right so far. And I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that they will be.

This has gotten me thinking about the broader connection between peoples’ views on monetary policy and their broader ideological worldviews. With the lonely exception of Scott Sumner, virtually every libertarian or conservative who has expressed a strong opinion about monetary policy has come down on the side of the inflation hawks. Over the last three years, a wide variety of fiscally conservative Republican politicians have attacked the Federal Reserve for its unduly expansionary monetary policy. I can’t think of a single Republican on the other side.

Yet it’s not obvious why this should be. more.