Quotes that Should be Remembered Forever

From March 2020:

I really hope the fiscal stimulus debate doesn’t gain momentum. Not only is it premature…..but I don’t have the writing bandwidth to remind everyone how Keynesian stimulus is an outdated theory (the multiplier is close to zero) with a terrible historical track record.

That’s from a Twitter post by Mr. Brian Riedl.

 

71 thoughts on “Quotes that Should be Remembered Forever

  1. Macroduck

    You were at UCSC when Riedl was an undergrad, so it’s not your fault. But I understand how it could sting.

    Reply
  2. James

    Menizie – i am a layperson and not an economist – but IMO the Biden progressive, Keynesian, pro-Union policies have quickly brought the U.S. back to full unemployment/robust jobs growth and a GDP that is one of the best in the world from the latest GOP “give tax cuts to the rich/create more wealth inequality” recession. And the Biden administration did this while investing in manufacturing, research, infrastructure and cutting emissions for the future. The Dem 117th House managed to pass landmark American Rescue Plan in response to COVID-19; bipartisan infrastructure bill; major gun-safety bill; CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile the dysfunctional/do nothing GOP 118th House have staged evidence-free investigations for Fox News and squabble over who should be Speaker. The GOP House has set up their narrative of “Washington don’t work!” and you need to re-elect the GOP so they can give tax cuts to the rich and cut your Social Security “entitlements” and healthcare.

    The difference is stark – The Keynesian/progressive polices of Biden admin/Dems have been enormously successful – are there any economists doing research/writing about how successful these Keynesian polices have been? Certainly better than Obama’s switch to austerity at the request of the usual GOP “deficit spending!” howling.

    Reply
    1. JohnH

      James–Good question–you would think that policy makers would do a lessons learned from the COVID stimulus and enshrine the success in more robust automatic stabilizers that help those afflicted immediately and maintain aggregate demand.

      Instead, we seem to get only calls for lower interest rates, which help wealthy investors’ asset portfolios immediately, but trickle down to the afflicted only after a significant lag.

      Reply
        1. JohnH

          pgl could advocate for more robust automatic stabilizers anytime he wanted, but you don’t see that happen. Instead he constantly promotes lower interest rates which result in a Wealth Effect.

          Reply
          1. Pgl

            Come on moron. You clearly have no clue what any of these terms even mean. Yet you lecture the adults who do understand basic economics

          2. JohnH

            pgl will say just about anything to avoid the obvious…that he could advocate for more robust automatic stabilizers anytime he wanted, but promotes lower interest rates to immediately trigger the Wealth Effect and maybe someday help the unemployed…after a considerable lag!

          3. pgl

            JohnH
            March 27, 2024 at 4:14 pm

            Jonny boy doubles down on proving to the world that he can’t make a damn point or an honest statement. Dude – you have become so incredibly BORING!

      1. Macroduck

        Johnny is simply wrong about economics again – there is apparently no exception to this rule.

        In fact, there has been a good bit of attention to automatic stabilizers, including Democrats calls for higher taxes, though only on the rich. Taxes are a conventional counter-cyclical policy tool.

        Democrats’ effort to make Covid-recession-era child support payments permanent was also an effort to expand automatic stabilizers. Johnny routinely accuses Democrats of doing nothing for common folk, but it was Republicans, whom Johnny never mentions, that prevented making transfers for children permanent. That could be because Republicans are standing in the way of support for Ukraine, since Johnny is a Putin Pal.

        And there is the increase in unemployment insurance coverage from the Shrub era to the Obama era, part of Obama’s recession response:

        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1j2yl

        Unemployment insurance had fallen to the lowest coverage rate in history under Shrub.

        Johnny’s claim that “we” (there’s Johnny, turning himself into multitudes again) only get interest rate policy as a counter-cyclical policy is not just wrong, but he has also mischaracterized the current discussion of interest-rate policy. The point being made by those who understand interest rate policy better than Johnny is that rate policy is out of line with economic fundamentals. We are in an expansion, so getting rates right is not countercyclical. It’s just getting policy right. Johnny either doesn’t understand the difference or he’s trying to intentionally mislead readers. Probably both, ’cause that’s who Johnny is.

        Finally, lags are a fact of life. If policies which stimulate economic activity can never be used if they operate with a lag, then no policy can ever be used. Johnny’s repetition of this argument is just dumb.

