Comments for Robert Samuelson: "Bye Bye Darwin?" at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 28 out of 20 comments http://www.cepr.net Sun, 19 May 2013 17:23:55 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13614 Exports equal to imports implies four million new jobs? If true, a tariff policy designed to produce such a balance would seem to be a no brainer. Trade is supposed to be balanced. Infrastructure employs construction workers only. Not everyone can be a construction worker. Factories employ all kinds of people. 4,000,000 new factory jobs would generate additional jobs in the service industry too, wouldn't it? 4,000,000. Recheck those figures Mr. Baker! I hope they are right. - Luke Lea Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:59:53 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13612 By the way, for a Monetarily Sovereign nation, debt/GDP is a meaningless ratio. GDProduct = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports and Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings Those who worry about GDP/Debt should examine those two equations. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell - Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:41:34 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13606 Baker's post is poorly thought out and poorly argued. One of Baker's primary arguments is the US has the ability to print while the Europeans do not. Well, as the US goes into a demographic hole, the ability to print will create the inflation that will destroy the savings and retirement of a generation. Surely there will be no political effect from that. Printing is a very poor idea. In fact, it is such a poor idea the stable members of the European Union will not do it. Baker, incredibly, also uses the 2% interest on Treasuries as being supported because the US can "print". Right. Rather than actually default, the US will simply devalue the debt and those lucky bondholders will get 2% devalued dollars on a devalued bond they are holding. How could anybody resist such a deal deal? The 2%, for now, is due to the Fed's ZIRP policy couple with a flight to temporary safety. See what happens if the bond market thinks the US is going to print. That is the tight rope the Fed is walking. The whole of Baker's thinking is that Keynesian economics is great because we can devalue and screw everyone: investors, citizens, etc.. Given that, it is clear Samuelson has much the better of the debate. Dean Baker embarrasses himself and the Center for Economic Research. By the way, Mauldin has it right when he claims "Japan is a bug in search of a windshield". Second, like the US, British debt is still a problem and as they flounder around the EEU, the debt is still a problem for them. Of course they too could also screw everyone and print. Baker seems to think that is the savior of Keynesian economics. Some savior. I suggest Baker pull out his copy of Reinhart and Rogoff and see if he can tell us why it is different this time. - Rick Caird Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:40:28 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13604 ...you and DeLong and Krugman don't really seem to want to smack down Eichengreen. What gives? Is he a useful idiot, to borrow Krugman's label or not, and if not why not? He is giving cover to the dolts of the economic sphere which is in turn picked up by the Ryans and such of the world. - bill Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:09:55 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13601 It seems almost a waste of electrons to point this out, given that Samuelson is the writer in question, but apart from Baker's explanation for a reality Samuelson finds mysterious, there is the simple fact that Samuelson fails to account for reality. Central to his argument is that "markets" (that's "people" to us commoners) won't lend at low rates to countries with high high debt ratios. He notes that people will lend at low rates to the US (and UK, and Japan) despite what he considers high debt ratios, and declares this to be a mystery. Samuelson is trapped. We don't need to offer an explanation for the low yields on Treasuries. The very fact that they are low means Samuelson's analysis is wrong. If the world doesn't work the way Samuelson says it must, then he is necessarily wrong about the way the world works. It's nice to have an understanding of why Samuelson is wrong, but that explanation is not necessary in order to know that Samuelson is wrong. The fact that Samuelson is willing to insist on a view of the world that is contradicted by the facts raises the question, once again, of why the Post affords him high-priced journalistic real estate. - kharris Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:54:12 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13594 The main problem here is that some people do not understand what money is and how it works in the real economy. Samuelson's problem is that he still believes that the US is on the gold standard. That is the only way to construct his comments and have them make sense. Visions of "bond traders" (or "bond vigilantes", as Krugman calls them),are a remnant of that era. Anyone who does not recognize that the countries in the Eurozone are in the fix they're in is because they have forsaken their monetary sovereignty doesn't understand how the system keeps score. This is the hang-up, in the scoring system. He's not the only one who doesn't understand this. - james hogan Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:57:55 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13592 The actual comment that was programmed into some Barbie dolls in 1992 was, "Math class is tough!" The only thing that could be construed as sexist in this phrase is the fact that Ken didn't say it. - S. D. Jeffries Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:46:22 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13590 Anthony, I appreciate your concern. I really do! I just don't happen to find the quote sexist in the least (in this context, of course). After reading countless paeans to Christopher "women aren't funny" Hitchens it is difficult to get worked up about this. - Kat Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:56:18 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13589 A suggestion for Anthony. Show Samuelson's and Baker's columns to the women in your life and then: 1. Unprompted, ask them if they have any problem with what Baker wrote in response to Samuelson. 2. Tally how many fastened on the Barbie comment as objectionable when unprompted, and how many didn't. 3. For those who did not find it objectionable -- whether or not they even noticed it unprompted -- prompt them to say whether they found the comment objectionable from THEIR point of view, not from the point of view of some imagined feminist. 