tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post1716598769795696574..comments2024-03-29T07:18:14.271-05:00Comments on The Grumpy Economist: The conversationJohn H. Cochranehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-31566530293245448972018-08-09T21:01:51.304-05:002018-08-09T21:01:51.304-05:00@Absalon why are you lumping Paul Ryan in with Don...@Absalon why are you lumping Paul Ryan in with Donal Trump?James Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778250145758547603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-65419357011161652962018-08-09T18:54:20.492-05:002018-08-09T18:54:20.492-05:00Absalon - Winning the popular vote isn't how y...Absalon - Winning the popular vote isn't how you win the Presidency. The electoral vote wasn't close. I think Sanders would have won more of the popular vote than Clinton, but more importantly, I think he would have had a much better chance of winning enough states' electoral votes to win the election.<br /><br />Also, who said I was a Republican?Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-87524091952441631602018-08-08T00:37:47.306-05:002018-08-08T00:37:47.306-05:00Hmmmm... don't we pay the tariffs?
Does that ...Hmmmm... don't we pay the tariffs?<br />Does that make me a fool? Or T a liar?<br />--E5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-1792190864568987742018-08-08T00:34:20.284-05:002018-08-08T00:34:20.284-05:00Not the resistance. The majority of the people we...Not the resistance. The majority of the people were too deferential to the brown shirts.<br />--E5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-43189840522637650492018-08-08T00:31:23.693-05:002018-08-08T00:31:23.693-05:00"Reading these pieces, and writing this post,..."Reading these pieces, and writing this post, has made me nearly panic"<br />Don't be so anxious. It is not politeness, pedantic attention to carefully crafted wording, or "political correctness" that defines civilisation. People generally cooperating to help each other, without precondition of friend-loyalty, is civilisation. Members of cohesive teams insult each other freely. It is a way of affirming that their cooperation is genuinely intentional. The "Good Samaritan" story, along with the host of other Jesus sayings, is an illustration of behaviour that makes for a good, civilised, world. <br />--E5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-5399358078000294482018-08-07T18:24:41.197-05:002018-08-07T18:24:41.197-05:00'This kind of phrasing has been oozing from Kr...'This kind of phrasing has been oozing from Krugman columns for a long time, and now seems to have infected the rest of the Times.'<br /><br />'Maybe just "don't write insults," actually.'<br /><br />...?Jackson Monroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852120575954185185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-75816210015500882692018-08-07T10:01:38.507-05:002018-08-07T10:01:38.507-05:00"But that does not answer whether adding a fe..."But that does not answer whether adding a few ground rules to the "culture wars" would be a good idea."<br /><br />I think it would be helpful to articulate exactly what is that you mean by the "culture wars". What issue is it that you think is the most important issue that divides the sides? <br /><br />From Canada it seems to me that you have three broad issues: (1) should gays have legal rights to, for example, marry; (2) should women have a right to abortion; (3) should the United States make collective efforts to fully integrate African Americans into your society. It also seems to me that the "culture war" consists of straight white men (I'm a grumpy old straight white millionaire) trying to deny gays, women and blacks those freedoms which are important to gays, women and blacks but broadly irrelevant to straight white men. <br /><br />So - don't try to circumscribe the debate by imposing rules on how the debate is to be conducted. Rather be honest about what it is you are really arguing over and go from there. Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-38050046297528353692018-08-06T15:49:00.738-05:002018-08-06T15:49:00.738-05:00You've missed the point of the article. To dr...You've missed the point of the article. To draw a needlessly extreme* analogy in an attempt to explain: chemical warfare was not banned in WW2 because the combatants viewed the opposing side more favorably than they did back in WW1. Instead all parties agreed that a few minimal rules of engagement would be mutually beneficial, even in the context of (literally) slaughtering one another. This article was suggesting the same underlying logic could apply to U.S. politics. You seem to have misinterpreted the question as "who started it?" or "which side is right?"<br /><br />So yes, we all get it, you think the opposing side is very terrible indeed. But that does not answer whether adding a few ground rules to the "culture wars" would be a good idea. If you have an opinion on THAT question, it'd be good to hear.