tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post7136450765575425895..comments2024-03-28T15:34:06.948-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Do our leaders know what they’re talking about?<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-70353649421324693582012-06-29T17:00:12.151-04:002012-06-29T17:00:12.151-04:00Much of the problem with this blog is that Somerby...Much of the problem with this blog is that Somerby is frequently unclear and erratic in his writing. It is often very hard to even know what he is getting at.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31079867749587399562012-06-21T18:46:29.838-04:002012-06-21T18:46:29.838-04:00I'm the guy who referenced Lenny Bruce, and I&...I'm the guy who referenced Lenny Bruce, and I'm un-amazed, but amused, at the bizarre response of my Anonymous cousin. WTF does Krugman have to do with this? <br /><br />(Though I like the little dude, in fact, loved the little dude when he dropped this line at the LSE last month:<br />"The Eurozone has a deep structural problem in the fact that it has a single currency without a single government, and that has turned out to make it very, very difficult to cope. The United States has a deep structural problem which is that one of our two major political parties is completely insane.")<br /><br />As for my "amusing" you cousin Anon., well, yeah, that's the only point of these idiotic comment sections isn't it, to amuse ourselves and others? It's why our little brains spin round and round, yes?<br />And how we spin sometimes reveals the missing teeth from our brain's hour wheel, as my cuz does here when he posits this "dismisses the opposition" nonsense. <br /><br />Ya see, Cuz, out here in Flyover Land, we don't think of folks as the opposition, instead we think of them as fellow fools, who perhaps are a little too full of themselves, but given their ability to steal and grasp unearned wealth, who can blame them?<br /><br />Peace, love, Woodstock, free the Uighur Three and the Fortune Five Hundred!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59163999485590689822012-06-20T00:54:33.379-04:002012-06-20T00:54:33.379-04:00I Solomonically rule this thread extinguished!!I Solomonically rule this thread extinguished!!majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47331471670024033642012-06-19T10:41:51.511-04:002012-06-19T10:41:51.511-04:00"I don't have the heart or the patience t..."I don't have the heart or the patience to revisit it."<br /><br />You never "visited" it in the first instance.<br /><br />You appeared to think self-confident ridicule would carry the day.<br /><br />You (or anyone at all of course) are welcome to point out any "innovations in arithmetic," any at all. No one has, and no one will.<br /><br />The disappearance of your substance-free contributions will be welcome, and whether you intend it or not will be taken as concession.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63461326299390771502012-06-19T09:34:04.894-04:002012-06-19T09:34:04.894-04:00sherrlock, Swan, Bob, whoever:
This is positively...sherrlock, Swan, Bob, whoever:<br /><br />This is positively my last post on this subject, but I would simply inquire, for your future reference, whether you believe these that tough-guy video game frothings ("you ain't got nothing!", etc.) and your adding of two and three digit numbers in public, convinces anyone of anything?<br /><br />The devastating "June 17, 2012 9:04 AM" post which supposedly savages my position is no doubt your own sterling contribution, and I don't have the heart or the patience to revisit it. One wouldn't have supposed that arithmetic principles which were settled several thousand years ago would have be re-argued here, but live and learn.<br /><br />One wonders, in passing, whether you take actually this nonsense seriously, or it's just a rhetorical strategy, to exhaust and demoralize the opposition. Not that it matters much.<br /><br />On the other hand, this thread (and, of course, many others) is a defining illustration of the self-serving irrelevance of the Somerby program. While it's certainly true that the voters who ultimately decide American elections, the ones who routinely vote against their own interests, are not of your stripe, and wouldn't make these kinds of arguments, there's no means of reaching them. All one can encounter in the public sphere are your types, who drown out everyone else with bluster, novel innovations in arithmetic and cowboy locutions. Hell, it worked great for GWB, so perhaps that's the plan. Remember "fuzzy math"?<br /><br />But no matter. This is how the world works. Anyone who looks today to the public sphere for satisfaction is going to live a very disappointing life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61293216288524807522012-06-19T08:59:25.350-04:002012-06-19T08:59:25.350-04:00Hey, try your hand at some math:
"If in the ...Hey, try your hand at some math:<br /><br />"If in the non-recessionary year 5000 the gov't gets $100 in revenue, and borrows $30, and spends both the financing and revenue streams, that's $130 in spending.<br /><br />If in the year 5001 there's a recession and revenue is only $80, and the gov't increases borrowing to $50, and spends both the financing and revenue streams, that's still $130 in spending."<br /><br />"absurd claims that increased borrowing doesn't mean increased government spending"<br /><br />Borrowing: Increased by $20.<br />Spending: Flat.<br /><br />"One absurd claim after another."<br /><br />You're a self-caricature.<br /><br />A cipher, dressed as a clown, who fancies himself a genius.<br /><br />All arguments aren't vanquished because I say say so. Yours is vanquished because it's nothing at all. Bring something next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-41782278594835042102012-06-19T08:49:20.080-04:002012-06-19T08:49:20.080-04:00"To arrive at the opposite conclusion" -..."To arrive at the opposite conclusion" -- where is that happening other than in your head?<br /><br />You are changing the subject, again. Not a good strategy. The refuge of someone who has no case. Who's got nothing.<br /><br />Walsh's claim. The graph. It's about employment growth during recessions.<br /><br />"Republicans don't give a damn about deficits" is what you want to talk about, because you're wrong on the merits of the argument about Somerby's post. <br /><br />Arguments you refuse to address.<br /><br />Except with tripe such as "absurd claims that increased borrowing doesn't mean increased government spending" -- But it doesn't, of course. <br /><br />If you can't do math, just admit it. <br /><br />"June 17, 2012 9:04 AM" laid waste to your nonsense. <br /><br />Only for people who can do math, of course. <br /><br />Revenue: down 20%; Borrowing: up 67%; Spending: flat. <br /><br />When you can do math, come back to us.<br /><br />You've loved to imply "right wing" as an epithet. Or accuse adoration of "Saint Ronnie" Reagan. <br /><br />Which of course makes it doubly hilarious when you are the only one to have appealed to the GOP as an authority on anything: "tell the Republicans that borrowing a few hundred billion isn't really a spending increase."<br /><br />Hilarious, because you're wrong -- borrowing isn't spending.<br /><br />Hilarious again, because you say "tell the Republicans" -- they're *your* go-to-guys on economic sense -- not mine.<br /><br />Identity is important to you? You don't have one. In fact, you've got nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52024962411194643992012-06-18T22:56:33.623-04:002012-06-18T22:56:33.623-04:00I can't remember whether the "you got not...I can't remember whether the "you got nothing" guy is Sherrlock or Swan (or maybe Bob Somerby?), but it hardly matters, the tune is all too familiar.<br /><br />As usual, you declare victory, all arguments vanquished because you say so, and therefore it must be so.<br /><br />If one accepts that Republican administrations don't give a damn about deficits and pursue Keynesian economic policies, either consciously or as a analog to crony capitalism, than nothing either Klein or Walsh said is wrong in any serious way. Krugman says much the same thing -- that Republicans don't give a damn about deficits and pursue Keynesian policies when in power -- but no doubt Dr. K. also has "got nothing".<br /><br />To arrive at the opposite conclusion, you've got to accept the aforementioned pile of nonsense, which passes for "economics" in this thread. We're talking about absurd claims that increased borrowing doesn't mean increased government spending (hell, we're just borrowing for the heck of it!; the money stays in the vault!). And because employment doesn't go it, there can't be any stimulus in place. Preventing job losses isn't stimulus!<br /><br />You get the idea: one absurdity after another. But as you say, anybody who doesn't take your point of view has "got nothing", so that pretty much ends it.<br /><br />Good luck, Swan. Or is it sherrlock? Or Bob? No matter, it's all one big happy family here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58879786366105702372012-06-18T22:21:21.584-04:002012-06-18T22:21:21.584-04:00You got nothing, 10:02.