        Reply
        1. JohnH

          Ticky Ducky shows his tricky behavior yet again by his lame attempt to deflect attention from my point–economists here avoid advocating for stronger automatic stabilizers, preferring the Wealth Effect instead.

          Yes, unemployment insurance payments rose dramatically during COVID, but it was initiated by special legislation, signed by Trump and extended at a much generous rate by Biden.

          Instead of requiring special, potentially contentious legislation, added employment benefits should be made permanent–an automatic stabilizer. In the event of increased unemployment, it would protect workers immediately, avoiding the long lag inherent typical of monetary policy solutions.

          Plus the added payments to unemployed workers would stimulate demand, because they will spend the money, while spending as a result of lower interest rates is much less certain.

          Tricky Ducky constantly claims to be concerned about workers when he promotes lower interest rates…but he refuses to promote a policy response that would actually help workers immediately in the event of their unemployment.

          Reply
          1. Ithaqua

            “Instead of requiring special, potentially contentious legislation, added employment benefits should be made permanent” … which party has been advocating this for basically ever, and which party has been advocating the converse – decreased benefits, more conditions on who receives the benefits, etc.? Do you really think you’ll find 10 Republican senators who will sign on to this to break the filibuster?

            Have you written any letters to Republican congresspeople and senators advocating this? What have you actually done to try to bring this state of affairs about?

            It must be nice on Planet JohnH, where you can get pro-worker policies passed simply by having Macroduck write favorably about them on a blog.

          2. baffling

            don’t blame democrats, ponzi johnny. democrats have historically been ones to promote unemployment programs, and would like them on a long term permanent basis. but that does not happen because republicans obstruct such action feverently. this has nothing to do with economists and what they do/not know. economists understand this issue. but it is a political solution, and one side holds veto power over the issue. so if you want to lay blame, place it where it is deserved-conservative republicans.

          3. Macroduck

            The point I made about unemotional coverage had to do with Bush Jr and Obama, notthe Covid era. Johnny ugnore that and pretended I said something else, just another Johnny lie. The changes that took place under Obama are permanent.

            If Johnny had bothered to look at the FRED link I provided, he’d might have noticed that the Covid-era isn’t included.

            Johnny claims that I have refused to support some not-early-identified counter-cyclical policy. Johnny can’t show that I have refused, because I haven’t. I welcome any evidence Johnny wishes to provide, but he won’t because he can’t. Johnny has repeatedly pretended that support for appropriate monetary policy is at odds with counter-cyclical policy; that’s idiotic.

            But here’s one for Johnny: Explain how, with a divided Congress, we are going to get legislation expanding counter-cyclical policy? How does Johnny’s attacks on Democrats amount to support for counter-cyclical support for counter-cyclical policy, when only Democrats support higher taxes rates forthe rich and greater public support for the poor.

            Johnny is simply peddling political snake oil, and lying about anyone who points that out.

        2. pgl

          Jonny boy is under the illusion that adjusting interest rates to stay near full employment is not an automatic stabilizer. Yea – this moron never figured out what an automatic stabilizer even is. But what do you expect from a troll who takes basket weaving to learn how to tie his own shoe laces.

          Reply
      1. JohnH

        James–yes, real wages have increased among the lowest wage workers. Certainly tight labor markets deserve some credit. But increased minimum wages and reduced inflation deserve credit as well.

        What I find interesting is that commenters here tend to emphasize tight labor markets while downplaying the other effects…and as a result don’t advocate for more widespread legislation to increase minimum wages and index them to inflation. Tight labor markets come and go, but indexed minimum wages would benefit low income workers over the long term.
        https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/

        Reply
        1. baffling

          so now you are admitting that real wages have increased for lowest wage workers. some progress, ponzi johnny.

          Reply
          1. JohnH

            baffling says, “so now you are admitting” I’ve been admitting this for some time…pay attention.

            Are baffling and pgl willing to admit that the increase in their real is also attributable to other factors which they refuse to acknowledge?
            And are they willing to admit that they refuse to endorse and promote those other factors, while single mindedly promoting trickle down monetary policy–rate cuts that immediately benefit wealthy investors’ asset portfolios but, as the experience of the 2010s shows, may NOT bring full employment for a decade?

