30 November 2008

Lyndon W. Hoover


A while back, I was resisting the growing sentiment that W. has been our worst president ever; as we flail about in the midst of the current financial crisis, however, resistance becomes harder to mount (who would have ever thought it possible to combine Depression- and Vietnam-era flashbacks in one administration?). But how much of this disaster can we put on George W. Bush, really? Surely a crisis of this magnitude had many fathers.

It all depends on what our understanding of the nature and causes of the current predicament are. If a large part of the problem has to do with financial deregulation and a lack of proper oversight, then the problem can be traced back to the 'Rubinomics' of the Clinton Administration. So the question is, what exactly can we blame Bush for?

As I understand it, the shit really hit the fan when Henry Paulson allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse. And according to Floyd Norris, Bush might have avoided the current bust, or lessened its impact, if he'd been more flexible on tax policy: after cutting taxes in order to start a boom (people like Paul Krugman, of course, question whether the cuts caused the boom, or raise doubts as to how much of a boom there was in the first place), W. should have then raised taxes in order to deal with the enormous ensuing budget deficits, and in order to 'apply the brakes' to runaway growth.

Is that enough to justify talk of 'George W. Hoover'?

11 November 2008

Obamanomics

Saw a great talk at Davidson recently by the behavioral economist Dan Ariely, whose book Predictably Irrational seems to be getting a lot of attention (he gives good interview, too). Hell, behavioral economics in general seems to be getting a lot of attention, e.g., David Brooks' recent column.

Noam Scheiber reported a while back in The New Republic that Austan Goolsbee, Barack Obama's top economic adviser, seemed to have some kind of fan-boy thing for Brooks; Goolsbee consults regularly with his University of Chicago colleague, the behavioral economist Richard Thaler; is that the connection?

05 November 2008

Fearless Predictions, I: Bill and Barack

42 and 44 will become unlikely friends, with Bill an infrequent but notable guest in Obamalot. Bill wants influence, can't help but dispense political advice; Barry has little to gain, but ... that old Clinton charm? Hey, who would've ever predicted 41 + 42? Perhaps, too, there'll be the Rahm Emanuel connection, as well as the Rubinomists at Treasury. How many Clinton staffers surface in the new Administration? How much choice does Obama have, really? I should think that Carter Administration vets would be quite long in the tooth by now--but then again, 43 reached all the way back to the Ford Administration...

H.N.I.C.

!!!
Who would have ever thought that a tall, dark, and handsome graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law might one day be elected President? Is this a great country or what?