It's not a matter of ...You got nothing, 10:02.<br /><br />It's not a matter of "conceding that Republican administrations run large deficits."<br /><br />Walsh made specific claims about government employment during recessions. <br /><br />Those claims were wrong.<br /><br />Somerby pointed it out.<br /><br />A lot of effort was expended in trying to deny Somerby was correct.<br /><br />That's all been refuted. <br /><br />It's only your effort now to deny this that falls under the heading "reality is what you say it is."<br /><br />You have nothing at all in your supposed "pile of nonsense" from Somerby's supporters.<br /><br />You have no one at all "denying basic facts of Republican governance."<br /><br />You've got, as always, nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64432561325383275432012-06-18T22:02:27.086-04:002012-06-18T22:02:27.086-04:00@majneb
Unfortunately, your assessment makes both...@majneb<br /><br />Unfortunately, your assessment makes both unwarranted assumptions and completely ignores the dishonesty and sophistry found in many of the preceding 60+ posts.<br /><br />The fact that Joan Walsh and Ezra Klein are employed by corporate America does not make them persons who have to be answered for by liberals or progressives. When you claim that "we can agree that Joan Walsh and Ezra Klein, regardless of whether they deserve to be, are both widely recognized, high profile liberal pundits," I'm not sure who you're speaking for, other than yourself. If they're "widely recognized" it's only because corporate America has chosen to make them so. If you want to debate liberal economists, I suggest you check out Dean Baker, Jamie Galbraith or Paul Krugman. They're also "widely recognized", but for reasons of achievement, not corporate convenience.<br /><br />More to the point, the vast bulk of discussion in this thread does not concern what Joan Walsh did or didn't say. It involves, rather, the nature of Republican administrations and basic economics, contains many absurd claims and non sequiturs. <br /><br />You haven't attempted to address any of these claims. And you may have noticed that those who adopt Somerby's point of view have yet to concede that Republican administrations run large deficits and increase public sector employment as a matter of policy -- that Republicans are, in fact, Keynesians when in power.<br /><br />And it's no coincidence that they don't. Bob Somerby ended his post by acknowledging that, as usual, he doesn't know the facts of the matter.<br /><br />His supporters, by contrast, claim they do know the facts of the matter. And the facts, according to them, is that reality is what they say it is.<br /><br />Until you're prepared to take on and examine their assertions, one by one, it's a little silly to come here and purport to rule on the discussion. While I confess to despising the man and his tactics, we're not really talking about Bob Somerby at this point. We're talking about a pile of nonsense, adduced by Somerby's supporters, to deny the basic facts of Republican governance. Just start reading at the toip.<br /><br />Until you're prepared to take on that pile of waste, assess its truthfully, and the good faith of those who make such arguments, kindly spare the rest of us your Solomonic rulings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23855554145119643952012-06-18T20:51:50.679-04:002012-06-18T20:51:50.679-04:00Sorry majneb about the typo.Sorry majneb about the typo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29947159940854952902012-06-18T20:50:36.263-04:002012-06-18T20:50:36.263-04:00Right on manjeb.
At the last, the reflex Somerby ...Right on manjeb.<br /><br />At the last, the reflex Somerby detractors have retreated to their final position:<br /><br />They're wrong on the facts, but Somerby should shut up anyway. <br /><br />It's "perverse scrutiny" to point out their errors.<br /><br />The only reason to point out Walsh's or Klein's error is "to deny policy realities."<br /><br />That NOT ONE POST correcting the many Somerby detractors shows *any* evidence of disagreement on the policy matter of whether Keyensian stimulus is effective is irrelevant, apparently.<br /><br />The most recent corrective post EVEN EXPLICITLY STATED "Observing that the case regarding GOP gov't employment growth stimulation as made by Walsh and Klein is very weak is *not* the same as thinking that Keynesian stimulus doesn't work."<br /><br />But whatever. <br /><br />The evidence is that they're here to bash Somerby and anyone who might agree with him, not discuss anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54551292966217182872012-06-18T20:34:50.171-04:002012-06-18T20:34:50.171-04:00In the first sentence of this post which has spawn...In the first sentence of this post which has spawned such a lengthy comments section, Somerby asks "Do our liberal intellectual leaders actually know what they’re talking about?"<br /><br />I think we can all agree that Joan Walsh and Ezra Klein, regardless of whether they deserve to be, are both widely recognized, high profile liberal pundits. Unfortunately, in attempting to support the principles of Keynesian economics, they made some important factual blunders and overstatements. How much of this was a result of incompetence and how much the result of dishonesty is not clear, but it is hard to argue that having "liberal intellectual leaders" of this sort is something not to be concerned with.majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-91418857780268461292012-06-18T19:17:46.324-04:002012-06-18T19:17:46.324-04:00This "self-styled progressive" would sug...This "self-styled progressive" would suggest you examine Obama's public sector employment record, to get a good sense of what happens to employment levels when Keynesian stimulus runs out in a recession.