<br /><br />*I think war tends to be a poor analogy for most anything else, but that seems to be how we've decided to talk about this, so I'll just go with it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-89460533249371385742018-08-06T15:12:50.500-05:002018-08-06T15:12:50.500-05:00I'm curious why a candidate for the House is p...I'm curious why a candidate for the House is posting as "Unknown". Seems like you might be missing a chance to get support from people who read The Grumpy Economist. Of course, you also avoid a few eggs and tomatoes which might fly your way, but still...LA_Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09775262019154051166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-49996603678738132312018-08-06T10:57:39.990-05:002018-08-06T10:57:39.990-05:00"You want to minimize fights over abortion? W..."You want to minimize fights over abortion? Well, respect a woman's right to choose but don't subsidize those choices with Federal money."<br /><br />Isn't that more-or-less the current state of affairs?Adam Bowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606529305410286742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-39845426472820213842018-08-05T17:24:44.991-05:002018-08-05T17:24:44.991-05:00I wonder if the resistance in pre-Fascist Germany ...I wonder if the resistance in pre-Fascist Germany in the 1930s were a bit too civil with their growing brown shirt movement. DoDealshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03771077157351067426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-9028853599466709602018-08-05T16:06:27.446-05:002018-08-05T16:06:27.446-05:00President Trump on the economics of tariffs:
&quo...President Trump on the economics of tariffs:<br /><br />"Donald J. Trump<br /><br />....Tariffs will make our country much richer than it is today. Only fools would disagree. We are using them to negotiate fair trade deals and, if countries are still unwilling to negotiate, they will pay us vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs. We win either way......<br /><br />12:58 PM - 4 Aug 2018"Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-56022353680953296512018-08-05T09:47:59.017-05:002018-08-05T09:47:59.017-05:00Professor, I don't want to clog your thread or...Professor, I don't want to clog your thread or outstay my tenuous welcome but it seems to me that everything in American politics has to be judged in the context of a President who would send tweets like this:<br />"Donald J. Trump<br />The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!<br /><br />4:38 AM - 5 Aug 2018"<br /><br />Donald Trump is the reality that the right and the left have to deal with. <br /><br /><br /><br />Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-78623411209945007452018-08-04T16:03:39.692-05:002018-08-04T16:03:39.692-05:00Dear Professor,
As someone from Europe, I fully a...Dear Professor,<br /><br />As someone from Europe, I fully agree that the growing lack of civility and common understanding in the US between left and right is frightening. And I am very far from sharing all of the progessive's latest ideas and ideals.<br /><br />However, I think mainstream, moderate conservatives like you have a share of responsibility in this. There was a time when the Republican party rejected the extremism of Senators Taft and MacCarthy. Today's Republican party is still pushing for creationist/intelligent design textbooks accross school districts on half of America. Today's Republican party has embraced climate change denial. When the Koch brothers deny climate change, is that saying something untrue, or is it telling a lie, or is it being a liar?<br /><br />All the moderate conservatives who now despair in the lies (or untrue assertions) coming from the White House, why did they keep silent against climate change denial, against waterboarding, against the alleged weapons of mass destruction and following cover up?<br /><br />With such a record of excusing blatant lies (climate change, Iraq, Kerry's swiftboat veterans, McCain's wedlock's daughter) as mere free speech and honest disagreement, it is no surprise that some genuine free speech and disagreement becomes a bunch of lies in the others' eyes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-26765214147667158442018-08-04T15:58:20.090-05:002018-08-04T15:58:20.090-05:00@Peter Donis - Clinton won the popular vote. Repub...@Peter Donis - Clinton won the popular vote. Republicans blaming the Democrats for Trump's election seems "odd". Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-16460548813487925432018-08-04T15:56:36.595-05:002018-08-04T15:56:36.595-05:00Professor Cochrane - that depends entirely on your...Professor Cochrane - that depends entirely on your definition of a "real Republican". In the Canadian context I'm moderate center right. In American context I would be center left. I believe in centrist policies, leaning right on economics and leaning left on social issues. If your definition of a "real Republican" is Donald Trump, Paul Ryan or any member of the Freedom Caucus then you are right I could not usefully sit down with them (although for differing reasons). If your "real Republican" is David Frum, I expect that I would have no trouble having a respectful exchange of views on a wide range of topics. Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-54752590287742673162018-08-04T07:30:30.104-05:002018-08-04T07:30:30.104-05:00I agree entirely, so far as it goes, but I rather ...I agree entirely, so far as it goes, but I rather doubt that exhortations to personal reflection and growth will change anything. The first step to a solution is a model of the problem: can you suggest an economic analysis of what is going on, which might lead to proposals for institutional change? <br /><br />Here’s my take, which is probably not very original. Most discourse is value signaling. People have a variety of personal values (whether genetic, cultural, learned), but group membership is at least as important as expressing our personal values. We normally want a group of up to 150 friends (Dunbar’s number). If your pool of potential friends is ideologically diverse, then value signaling and the drive for group membership are at odds, and you have to tone down value signaling for the sake of friendship. The pool will be diverse if it is small (relative to 150) and more or less randomly selected in relation to political views. (My main circle of friends is though mountain biking, in a fairly small town, and no one ever talks politics.) If the pool is biased eg by geographic clustering (as mentioned), or if the pool is large (as a result of the internet), so that you can select 150 friends with similar views, then we can indulge our inherent values as a means of group membership. In that case, the drive to value signaling and that to group membership are reinforcing, because value signaling becomes a method of signaling membership. But if clustering and the internet are driving factors behind increasing divisiveness, I don’t really see a solution.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-12636384171506974912018-08-03T17:20:31.637-05:002018-08-03T17:20:31.637-05:00While many calls for civility are sincere (at leas...While many calls for civility are sincere (at least in the moment), I find myself cynical about the repeated calls (usually from conservatives) for "more civil discourse". It's easy to say "if only the world were nicer" but most "civil discourse" proponents do remarkably little to advance the cause. <br /><br />Take Mr. Hatch for example - not just his early-days homophobic comments, but in 2018 he has had a nasty habit of referring to the views/tactics of his political opponents as "dumb ass":<br /><br />http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376361-orrin-hatch-obamacare-supporters-are-the-stupidest-dumbass-people-ive-ever<br /><br />https://thinkprogress.org/hatch-kavanaugh-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland-7072a7e81328/<br /><br />More generally, the character of the "civility" debate only serves to deepen my cynicism.<br /><br />First - calls for "civility" are almost always deployed asymmetrically. Consciously or not, the aggressiveness of those we agree with is justified while that of our opponents is doubly insulting. While I might find much to agree with in the specific arguments of a Ben Shapiro despite diagreeing with him, a big part of his (and many other conservative commentators) approach is to drum up notoriety with an "own the libs" attitude. It might be nice if college students were not be so easily "triggered", but a civil discourse would also benefit from less baiting behavior. Calling out BOTH sides is necessary to move towards a civil discourse, otherwise you're just asking your opponents to shut up (this is my view of Orrin's call for civility). Indeed, I suspect that one downside of baiting behavior from one side is that it induces opponents to drown out all views especially the reasonable ones.<br /><br />Second - civil discourse proponents implicitly ask people to lower the stakes of the discussion. Civility of discourse is not an absolute value - there are actions that are beyond the pale and should be called out as such. What is the civil or polite way to talk about the rampant and willful disassociation with facts that the president and his administration deal in? I think at this point anything short of calling the president himself a liar is just silly; he has richly earned the title. When (to my mind) blatantly inhumane and racist policies such as the travel ban and family separations at the border take place, I think its necessary to trade off civility for a simple and plain description of my views. This, however, gets to the crux of the problem - many of our debates are elevated to the highest emotional registers (indeed inciting these emotions benefits media personalities, media businesses, politicians, activists, etc.) that the stakes tilt the balance away from a commitment to civility.<br /><br />One might ask - are the stakes really that high? The idea of political correctness and the call for micro-political action (i.e. the politicization of everything) together with a toxic media environment certainly help to make us fell that way. How do we move away from this? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy option. Though its not a perfect guide, I am often drawn to the David Foster Wallace piece on technocratic authority as a guide on the standard we should hold public intellectuals to (and ourselves in general).<br /><br />https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-04-0070913.pdf<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-66657222378151086792018-08-03T00:18:06.508-05:002018-08-03T00:18:06.508-05:00I would say that Trump's election was as much ...I would say that Trump's election was as much the fault of the Democrats as of the Republicans--because the Democratic party gave Clinton the nomination when there was strong evidence that Sanders had more popular support. I think many voters who voted Republican in 2016 did so not so much for Trump as against Clinton. I'm no fan of Trump, but the undercurrent of strong dissatisfaction with the establishment (and Clinton was nothing if not a creature of the establishment) that Trump is tapping into is real and has real reasons behind it.Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-6173759114697723502018-08-02T22:44:47.213-05:002018-08-02T22:44:47.213-05:00Well, of course, I agree with this post. We should...Well, of course, I agree with this post. We should be civil.<br /><br />Still, are there grey zones. Lately I have wondered if "global free trade" actually works for the US economy. <br /><br />But to even express skepticism about the benefits of "global free trade" is to be dismissed, and in print and publicly, as an "ignoramus." <br /><br />This happened to me!<br /><br />I fall in the "old turtle" category, so no harm, no foul. I will go my way. <br /><br />But such treatment may disincline others to express their views. <br /><br />Orthodox macroeconomists tend to regard their views as nearly equal to laws of physics. Well, maybe less mutable as new evidence emerges. <br /><br />I was recently heartened to see John Cochrane look at the Phillip's Curve, and report that after 50 years of observations, the sound theory of the Phillip's Curve…doesn't really seem to hold water.<br /><br />Is embracing "global free trade" really the best policy for the US? <br /><br />Has the Far East developed by embracing "global free trade"…or through a heavily manipulated participation in global markets? <br /><br />Which policy produces the best results? <br /><br /><br />Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-50367774730972233322018-08-02T15:02:28.633-05:002018-08-02T15:02:28.633-05:00I experienced this incivility first hand for the f...I experienced this incivility first hand for the first time in 2009. I was attending an outdoor program touring unique trees in my county. The program ended at a city park. At the same time, a Tea Party Event was taking place and breaking up at the same time our tour was concluding. I was approached by a Tea Party participant and asked if I want a Tea Party sign. I told him I wasn't there for the Tea Party Event, but he said, "that's okay, you can still take a sign and some literature" So, upon leaving the park, I'm carrying this sign across the street, and all it said was "Tea Party," nothing else. A passenger in a vehicle at the traffic light, rolled down his window, yelled an epithet at me, and gave me the finger. That was a turning point for me. Wondering what kind of hate would trigger such incivility, I began researching the Tea Party and became much more politically attuned. I never joined the Tea Party but I identified with their slogan, Taxed Enough Already. The next remark was made by President Obama referred to these folks in a very disparaging way, calling them by a crude sexual term, tea baggers. This was the second time he used inappropriate language when disparaged to Pennsylvania's working class, saying we "cling to God and guns." ockamrazorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05252998434520237312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-71601036154745740882018-08-02T13:51:06.338-05:002018-08-02T13:51:06.338-05:00I'll grant that he uses somewhat softer langua...I'll grant that he uses somewhat softer language. But calling an entire generation "ignorant, arrogant" is insulting, unfounded, and meets much of the criteria that Cochrane uses when judging the incivility of those on the left. <br /><br />Victor is extrapolating from a stereotype, instead of carefully observing reality with an open mind. The former process leaves us stuck in a stalemate where neither side will understand the