Comments for Simon Johnson Defends Populism at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments http://www.cepr.net Wed, 22 May 2013 07:14:28 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/simon-johnson-defends-populism#comment-15412 Democrats have effectively defaulted populism over to the Republicans. Roosevelt had populist support during his best years. His return to austerity in 1937 had a lot to do with the loss of it. The Koch bros. grandfather was actually a railway spokesman in Texas when the Texas Populists (and Knights of Labor) were fighting the railroads. Ron Paul is a goldbug. They represent [i]exactly[/i] the anti-populist demographic of 1890 or 1932. There's a huge unrepresented demographic out there. Jesse Jackson tried to reach them, but he got no support. - John Emerson Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:46:36 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/simon-johnson-defends-populism#comment-15380 Time for the six-hour day. - Luke Lea Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:58:56 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/simon-johnson-defends-populism#comment-15373 In his work on balance sheet recessions, Richard Koo has argued that it's very hard for governments in democratic countries these days to run a significant fiscal deficit for an extended period, because of public opinion. It seemed to me that this was true and striking. We basically associate populism with loose fiscal policy. For non-economist types, the assumption would be that poplist policy - popular by definition - means fiscal loosening. Supporters of austerity argue that its virtue is a subtle one, not immediately obvious to the masses, though its benefits will emerge in time. Koo is saying that this is not true. There is empirical evidence, eg in the UK, to suggest he's right. But in that case, what exactly is going on? Should we redefine populism to mean something like: the popularly held but wrong belief that governments should tighten their belts when times are hard and households are hard pressed? - Patrick H Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:57:42 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/simon-johnson-defends-populism#comment-15365 The Populists were the rational ones in 1896, and the gold fetishists the loonies. But almost everyone thinks that the opposite was the case. My belief is that the anti-Populist consensus traces back to Hofstadter's "Age of Reform" and other books, and that this book was motivated by Democratic loyalists problems with the isolationist progressives before WWII and the leftist progressives in 1948. A new pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-populist, technocratic, genteel elitist Democratic Party was being built. It crashed and burned in 1968. - John Emerson Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:14:45 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/simon-johnson-defends-populism#comment-15363 I am interested in your opinion about Max Keiser and his thoughts about gold. His show is interesting to me because I think it gives out good information. But I also feel like what do I know. His thing about gold confuses me. So I cannot tell if he is right or wrong, sage or loon. - MB Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:42:36 +0100