Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

My Favorite Obama Endorsement So Far

with one comment

James Heckman, a Nobel Lauereate whose reputation in the mainstream economics community is impeccable:

         I do not think it’s class warfare [Obama's economic policies], I think it’s empirical economics. The real issue is the empirical content of the supply side economics dogma. It’s pretty threadbare. The “real business cycle” theory is simply inconsistent with empirical evidence. That does not prevent it from being taught as gospel to students (it’s really gospel not empirical evidence). I would first and foremost talk to Ray Fair (Yale) and Mark Watson (Princeton) about the evidence for the supply side model. What is ironic is that those who preach supply side practice a crude version of Keynesian economics that ignores all of those incentive effects claimed to be so important by the supply side theorists. The real question apart from the current turmoil is the longer run. Denying the value of investment in knowledge;in infrastructure;in basic science and education at all levels has been and will continue to be harmful to our long run health. In my mind Obama’s eyes are fixed more on things that will improve the US economy in the next century. The basic data on the current crisis is still being revealed, but it’s clear that the absence of serious regulatory oversight contributed mightily to the current problems. It’s not class warfare; its about a future-oriented society.
And my heart flutters.

Written by Matt Zeitlin

October 30, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Posted in General Election

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Supply side economics is to Republicans what a belief in unions is to Democrats.

    Every time I see someone (correctly) railing against supply side economics and Republicans, I always think of this quote from University of Massachusetts Herbert Gintis:

    Krugman would strengthen the labor unions, which he credits for their egalitarian effects. However, unions were strong only when industry was highly non-competitive in such areas as automobiles and steel. The oligopolistic character of mid-twentieth century industry, with a few countries in the lead, made fighting over the excess profits highly rewarding. With globalization, there are no excess profits to be fought over. Thus, it is not surprising that most successful unions in the USA are public service, not private (e.g., teachers, government employees). There is no future in unionism, period.

    Trying to rid Democrats of their faith in unions is about as hard as removing Republicans of their faith in supply side economics.

    The Economist blog has more.

    HispanicPundit

    October 31, 2008 at 12:31 am


Leave a Reply