Can NPR Talk to Anyone Who Knows About the Weather?

Morning Edition had a segment on the state of the economy and the prospects for further stimulus. The discussion was framed by former Obama National Economic Advisor Larry Summers who told listeners that the economy seemed to be taking off last winter, but now seems much weaker. This position seemed to be confirmed by Alan Krueger, the current head of President Obama's council of economic advisers.

It would have been helpful to include the views of someone who noticed that the weather was the main factor driving the stronger growth in the winter months. Those who pay attention to the weather knew that the economy's growth would slow in the spring since the stronger growth in the winter was effectively borrowed against growth in the spring.

The segment also included comments from Maya Macguineas, the head of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She said that she did not think another round of stimulus would work. It would have been interesting if she was asked why. There is no obvious reason why increased demand from the government would not boost growth and employment.

Well I Can Think of a Good One
written by Paul, June 08, 2012 8:29

"There is no obvious reason why increased demand from the government would not boost growth and employment."

It would require many months, if not years,for the federal government to ramp up its demand. Remember "shovel-ready"? There was no shovel-ready, as Obama later pointed out.

OTOH, how long did it take to ramp up Cash-for-Clunkers? A couple months at most to save the auto industry from collapse in a pure Keynesian consumption/demand scenario.

How long would it take to implement similar tax incentives to jump start housing sales and revive that industry which is the main drag on the economy now? But obviously that won't happen because in the words of the great 41, "it wouldn't be prudent."

The Very Low Bar for Conservative 'Expertise'
written by Hugh Sansom, June 08, 2012 10:43

NPR's fondness for Maya Macguineas (they've gone to her before) and other moderate to conservative commentators illustrates the double standard for liberal-progressive commentary vs. conservative. Macguineas has a very minimal background in economics. She might very well be an extremely good autodidact or naturally talented, but if that's the case, why then don't we hear NPR interviewing progressive autodidacts? The bar for conservatives to considered 'experts' on anything political or economic is very near floor-level. Identical educational credentials will be treated as sufficient for expertise in a conservative but insufficient in a liberal/progressive.

The real point, of course, is that the mainstream would rather just exclude all progressive voices altogether, but we have that pesky tendency to be correct.

Weather or not they get it.
written by david, June 08, 2012 11:33

Paul, don't forget that big tax incentive for first time home buyers in 2008 (as I recall). It was allowed to expire.

As far as "shovel" ready, there are plenty of bridges and levees in disrepair, the power grid is operating far above capacity. So that's just an excuse by know-nothing (or care-nothing) politicians.

Macguineas. Yawn. She opens her mouth and noise comes out. It would have been interesting if someone had asked why she said what she did, because we know that she would have no answer, other than "such answers keep my bread buttered."

Why Not Stimulate Housing Now?
written by Paul, June 08, 2012 11:53

Every economist agrees that the housing market is a huge drag on the economy and until it recovers, job growth will be slow. In previous recoveries, housing led economic growth. Prices are now at or below long-term trends, so why not do what obviously needs to be done?

Here's your answer: It is politically incorrect. Yeah, that's right, for the sake of political correctness, millions of Americans must suffer years more of unemployment. FDR would never have tolerated such BS.

Maya M.
written by Bart, June 08, 2012 4:17

Ms M can be expected to support the Bowles-Simpson point of view. The problem was with the Morning Edition person not following up on her claim. It is irresponsible to let apparent howlers just lie there.

They are never asked why
written by BH in MA, June 09, 2012 5:32

The question I've always had that is never asked on that show: How can it be that private spending boosts the economy but public spending doesn't? If Corporate Corp. borrows money and uses it to build a new factory, that's a good thing. If a million households borrow money and buy new houses, that's also a good thing. But if the government borrows (at even lower rates and uses the money to perform needed maintenance on government roads or buildings, enhance the power grid, fund research that leads to improvements in energy efficiency, health or building materials, somehow those dollars DON'T stimulate the economy.

We could borrow 1 trillion dollars for ten years and it would cost us 16 billion in interest at today's rate. If we spent the money over the next two years we'd be well on our way to filling the gap. Unemployment would be lower, tax collections would be higher, etc. Over the next ten years even at anemic growth rates the US economy will generate 200 trillion in GDP and in ten years our annual GDP will be 25-27 trillion. I think we can afford it.

Can NPR Talk to Anyone Who Knows About the Weather?

About Beat the Press