          2. pgl

            JohnH
            March 27, 2024 at 10:26 am
            baffling says, “so now you are admitting” I’ve been admitting this for some time…pay attention.

            Yea – Jonny boy LIED here. He does that a lot.

          3. pgl

            “Are baffling and pgl willing to admit that the increase in their real is also attributable to other factors which they refuse to acknowledge?”

            Seriously dude? I’ve been talking about monopsony power and how labor unions can combat that for yours. Whereas little Jonny boy keeps telling us unions do nothing.

            Dude – your two faced lying is biting your in the rear end.

          4. Macroduck

            When Johnny says he has admitted for some time that real wages have risen, he really means “admitted”, as in, he was forced to stop denying that real wages have risen. Johnny wiggled and misdirected and lied for quite some time to avoid admitting that real wages are rising, and still makes constant effort to change the subject.

            By the way, we’ve all notice that Johnny’ latest rhetorical tic is “pay attention”, right? It’s yet another trick, another effort to lie his way out of a corner. Same old Johnny.

          5. JohnH

            pgl says that he has been talking about monopsony forever…but a search of this website finds only ten threads that mentions it.

            pgl is quite simply lying about his attention to monopsony!

            Busted!!!

          6. pgl

            JohnH
            March 27, 2024 at 4:19 pm

            This is what little Jonny boy has come to. The most incompetent bozo ever searches one blog and concludes I have mentioned monopsony power only 10 times?

            Hey Jonny boy – I have published on this topic in something called the Journal of Labor Research. Oh wait – an actual economics journal which in Jonny boy’s little preK world does not exist. Busted? Jonny boy is a MORON!

        2. pgl

          “Fastest wage growth over the last four years among historically disadvantaged groups”

          Huh – an interesting paper. But I guess little Jonny boy did not even read the damn title. Otherwise our favorite lying moron would realize this paper contradicts the parade of LIES Jonny boy has been spewing for a long time.

          Reply
        3. pgl

          ‘How to fix it
          To stem inequality and see healthy wage growth for the vast majority of workers, we need to use all the tools in our toolbox to reverse these policy trends—including prioritizing full employment, strengthening and enforcing labor standards, and removing obstacles to workers forming unions.’

          What I have and the other adults here have consistently supported. Now who was it that dismissed the role of labor unions? Oh yea – two faced little lying Jonny boy who has also dismissed the need to maintain full employment. Hey Jonny boy – are you and Kudlow teaming up to write policy positions for Trump 2024. If so – you’ve been doing a stellar job.

          Reply
        4. Macroduck

          Show us where anyone here has downplayed the benefits of high minimum wages, you little liar. Where has anyone here downplayed the effect of inflation on “real” (inflation adjusted) anything? Is there any lie you won’t tell?

          Reply
          1. JohnH

            TrickyDucky…it’s not that anyone here downplayed the benefits of high minimum wages…it’s that the commenters here tend to attribute the causes of increases in real wages exclusively to tight labor markets, when in fact increasing minimum wages and reduction in the inflation rate play a major role.

            TrickyDucky should try reading what I said and stop trying to misrepresent it.

        5. Noneconomist

          Some States adhering to federal minimum wage ($7.25) include Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Idaho, Texas, Indiana, Utah, Mississippi, Wyoming, North Carolina, Iowa North Dakota, Kansas. Would be economic and political savant, JohnH, can’t understand why their state legislatures have not increased minimum wages and indexed them to inflation.
          Who’s to blame? Why those “mainstream economists” and their fellow traveling Democrats. They’re obviously holding back all those red states desperately seeking to improve the lives of their low income workers.

          Reply
          1. JohnH

            Noneconomist needs to start paying attention.

            Robert Reich: “The midterm elections should have been about jobs and wages, and how to reform a system where nearly all the gains go to the top. It was an opportunity for Democrats to shine. Instead, they hid.

            Consider that in four “red” states — South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska, and Nebraska — the same voters who sent Republicans to the Senate voted by wide margins to raise their state’s minimum wage. Democratic candidates in these states barely mentioned the minimum wage.”
            https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2014/1112/The-real-reason-Democrats-lost-big-in-2014

            The same thing happened in Florida in 2020.