<br /><br />Flat employment (as in the case of the early Reagan years) or rising employment (as in the case of Bush I and II) represents, by contrast, Keynes at work and represents anywhere from .5 to 1% in the nationwide unemployment rate -- a huge number of workers. One could also argue that rising employment in the later Reagan years was also designed as stimulus -- you don't have to be in a recession, to seek stimulus -- but never mind.<br /><br />It's so much more important to talk about Joan Walsh -- in a medium which necessarily trades in generalities. In standard Howler fashion, the only thing of value is to subject the utterances of people Bob insists on calling liberals to literal and perverse levels of scrutiny.<br /><br />And of course, there's a reason why some here love to focus on such matters -- because it makes it so much easier to deny policy realities.<br /><br />But never mind. How about we all agree that, despite running huge deficits and vastly increasing public employment rolls, Republicans aren't really Keynesians, because Joan Walsh said something or other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44731456232746108322012-06-18T18:56:17.983-04:002012-06-18T18:56:17.983-04:00Walsh made a broad statement about what the graph ...Walsh made a broad statement about what the graph showed about government employment increases. <br /><br />She was wrong in at least two of the instances: there was not a significant increase *during* the Reagan or Bush I recessions. There is tepid growth during the Bush I recession, but it is very weak and hardly the stuff that makes a good argument that there was a pro-government growth stimulative agenda at work -- it's below population growth rates, for sure. The Reagan recession didn't have gov't employment growth, it had decline.<br /><br />Any real significant increases came after the recessions were already over. You really can't say about those two cases that the administrations increased government employment as an antidote to the recessions -- that they were trying to use an increase in government employment as a Keynesian way to get out of recession. You can't say it, because the employment boom came after, not during, the recessions.<br /><br />Somerby called the 3rd GOP case in the graph an "outlier."<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />That case is Bush II. There *is* a sustained increase there, and during the recession. Even so, there is reason to doubt the Walsh meme. Did Bush II increase government employment quickly because he thought growing the government was a good way to combat the recession? Or was it significantly due to post-9/11 security concerns?<br /><br />You can ignore the question if you like. It sounds like a legitimate one to me.<br /><br />NONE of the soi-disant "progressives" have made a case against Somerby's point: this is very sloppy work indeed.<br /><br />Frankly, the idea that one must accept Walsh's (or Klein's) flimsy story here to be a legitimate progressive (as at least one individual above has implied) is a grotesque inversion of reality.<br /><br />To state the obvious: <br /><br />Observing that the case regarding GOP gov't employment growth stimulation as made by Walsh and Klein is very weak is *not* the same as thinking that Keynesian stimulus doesn't work.<br /><br />These clowns then have the temerity to call those who call out their many-layered bullshit, "right wing."<br /><br />Their own distortions and misdirections have been multiple -- recounting them here is beside the point, but...<br /><br />1) changing the subject from employment to spending<br />2) miscounting debt as spending<br />3) pretending timing wasn't important<br /><br />have all been employed in an attempt to defend the shoddy work by Walsh and Klein.<br /><br />And yet.<br /><br />Bob Somerby was correct.<br /><br />To say so though, well, it marks one as a sheep, a Somerby fanboy, and it would seem a "right winger." Welcome to the world of the American self-styled "progressive."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49957052400863913292012-06-18T15:46:14.391-04:002012-06-18T15:46:14.391-04:00See, you're still not answering the relevant q...See, you're still not answering the relevant questions, and I'm not sure if this is deliberate obfuscation or if I just haven't been explicitly clear about the exact questions that are at issue here.<br /><br />Bob has been concerned of late that progressives don't really know how to talk about, much less persuade those who don't agree with us, substantive policy issues. Before we can have a broader discussion about policy, we have to be sure we aren't wrong on fundamental facts.<br /><br />So, I will try again, attempting to be more explicit.<br /><br />DURING THE RECESSION in Pres. Reagan's term, were there more total government employees (fed and state) then there were before the recession began? Did the government spend more money DURING THE RECESSION than it did immediately before?<br /><br />and then the same for the recessions of Bush1 and Bush2.<br /><br />Before we progressives can begin to discuss economic policy as a whole, we have to be clear about what the basic facts are, and getting those wrong, even if in the service of a larger truth about the benefits of Keynesian stimulus, will only serve to discredit us.majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83506872714243521742012-06-18T15:37:07.910-04:002012-06-18T15:37:07.910-04:00I'm as puzzled as majneb.