4. Report your results to us. Your other option is to not do empirical research and continue to go with your gut on this, sort of like Samuelson was doing with actual debt history when he wrote his column. The point? Context is everything, at least when it comes to rational -- as distinguished from Republican -- discourse. And no, Anthony, I am not trying to slime you as being a Republican. - billyblog Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:44:53 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13584 Another Samuelson pratfall today: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/dont-know-much-about-history-debt-edition/ - Chris Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:27:10 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13583 "You realize that there was a Barbie that spouted "Math is hard."? " Yes - but that doesn't make it right to repeat here in this context - you are saying that women are stupid (and call themselves stupid). You don't see that? You are re-enforcing the stereotype that "Barbie" can't do math. "I've never read anything sexist on this blog. " Me neither - that is why I pointed it out. - Anthony Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:18:45 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13582 "As Barbie would say..." - perfect satire!! And don't the greedhead pundits twist themselves into pretzels pretending it's a foregone conclusion that taxes cannot be raised on the 0.1%-ers? - fuller schmidt Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:46:59 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13581 Keynes's countrymen - and women - initiated its much loved National Health Service (NHS)in 1947, a time when a can of Spam was a luxury good. - Union Member Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:09:07 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13580 The crisis will have taught us at least two useful things: 1-So, far new keynesian economics have been right; 2-Some people are economists, others are religiously apologetic of their beliefs (in fiscal austerity). Krugman on his NT blog left a post with a link to this article and actually did expose the actual evolution of the debt-to-GDP ratio since 1830 in the UK. For their information, the debt as Keynes thought out his works and wrote was hoovering between 180 to 200% of the GDP (that's from 1921 to 1935) and it peaked around 1945 at about 260%... It's a curious fact given that the following 30 years (1945-1975) are called the "Glorious Thirty." So, what we see now is simple... conservatives are humans like everyone and, as such, have presented to themselves their ideas in a manner that appeared justified. Being faced with an inconveniently contradictory cognition that constitutes facts with regard to their ideas, the most rigid term will remain and the other one will bend around. What's more rigid, do you think? Their beliefs in fiscal austerity and their untouchable conviction in markets and, as such, reality will be the term that bends around it. It seems cruel, but that's a vulgarized version of the personal belief confirmation bias and of cognitive dissonance. So, what this framework allows me to tell you is that they will keep packing excuses, re-interpretations and couple them with some "wait and you will see." Welcome to conservativeland! They're not willingly bad; they're only either deluded or stupid: you be the judge! - BOSS Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:58:26 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13579 Bad day today Dean? - jml8201 Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:45:13 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13578 The really troubling thing about Samuelson's position is that he prefers to allow suffering now because he fears something that might or might not happen, at some indeterminate future time, whose effects he can't even begin to quantify. In Samuelson's world, we should ignore the real wolves snapping at our heals because if we keep running, we might run smack into the boogeyman of our nightmares. Of course, for some unknown reason, Samuelson keeps his job, so as far as he is concerned there is no unemployment problem. - Robert Weiler Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:01:46 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13577 Samuelson says that Keysnianism was "plausible" in the 1930s. That was certainly not the view of fiscal conservatives at the time! Far from plausible, they found it incomprehensible and dangerous. The only thing that has changed are the excuses used by fiscal conservatives. In the 1930s it was maintaining the sanctity of the gold standard. Now it is mythical bond vigilantes. - Max Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:58:51 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13576 Anthony, You realize that there was a Barbie that spouted "Math is hard."? I've never read anything sexist on this blog. as for the captcha-- I thought the cyrillic (style?) letters were bad, but really- fuzzy inverted letters? - Kat Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:49:53 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13575 Dean I am a huge fan or your blog, your writing and your thinking - but lines like this need to be checked at the door: "As Barbie would say, so is math." That is just a lazy sexist metaphor that needs to be retired. Thanks - - Anthony Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:59:16 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq#comment-13574 Currently US and German government bonds are regarded as safer than those of countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain, etc., so when there is uncertainty money flows to them. This could change, if some other country comes to be viewed as the safe refuge. The obvious candidate for the next safe refuge is China if their economy continues to grow at current rates. It would be some time before this could happen, and there is no reason to think that China will not have setbacks - Krugman's column today brings up some possible trouble points in China's economy. In 1989 Japan was viewed much as China is today. People have always been excessively afraid of national debt. They said the same thing about Britain's debt all through the 19th and 20th centuries, and even before. It was especially great after the Napoleonic wars. The historian Macaulay wrote in 1885 "At every stage in the growth of that debt the nation has set up the same cry of anguish and despair ...Nevertheless ...the nation [became] richer and richer" (quoted in A History of Interest Rates, by Homer and Sylla). - skeptonomist Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:52:21 +0100