            Moreover, you constantly see economists tirelessly plugging rate cuts under the guise of benefitting workers (maybe someday) but going silent on policies that would immediately benefit to workers in the event of a recession–more robust automatic fiscal stabilizers. Worse, they somehow “forget” to advocate for indexed, higher minimum wages, which would have a lasting benefit for tens of millions of low income workers.

          2. Noneconomist

            The ever clueless JH, relying on a 2014 link, suggests paying attention while, of course, being inattentive and uniformed himself. As usual.
            Had he done any minimal research, he’d know the four states mentioned have administered increased minimum wage for some time Two best examples: . In Arkansas (now $11) by 2019, the minimum was $9.25. Nebraska (now $12) was at $9 by 2016.
            South Dakota, while currently $11 still makes the common exception for tipped wages, $5.65. Sadly, both Arkansas and Nebraska also make exceptions for tipped workers, both allowing minimums under $3/hr.
            According to the Economic Policy Institute’s Wage Tracker, 30 states have increased minimum wage since 2014. The 15 states mentioned above have not with a number of those allowing sub$3/hr. minimums for tipped workers
            Seven of the 15–Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wyoming —have no minimum wage laws at all.
            No surprise. JohnH continues to play crusader without having much knowledge about the topic or about who he’s supposedly crusading for. In other words, situation normal.

      2. pgl

        The Unexpected Compression: Competition at Work in the Low Wage Labor Market
        David Autor, Arindrajit Dube & Annie McGrew
        https://www.nber.org/papers/w31010

        Labor market tightness following the height of the Covid-19 pandemic led to an unexpected compression in the US wage distribution that reflects, in part, an increase in labor market competition. Rapid relative wage growth at the bottom of the distribution reduced the college wage premium and counteracted nearly 40% of the four-decade increase in aggregate 90-10 log wage inequality. Wage compression was accompanied by rapid nominal wage growth and rising job-to-job separations—especially among young non-college (high school or less) workers. Comparing across states, post-pandemic labor market tightness became strongly predictive of real wage growth among low-wage workers (wage-Phillips curve), and aggregate wage compression. Simultaneously, the wage-separation elasticity—a key measure of labor market competition—rose among young non-college workers, with wage gains concentrated among workers who changed employers. Seen through the lens of a canonical job ladder model, the pandemic increased the elasticity of labor supply to firms in the low-wage labor market, reducing employer market power and spurring rapid relative wage growth among young noncollege workers who disproportionately moved from lower-paying to higher-paying and potentially more-productive jobs.

        Thanks for this interesting paper. Of course it counters the serial trash from JohnH which means Jonny boy will not read this either.

        Reply
        1. JohnH

          Yadda, yadda, yadda…wage compression for the 90-10 part of the work force…but totally ignoring the Top 10%, where the most egregious income
          disparity with low wage workers persists.

          Of course, you would not expect a Wall Street stooge like pgl to acknowledge inequality or even known that the Top 10% takes in about 30% of personal income. And you will notice that pgl is a big fan of rate cuts trickle down monetary, which immediately boost the equity values of the wealthy while reducing unemployment at a glacial pace and increasing real wages even more slowly, if at all.

          Reply
          1. Ithaqua

            Like straw dogs chasing moving goalposts a lot, do you?

            And your odd beliefs about interest rates… I hardly know what to say. If cutting interest rates doesn’t result in increased investment in producing and selling stuff, leading to reduced unemployment as people are hired to do that, what *does* it do that would cause equity values to increase (more than usual?) It can’t be via competition with bond markets since it reduces the rate of return on bonds, so equity markets can offer a lower return to attract the same investors away from the bond markets…

          2. JohnH

            Ithaqua–how did monetary policy work out for the unemployed during the 2010s?

            Answer: it took about a whole decade for the unemployment rate to drop to the low of the 2000s.

            Meanwhile, banksters and investors fully recovered in less than half that time…because of the Wealth Effect of monetary policy.

            It’s time to stop preaching theory and start looking at results…along with the time lags involved in getting monetary policy’s benefits to various groups.

          3. Macroduck

            Good lord, Johhny! Do you not understand how rank ordering works? Of course, the top 10% have a greater advantage over the poor than anybody else. How is that a legitimate criticism of the Autor, Dube & McGrew paper?