other.Alex Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808796832637114240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-40724882566355124012018-08-02T11:34:43.400-05:002018-08-02T11:34:43.400-05:00My take is that the "cram it down your throat...My take is that the "cram it down your throat" approach to many things has made many folks resist "acceptance" of what is being crammed down their throat. <br /><br />As various groups have claimed some sort of position or "right" to exist...some of those groups appear to have felt that those outside of their group needed to acknowledge their existence and their claim. When the acceptance or affirmation was not made public...those groups felt the need or urge to make a statement, change laws, march or force upon others their needs and views. <br /><br />Most folks want to simply live their lives...and let others do the same. When we, as a society, started to see the proliferation of more aggressive "cram down" tactics of various groups...and forced societal acceptance of those groups claims...then that is when politics became the weaponized vehicle for achieving the forced acceptance from a legal perspective.<br /><br />As the political rhetoric became more course, combined with one sided debate (think global warming) the outcome was necessarily going to involve forcing some sector of our society to accept things that they really would rather not. Many folks don't have the time or desire to fight...so acceptance, forced or otherwise, was the outcome. Eventually laws requiring the quiet majority of voters to accept things, modify behavior...or to pay more (in taxes)for that acceptance. The outcome was obvious...resentment.<br /><br />Today, conversations are based on the resentment of being told how to be, that acceptance of those things are the "correct" way to exist...and that society is better off, even if you don't believe that it is. The press played a roll is escalating the polarity of the various groups...and fed the resentment (for profit or economic reasons). The discourse today has no chance of being calm...resentment usually leads to divorce...which is what seems to be happening today. Your reference to the content of the Russ Roberts article is a good analogy in which he demonstrates that condition.<br /><br />The country is divided...until the resentment of the "other" position is either diminished or accepted...reconciliation is not possible. We got Trump for a reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-91761862103197072472018-08-02T11:31:47.114-05:002018-08-02T11:31:47.114-05:00I'm all for civility. As someone involved with...I'm all for civility. As someone involved with housing politics in a fairly purple place, I've sat down and chatted with various people who I don't have a ton in common with ideologically, and it's gone fairly well.<br /><br />Be careful of the 'both sidesism' though; sometimes there's one group that is wrong, or doing worse things, even if the other side is less than perfect.<br /><br />A silver lining to the Trump disaster is that - as a fairly liberal person - it has made me see some conservatives in a newer, more positive light. They got control of everything, and it'd be easy to just go along with it, but the group of 'Never Trumpers' don't. I still don't agree with them about many things, but because they're willing to go against their party, it makes me think they're worth listening to on other topics as well, even if I may still disagree strongly with their conclusions.David Weltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06273635069183854437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-55999553848053642312018-08-02T11:09:59.081-05:002018-08-02T11:09:59.081-05:00I read the Medium article. I don't buy it. T...I read the Medium article. I don't buy it. There are a lot of assumptions and holes in the argument.<br /><br />1) Is there evidence that people are less informed about facts then they were 30 years ago? Put another way, is there evidence that people believe in (note that this is different from having opinions on) things that are demonstrably not true compared to 30 years ago?<br /><br />2) Is there evidence that most disagreements are over facts as opposed to beliefs? Relatedly, is there evidence that being exposed to new facts can change beliefs?<br /><br />Gay marriage, for instance, is not about facts. Even views on something like free trade can be formed irrespective of facts.You can think that free trade is good, because it increases overall welfare, which need to be proven with empirical facts. You can also believe that trading with whomever you want is a fundamental human right, irrespective of whether it's good or bad for the economy. <br /><br />On the second point, you mentioned that you read the NYT. What fundamental opinion/belief have you changed as a result of reading the NYT that you would not have otherwise? <br /><br />3) Is there evidence that polarization of opinion is bad for democracy? Will it inevitably leads us to a "dark place" as the article suggests?Dannoreply@blogger.com