Putting aside anon&...I'm as puzzled as majneb.<br /><br />Putting aside anon's argument that preventing public sector employment from falling in a recession also represents a stimulus andis also Keynesian, what is the position of the anti-Keynesians for the two other Republican administrations? <br /><br />Are you guys arguing that the two other Republican adminstrations didn't see rapid and immediate growth in public sector employment? Or just that Walsh is wrong about Reagan, despite the immediate stimulative effect of the Reagan deficits?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82561185461457904062012-06-18T15:25:48.484-04:002012-06-18T15:25:48.484-04:00I can't bear for Somerby's original post t...I can't bear for Somerby's original post to be correct.<br /><br />Anyone who points this out must be a right-winger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-36247970535043716382012-06-18T15:23:45.263-04:002012-06-18T15:23:45.263-04:00Asked: "Did public sector employment increase...Asked: "Did public sector employment increase *during* *recessions*?"<br /><br />Answered: "employment increased under Republican *administrations*"<br /><br />Now, you can ask, WHY does he change "during recessions" to "under administrations?"<br /><br />Because he's pretending.<br />Somerby's original post was correct.<br />Walsh erred.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62088962723923507292012-06-18T14:59:07.380-04:002012-06-18T14:59:07.380-04:00But you know full well that we're not having a...But you know full well that we're not having a debate among "progressives". There is no debate -- none -- in the reality-based community that government spending and public sector employment increased under Republican administrations, that such spending had a stimulus effect, and that these policies are "Keynesian", whether Republicans like the word or not.<br /><br />The dispute is between progressives infuriated by Bob Somerby, and right-wingers drawn to the site because of it's criticism of the "liberal media".<br /><br />If you, a self-described progressive, can consult the data and read through those 50+ posts and still believe the pro-Somerby faction is arguing in good faith, we "progressives" truly *are* doomed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29646234416857823612012-06-18T13:49:18.058-04:002012-06-18T13:49:18.058-04:00I can't believe we are still arguing over two ...I can't believe we are still arguing over two simple facts, and if we can't even resolve these after over 50 comments, maybe we "progressives" should consider just packing it in. <br /><br />2 Questions, yes or no:<br /><br />Did public sector employment increase during recessions under past republican presidents?<br /><br />Did government spending increase during past recessions under republican presidents?<br /><br />Are "progressives" even capable of agreeing on what should be two straightforward factual questions? Can we be the reality-based community that we imagine ourselves to be?majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45534835478622514762012-06-18T12:53:48.152-04:002012-06-18T12:53:48.152-04:00"In fact, we see no sign in Klein’s graph tha..."In fact, we see no sign in Klein’s graph that “total government employment” rose during the recession which started in 1981. Three years in, employment seems to be down by one percent. Nor so we see any vast increase in government employment during the Bush 41 recession, the one which started in 1990. Roughly two years into that recession, it looks like “total government employment” had risen by one percent."<br /><br />Somerby: correct.<br /><br />You and Walsh: wrong.<br /><br />Your ability to point to a "lie": non-existent.<br /><br />The relevance of "stimulus" to the question of "the antidote to recession was government employment?": nil.<br /><br />If the big employment rises come *after* the end of the recessions, that means they *weren't* used as the antidote in those cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15914824494493040332012-06-18T12:48:29.158-04:002012-06-18T12:48:29.158-04:00For the nth time, Yes, you concur:
Walsh is NOT ...For the nth time, Yes, you concur: <br /><br />Walsh is NOT correct about "the timing of that employment growth."<br /><br />To contradict you is not to imply sainthood for anyone, it is merely to observe you intransigent stupidity -- Somerby was right; you and Walsh, wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18123531807199027422012-06-18T12:37:46.180-04:002012-06-18T12:37:46.180-04:00"No getting around it Republicans, windsurfin..."No getting around it Republicans, windsurfing is MUCH cooler than those velvet-hatted antics."<br /><br />Americans secretly crave a monarchy and a King. Dressage fits that bill. Wind-surfing looks fun, but it doesn't much look like royalty. Advantage: Dressage. Conclusion: Most Americans will have no problem with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90190795838068282332012-06-18T12:15:49.551-04:002012-06-18T12:15:49.551-04:00For the nth and last time, your hero, Saint Ronald...For the nth and last time, your hero, Saint Ronald, sustained pre-recession levels of public sector employment with stimulus -- otherwise, public sector employment would have dropped sharply. <br /><br />The other two Republican presidents, as you conveniently ignore, oversaw *immediate* public sector growth.<br /><br />But what's reality, for right-wing trolls? Merely an inconvenience!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com