            See, that paper is an actual economic study. It happens to study an issue that Johnny pretends to care about. Johnny has often claimed that economists don’t care about income distribution, but here are three very well regarded economists who prove Johnny wrong. Johnny’s response? Homages the ground-breaki g observation that the top10% are on top! Wow! And then he tries to pass that observation off as a criticism of economists doing what Johnny claims they don’t do – studying income distribution.

            How many ways are there to be a hypocritical poser, Johnny?

  3. Macroduck

    Auto imports, gypsum and sugar imports are likely to be impaired until Baltimore’s Key Bridge can be repaired. Lots of jobs in Baltimore depend on port operations.

    I’d guess this is big enough to show up in inflation and employment data.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      this event shows just how vulnerable our infrastructure is to catastrophic events. over the years we have never been a nation to spend extra money to defend against catastrophic impact on our infrastructure. we spend just enough to get by and hope nothing happens in the future. as you noted, this will impact the local Baltimore economy as well as the nation as a whole. it will not be a quick fix. as a nation, i urge our lawmakers to spend the extra capital to ensure our infrastructure can be built with redundancy and resiliency. it costs a little more, but if saves you in the long run. this was an example of physical damage. but the cyber world is also a very realistic battlefield. and currently, i don’t think we are prepared at all for the impacts. the texas grid failure is an example of this. while it had physical causes (frozen natural gas supplies eliminated the production of power which had a cascading effect), the grid would have benefited immensely from technologically advanced “smart grid” features, which were not implemented at the time. smart grid features would have helped address the cascading effects, and so while a blackout may still have occurred, it would have been much smaller in magnitude. my thoughts are with the families of those lost in this tragic event.

      Reply
      1. Macroduck

        Resilient infrastructure is one need. Maintenance in service of safety is another. The container vessel which wrecked Baltimore’s Key Bridge had a record of engine problems.

        The practice of flagging vessels in countries with the lowest safety and labor standards is well known. Boeing’s drift toward poor quality control is becoming well known own. We, through our government, either address these problems, or we allow them to persist.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          A news report in Philly, I picked up by link, revealed the bridges across the Delaware River estuary have “dolphins”, that is concrete pers to prevent collisions with the bridge supports.

          Key bridge had none!

          As to moving in port the MV Dali uses a front thruster to navigate in port. Per wiki, it is electric powered by 4 available generators. It is possible some of those generators were inoperative or there was no running standby. Bothe effects should be safety requirements and covered before moving the ship.

          Aerospace safety and maintenance has evolved since the days of China Clipper flying boats. I am not aware of merchant marine reliability, maintenance and safety standardization….. Or how effected on foreign flag ships.

          Reply
          1. Macroduck

            Key Bridge was built before current safety standards were imposed. That explains the absence of modern stand-off measures, but certainly doesn’t excuse it. Should have been constructed once the new standards were imposed.

          2. baffling

            “Should have been constructed once the new standards were imposed.”
            unfortunately that is a cost. and as a society we have been trained to avoid costs after construction if at all possible. I agree with you. but we need a change in government and society mentality. it will be a slow process I am afraid.

          3. Ivan

            On the ships it should be possible to install directly connected batteries on electric powered thrusters. Mandatory testing of the batteries before leaving harbor should be able to pretty much eliminating the risk of completely losing maneuvering and navigation. We definitely have to make sure that any ship wanting to dock in our harbors meet certain minimum safety standards. Need be we should demand that they either meet our standards or get towed out of the harbor and past all bridges.

      2. Ivan

        Further complicating and prolonging the problems in Texas was the fact that they had decided not to be connected to the rest of the US grid. Being connected comes with certain rules and responsibilities dictated from Washington – they didn’t want that. So when things went south they were on their own.

        Reply
        1. baffling

          agreed. the disconnect was a sign of independence. but it simply destroyed any redundancy in the system. the areas just outside of the texas grid did not suffer catastrophic blackouts, like what occurred within the texas grid. if texas wants to run an independent grid, they need to let grown ups be responsible for its operation. not political hacks.

          Reply
  4. pgl

    Don’t you love how Jonny boy demonstrates he has no clue at all at every turn? Riedl dismisses all forms of Keynesian fiscal theory and Jonny boy goes YEA – people need to focus on automatic stabilizers instead. Which BTW is a part of the same Keynesian theory his boy Riedl dismisses.

    But the Jonny boy clown show does not stop there. Jonny boy does not seem to get that monetary policy via interest rates is the ultimate in automatic stabilizers!

    Keep it coming Jonny boy – we all love to laugh at your incessant stupidity.

    Reply
    1. JohnH

      So pgl, if trickle down monetary policy is the ultimate stabilizer, tell me how long it took to restore the S&P 500 and bank profits after 2008. And then tell me how long it took to reduce unemployment to its pre-2008 low. If you’re honest about it, you’ll see how fast trickly down monetary policy boosted the wealth of the fat cats and how slowly it reduced unemployment.

      The value of robust automatic stabilizers is that they immediately preserve workers’ income and maintain aggregate demand. Ideally the stabilizers would be paid for by increased taxes on the wealthy, who have a low propensity to consume.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        Hey moron – if you insist on repeating the same stupid and pointless trash thousands of times, pardon me for ignoring your BORING trash. Jonny boy – you are a dishonest, worthless little turd who needs to find some place where people do not laugh at you 24/7. Is there a blog for basket weaving? If so, go for it.

        Reply
      2. baffling

        “you’ll see how fast trickly down monetary policy boosted the wealth of the fat cats and how slowly it reduced unemployment.”
        actually, unemployment did not rebound because conservatives forced austerity onto federal, state and local governments. Obama was the only president in which government jobs did not begin to pick up the slack. conservatives tried to make Obama a one term president. the people suffered. this was not due to the monetary policy. once again ponzi Johnny, is this a deliberate lie or your stoopidity?

        Reply
        1. pgl

          ” unemployment did not rebound because conservatives forced austerity onto federal, state and local governments.”

          Exactly! The UK back then had the same problem as Cameron pushed fiscal austerity. And guess who was Cameron’s #1 cheerleader? Yep – Jonny boy. Jonny boy is the ultimate two faced liar.

          Reply
      3. pgl

        None of what you just mumbled about here addresses the real economy. Dude – you are obsessed with Wall Street to the point you could care less about what happens to the average worker. Then again we all know you are one two faced MORON.

        Reply
    1. pgl

      Here Econned – even a two year old child can search this blog for past posts. Oh wait – little Econned does not know how. Awwww!

      Reply
    2. pgl

      Poor little Econned is so inept at doing basic research. Hey Econned – go back to Dr. Chinn’s October 2020 which was excellent and gave us this reference:

      Working Paper Series, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, D.C.
      Key Methods That CBO Used to Estimate the Effects of Pandemic-Related Legislation on Output

      https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-10/56612-Key-Methods.pdf

      Oh wait – this is actual economics which poor little Econned does not understand.

      Reply
    3. baffling

      econned, that does not change the fact that reidl was WRONG in his statement. prof. chinn has posted an accurate statement.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        I have to wonder if little Econned even read Blinder and Watson. He certainly misrepresented their closing paragraphs.

        Reply
  5. Ivan

    ISW has a great (but long) writeup on Russias misinformation strategies. What are they peddling, how, and why. It is clear that if the west stand firm behind Ukraine, then it is only a question of time before Russia fail. So they have to spread alternative narratives through bad actors and useful idiots here in the west.

    https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/denying-russia’s-only-strategy-success

    “The Russian strategy that matters most, therefore, is not Moscow’s warfighting strategy, but rather the Kremlin’s strategy to cause us to see the world as it wishes us to see it and make decisions in that Kremlin-generated alternative reality that will allow Russia to win in the real world”

    We are seeing some of that in the attempt to suggest that Ukraine was somehow supporting the islamists terror attack in Moscow. It is patently absurd at so many levels – yet I have seen NYT put in qualifiers as if things are not quite sure because Putin says so. Putin initially suggested that Ukraine had created a “window” for the terrorists to get into Ukraine – as if somehow the Russian soldiers at the front line would allow people to run from their side to the Ukraine side without shooting them in the back. Critical thinking (or any thinking) has become so absent from the right wing that as long as the words say the opposite of the “establishment”/”liberals” there is no need for logic, coherence, evidence or common sense.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      we see this on the blog here, where ponzi johnny would have you believe the russian invasion of ukraine was the fault of the usa and ukraine. not russia, who was an innocent bystander forced to take murderous action in another sovereign state! the goal is to sow doubt about the legitimacy of ukraine and make you believe in the innocent of russia, who is only “defending” itself. russian propaganda and folks like ponzi johnny would have you believe it was ukraine who invaded a sovereign russia! instead of acknowledging the murderous actions of putin and russia.

      Reply
      1. Macroduck

        Notice that Johnny doesn’t just back Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He also makes constant efforts to sow division within the U.S. and among the citizenry of NATO members. Everything Johnny writes serves Putin’s interests. Everything.

        Higher interest rates? Bad for the U.S. economy. Constant focus on inflation rather than on wage growth? Sows division by distracting attention from economic gains. Arguing that Russia had legitimate reason to attack Ukraine? Self evidently pro-Putin, as is Johnny’s constant harping on the wonders of Russia’s economy. Blaming Democrats for the effects of Republican policies? Democrats support Ukraine.

        Any questions?

        Reply
        1. Ivan

          Any comment that babbles out Russian misinformation narratives should be answered: “that is what Putin want us to believe, but we are not that gullible”.

          Reply
  6. Macroduck

    Funny how Johnny keeps telling us that he and only he cares for “workers” or “people” – the less fortunate by some name orother – while advocating against things which serve the interests of the less fortunate.

    Often, lately, Johnny has tried to argue that continued high interest rates are beneficial because those who hold cash earn a higher return. He has never managed to explain how average folk, who are on average indebted, benefit from higher borrowing costs. Maybe that’s why Johnny has now turned his attention to “automatic stabilizers” as the thing he and only he appreciates.

    Turns out, not everyone is ignorant of how the economy works. Mario Seccareccia and Guillermo Matamoros Romero at U. Ottawa have actually taken a look at the distributional effects of central bank policy which leans against inflation more than it supports employment:

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4565320

    The gist is that the rentier class does better than the rest under “inflation first” policy regimes – exactly the opposite of what Johnny keeps telling us.

    Well, at least Johnny has decoded to stop trying to defend his “high rates are good for the poor” nonsense. Now, he instead wants to lecture we unwashed about the magic of automatic stabilizers, which requires legislation, in an election year, from a divided Congress. Why didn’t we think of that?

    Reply
    1. baffling

      well, ponzi Johnny still advocates for high rates of return on low risk investments. he thinks he is some genius who outsmarted the rest of the world. just invest in safety but demand large returns. that is how he plans to operate his economy. economic growth will sustain itself if people can invest in high yield, safe treasuries and shun corporate bonds. just suspend the laws of supply and demand, ponzi Johnny. that is what he has been advocating on this site. it certainly is not capitalism.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        On the one hand I love this “Ponzi Jonny” thing you have going. BUT – how can one run a Ponzi scheme if one cannot count past ten? After all Jonny boy’s IQ is in the single digits.

        Reply
    2. pgl

      The Taylor rule has returned as a significant policy guide amid increasingly overt political pressures for its official (and not just its implicit) adoption at the US Fed as inflation fears have come to dominate monetary policy actions both in the US and internationally in recent times. Our paper analyzes the effect of monetary policy on the functional distribution of income by reconstructing how the post-1970s “inflation first” policy commitments of central banks came to be crystallized in the Taylor rule. While there are differences among the various specifications of this “rule”, the Taylor relation is merely an offshoot of what can be described generically as the family of Wicksellian reaction functions whose implications support rentier income over time. Because of the internal logic of the Taylor rule, this has led to different interpretations such as, for example, the more Keynesian Yellen rule, which depart from the strict sense of the Taylor rule. The paper also interprets the Taylor Rule in light of Wicksell’s formulation and analyzes the potential consequence of the differences. In contrast to the strict Wicksell rule of “proportional” adjustment, our econometric findings suggest evidence that central banks adjust “over-proportionally” the benchmark money interest rate in the presence of changes in the inflation rate for the complete “inflation first” era since the 1970s until the COVID-19 crisis. They thereby strongly favored rentier incomes in their reaction functions, with the possible exception of the post-financial crisis period. To limit the pro-rentier consequences of such inflation-targeting regimes, it is important that policymakers mandate multiple objectives for central banks, as exemplified in the current US Fed’s dual mandate.

      Nice but I trust you recognize that Jonny boy does not understand a single sentence they wrote. After all – he is a complete MORON.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *