Oh &%^$%#$@.... Larry Summers just said it right up front.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

"This president insists that we get a range of opinion (about stimulus theory) from across the spectrum--Democrat and Republican. We think we have struck a balance."

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

If you strike a balance between NASA and The Flat Earth Society you will conclude that the Earth is a flattened ovoid, like a good skipping stone.

That might be good political horse-shit, but it does not change the shape of the world.

Economics is a much softer science than we like to think but it still involves real actions and real results. Splitting the difference is not likely to produce optimal results.


"Some say spending a trillion dollars to go to the moon is an awesome expression of the human desire to reach and know. Others say it's a gaudy waste of money. So we will strike a balance and spend 500 Billion to go half-way to the moon... that should please everyone."

Why not have a national referendum on which strains should be included in next years' flu vaccine while we're at it?

[YOY]

1. We started to let them debate "facts" years ago.

We should never have. Philosophers and Lawyers can debate "truths" all they want. "Truths" can conflict each other. "Truth" is a philosophical and perhaps even religious word.

Facts are cold and unyeilding. There is no goddamn wiggle room.

[blm]

3. That's exactly what GOP cronies intended when they bought control of most media in the 80s and 90s

.

[glitch]

2. Oh no is right. Perfect analogy too. K & R

"Some say spending a trillion dollars to go to the moon is an awesome expression of the human desire to reach and know. Others say it's a gaudy waste of money. So we will strike a balance and spend 500 Billion to go half-way to the moon... that should please everyone."

[Demit]

4. Your quote seems to only indicate that he is striking a balance in the range of opinions sought, not

a balance in what the administration is going to DO. You are reading into what Summers said. Unless he said something more definitive. In which case, please quote that.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. No, he was referring to the plan, not the range of opinions sought.

The quote is a paraphrase since it was from this mornings MTP, but he was referring to striking a balance in their proposal.

[Demit]

13. Quotes and paraphrases are different things. Those little squiggles you put around your paraphrase

—gosh, what are they called again?—don't belong there.

I still don't see where your slightly hysterical analogies are justified. You are making hyperbolic inferences based on, well, nothing that I can see from your post.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Hysterical... hyperbolic... you left out "shrill."

[Demit]

38. Didn't need it.

[Grateful for Hope]

42. EXACTLY. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

5. Not a good analogy.

We know the earth isn't flat, but economic theories are wide ranging.

Tip o'the hat to Obama for attempting to find the best solution BEFORE he makes a decision.

[Peace Patriot]

23. Disagree. We KNOW that Bushwhack economics is "Flat Earth" bullshit--no facts,

no theory, no future--just the super-rich looting everybody else until there is nothing left to loot. The Flat Earth Jungle--if you want to give this "theory" a name.

We also know that Clinton "free trade" crashed Argentina's economy and society, and that of other countries, and is being profoundly rejected by many countries because of this, and that it has resulted in the destruction of U.S. manufacturing, the outsourcing of millions and millions of jobs, the "race to the bottom" in wages and benefits, the death of the once-prosperous U.S. middle class, the death of "Main Street" and millions of small businesses, the decline of our educational system, the closing of libraries, the squeeze on public services of every kind, bankruptcy for state and local governments, and so much more, especially when combined with the Flat Earth Jungle that followed. The Clinton "bubble" created a few new millionaires. Who else did it help? Those whom the "free trade" theory kicked off welfare now have no jobs--not even at Taco Bell--no prospects for retraining or education, no hope at all.

So there are two economic theories on the Bush-Reagan-Clinton end of the spectrum that should be discarded out of hand. Flat Earth looting. And "free trade."

What I see is that the "free tradists" are back, for another go at it. I think they will manage a whole lot of nothing more efficiently and with somewhat more respect for government and the rule of law. But all is lost, don't you realize? The cupboard is bare. The piggy bank has been nuked. There is no known theory to repair this double-whammy of "free trade" and looting such as no country has ever seen. At best, we have a chance to jumpstart local manufacturing, jobs and small businsss, with huge infusions of empty cash (dollars being printed that have nothing behind them)--and a narrow window of opportunity in which to do it. We MIGHT slowly recover, if we do this quickly, and in a big enough way, for we are, indeed, an imaginative and plucky people, with a very productive work force. But the Financial 9/11 that was pulled off in September, and the handing over of a trillion dollars in future debt with no strings attached, to the very people who have killed the "Golden Goose," greatly reduces our chances of recovery. At least half of that money should have gone immediately to homeowners and workers and small business, and the other half should have had stringent requirements that the banks keep lending--and of course controls on the already looted billions in bonuses and "golden parachutes." We have lost much time. I won't say it's too late, but it almost is. The banks and financial jackals have made off with a trillion dollars that we are going to have to eventually make up, with our labor and engenuity, after ten trillion dollars were stolen by their Bushwhacks in their various looting schemes.

Peoples' minds are stretching back to the Great Depression and FDR for solutions, because there is so little precedent for this catastrophic smashup. It's a different world, but probably FDR's solution is a good basis for a plan. Not "free trade," Not the Reaganistic "free market" out of which "free trade" was derived. Help to the most fundamentally important sector of the economy--ordinary people, the workers, homeowners, small business--and mercy for the poor, the elderly and the sick, who depend on families and workers (because Soc Sec is too little, and many pensions have evaporated, and skyrocketing medical and other costs eat up what little they have) is the best solution. But can the DLC "free tradists" that Obama is depending on SEE that. Can they see the huge mistake that has already been made? Lord, FDR is probably rolling over in his grave. Giving trillions of dollars to the RICH?! Are you people NUTS?

Will they be able to say, with FDR, "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred!" I think not. They have the WRONG mind-set. They LOVE "organized money" and "organized money" loves THEM.

[bread_and_roses]

28. You summed it up. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

40. Really? Somebody actually espouses that as an economic theory?

Not in my universe.

[Hawkowl]

36. Disagree

Supply side, tax cut, corporate welfare economics have been totally discredited. Republican theories directly CAUSED this Bush Depression. The analogy holds because the flat earthers (who were a step backwards because the ancient Greeks figured out the world was a sphere and its diameter!) are preventing us from sailing to the New World!

This is what happens when the President is a "pragmatist" instead politically instead of a "pragmatist" in terms of the best, most efficient solutions. Economics is not as soft a science as many make it out to be. It is simply difficult, like quantum mechanics, but changes over time when societal norms change. But economics is essentially quantifiable and easy to determine the biggest bang for the buck in terms of spending tax dollars.

President Obama still hasn't completely thought this out. He needs to take his absolute best shot right now--or else the world economy slides into the abyss and makes the 1930's look like a day at Disneyland. We are running out of money. Period. Bush and the Fed have propped up the banking system to the tune of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS instead of investing in real solutions.

President Obama appears to think this is the first try at turning around this Bush Depression. We've been in a recession for 14 months now and it continues to WORSEN under the same old tax cut rethuglican bullshit.

President Obama simply has no time to be his characteristically affable self. He must tell the rethuglicans to sit down and shut up (he may have done this yesterday with his statement of "I won") and simply go whole hog with infrastructure projects, nationalizing banks and yes, other key industries.

We are looking at an unemployment rate of 15% this year and a fiscal stimulus package taking affect NEXT YEAR.

[Bonobo]

7. You sure won that Strawman argument! Congrats!!!!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. When you finally learn what a strawman argument is we should have a national holiday.

An analogy to suggest a mode of thought about a system or process might be a flawed analogy but it is not a strawman argument.

I did not suggest that Larry Summers is actually proposing going half-way to the moon.

[Bonobo]

11. Actually it is precisely a Strawman argument.

"To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute."

Here is what you said (a simplified, cartoon-like portrayal of the 'other side's' argument):

"If you strike a balance between NASA and The Flat Earth Society you will conclude that the Earth is a flattened ovoid, like a good skipping stone."


So, your analogy was more than a bad analogy, it was an oversimplification designed to make it easier for you to sound like you were right.


Straw. Man.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. The stimulus package isn't a scientific fact

It is a strategy. Your analogy doesn't work.

Obama's economic position has always been that both sides have good strategic ideas that can be used to address particular problems. This is no departure.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. There is no line between science and strategy

I know you want to gainsay anything you perceive as a criticism of the administration, but:

1) Economics is a science. We will never understand it as well as we understand basic chemistry because it has a incredible multiplicities of variables, involves complex dynamic systems that cannot be perfectly predicted by definition, involves irrational aspects of human psychology and rigorous experiment is ethically impossible... but it is still a science. "All things being equal, lowering prices increases sales." That's a mundane, testable hypothesis.

2) "Strategy" is not a non-scientific concept. Refining U-235 from great masses of U-238 was a strategy. Using rocket propulsion to reach the moon was a strategy. Vaccinating a critical mass of potential disease carriers is a strategy. Any strategy not built upon the best results of rational inquiry is a doomed strategy.

3) the fact that there is no departure from something Obama has said does not argue for the truth or usefulness of anything. I am certainly not accusing Obama of breaking a campaign promise. Elections are not mind-control processes where we are obliged to assume everything the winning candidate ever said was a good idea.

I have been arguing these points since well before the election. I am not criticizing for the fun of criticizing. I sincerely wished that they would take the economy a LOT More seriously. I still wish it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. " I know you want to gainsay anything you perceive as a criticism of the administration, but"

Wrong. I'm not the ideologue here. You are.

Economics is a DISMAL science. Tax cuts have some predictable results, but these change with conditions, as do the results of expenditure. The correct proportion of these policies is never fully predictable, and you damn well know it. Obama has consistently tried to navigate a course that would find the best proportion without ideological baggage. See the New York Times magazine piece on Obama's economics from several months ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html

Your analogy is terrible. We don't know what a given strategy *will do* in the same way that we KNOW the earth is spherical, or that heating water past a certain threshold will transform it into a gas. That's just basic epistemology.

[bread_and_roses]

27. Really? Please tell us what "good strategic ideas" the "other side" has?

I have not seen one in eight years - wait, make that at least thirty years. Since Reagan, at least. So if they have any good ideas, they sure do hide their light under a barrel. On the other hand, look what their "ideas" have wroght.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. That's neither here nor there

[Zenlitened]

37. Huh?

Republicans' track record on economic matters is "neither here nor there"?

:shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Yes

In terms of whether projecting the consequences of an economic policy has the same epistemological status as the shape of the earth, it's neither here nor there.

[Zenlitened]

44. Oh, okay. Now I understand.

The OP is discussing economic policy. You're wandering around inside an M.C. Escher etching. Got it. :D

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. The OP is discussing oversimplified economic policy

And using completely nonsensical analogies to do so. There is certainly an argument to be made that any tax cuts proposed by the GOP should be excluded from the stimulus. Saying that tax cut philosophy is like flat-earth theorizing is a deeply flawed way to make the argument, and false, to boot. If basic reasonableness appears to you as an MC Escher drawing, I'll leave you to it.

[Zenlitened]

46. Yep, yer wowin' the crowd with 'basic reasonableness'!

LOL!

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Flat earthin'

:eyes:

Basic reasonableness doesn't "wow crowds." I can see now why you'd be mistaken, and prefer the OP's nonsenses.

[Zhade]

50. Um, how is that NOT relevant?

NT!

[jefferson_dem]

10. Silly, flawed analogy.

It is a fact that the earth is not flat. That's not even debatable.

Economic policy is rooted in theoretical assumptions and guiding principles of what is "right". These questions are most certainly debateable...or at least should be...in a democratic republic. I'm proud our new president is actually thoughtful and willing to consider alternative during the policy formulation process. We've had just about enough of the closed-minded "my way or the highway" approach, eh.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Well, that's all side-ways to anything

And willful misunderstanding to boot.

We are talking about policy. No critic of the stimulus plan is saying these matters are not debatable. (Though many on the blind-faith, STFU side are saying just that... ironic!)

The red herring BS about "thoughtfulness" and such is the lowest sort of spin-mongering.

Obama's job is to make DECISIONS. Those decisions are assessable. Your opinion of the process is irrelevant to the merits of the outcome, no matter how much loaded language you pile up about open-mindedness.

John McCain proposed a government spending freeze during the campaign. My objection to that is not that he is a Republican, it is that it would be a disaster.

The issue is the efficacy of balancing opposing ideas in policy when one requires a dramatic effect, not the range of opinions considered.

(If the government announced it would collect NO taxes in 2009 that would at least have the virtue of dramatic effect.)

[Bonobo]

17. Ideas don't belong to political parties.

And that is why your OP is so silly to begin with.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Well explain that to Larry summers. The frame is his, not mine.

I don't think in terms of Democratic ideas and Republican ideas.

HE was the one who made that explicit demarcation.

[Bonobo]

22. You seem to have readily accepted it.

If I understand the thrust of your OP, it is that the idea of accepting a broad range of ideas from the two parties, is a flawed idea, analagous to that of listening to people opine about whether or not the world is flat.

Do tell me what I missed.

[jefferson_dem]

30. I think the OP wants Obama to be "the decider"...

provided the decision is one the OP supports and it is arrived at via a process the OP supports. If not, it's akin to enabling "flat earthers"... :shrug:

[BeyondGeography]

14. Asinine...and you once said you were smarter than Obama

:freak:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. "Yes, I am going to marry a carrot..."

[Zhade]

51. ...

:spray:

NICE.

[chill_wind]

15. Not good that Summers appears to be running the show

And it's not just guys like Krugman and DUers here that are worried

Krugman has had some notable company .....

Liberal Economists Skeptical of Obama Stimulus Package

"Despite the fact that President-elect Obama described his stimulus package on Thursday with only broad generalities, the proposal is already coming under criticism from economists on the left. Anxiety that the package is too small is combined with a fear that the rumored $300 billion in tax cuts for individuals and corporations will do little to jump-start the economy. They argue that Obama, in seeking a solution that Republicans on the Hill will support, has sacrificed key components that would make the package work most effectively."

fulll text:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2009/01/11673_liberal_economists_skeptical_obama_stimulus_package.html

[avaistheone1]

20. I think there is a temptaton and pressure for the Obama admin to do something fast

which will not necessarily result in a smart solution. I think Congress and the Senate really need to take some time to seriously look at a wide spectrum of stimulus alternatives and weigh their pros and cons. I am not at all convinced that they have done so far.

I support what Krugman and the other have been saying.

[chill_wind]

25. Pete DeFazio is another willing to stick his neck out (GOP tax cuts vs infrastructure).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8135801

[Metta]

24. Larry Summers is a self serving, regulation hating hack.

He's all over deregulation and hates infrastructure spending.

[Runcible Spoon]

41. indeed. WORST PICK out of them all, and there were some real contenders...

:puke:

[Metta]

43. Got that right.

:toast:

[MarjorieG]

26. The GOP need to own the solutions as well as blame for the failures.

No one knows how well/fast these measures will work, and although we've needed infrastructure, changing of industries for decades, we can't do it all at once. As much as I'd like to as a way of creating jobs. I also know how graft and mismanagement play a role at the local level in rushed times.

[bread_and_roses]

29. The Dems never learn. They think that "compromise" with rapacious looters

will earn them brownie points and the looters will cut them some slack. They're wrong.

[debbierlus]

31. Stop criticizing the poster & watch this video - we don't need more tax cuts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x264227

Let's talk about the policy & not the politicians.

We can all agree to at least advocate for the best policies, can't we?

[HughMoran]

32. "That might be good political _______"

I agree - it's good politics.

:)

[northernlights]

35. the impression I got this morning

is that they're letting republican ideology impact the stimulus package in order to get bipartisan approval.

The package needs to be about stimulating the economy, not about political ideology, and certainly not a camel designed by committee.

One thing economists seem to agree on across the board is that direct government spending gives considerably more stimulus "bang for the buck" than tax cuts.

However, my biggest concern after listening to the pundit shows this morning is that they're all still talking about a consumer-driven economy. I think that's the crux of the problem. They're still stuck inside that box. We need an entirely new basis for our economy -- one that's about providing for individual and society's needs, not about selling useless shit to rats running on a wheel.

[uponit7771]

49. When Clinton passed his stimulus package in 92 we lost a lot of seats in 94 even after

...a decent recovery.

I think they've learned from THAT past but haven't learned the current culture of the GOP is to be disruptive unless it's for the rich.

[OwnedByFerrets]

48. K and R......yes, lets listen to the opinions of the same people

who got us INTO this damned mess. They should really have some grand ideas.

[HamdenRice]

52. Believe it or not, both Dem and Repug proposals are based on the same "science": AD=C+I+G + (X-M)

Aggregate Demand equals Consumption pus Investment plus Government Spending plus the surplus of exports over imports (or minus the excess of imports over exports, ie the trade deficit).

Republicans pretend that they are not Keynesians, but they are. Arguing for tax cuts is economically almost the same as arguing for a direct spending stimulus package.

The difference is distributive (who gets the immediate benefit), political and ideological.

The simple equation at the heart of all Keynesian economics:

AD = C + I + G + (X-M)

is also at the heart of the government spending versus tax cuts debate.

AD is down drastically and the question is how to get it up again. It is down because banks stopped lending (causing a catastrophic drop in I) and consumers stopped spending (causing a drop in C) and employers started laying people off (creating a vicious cycle of declining C and declining I). Longer term, we've had decades of catastrophic levels of (X-M) -- so large that they are similar in magnitude to catastrophic energy spikes.

The typical progressive answer to a drop in AD is increase G without increasing taxes. The typical republican answer is lower taxes.

In the formula, C, for example includes consumer spending. Consumer spending is typically described as:

CS = PI - T - S

Consumer spending equals personal income minus taxes minus savings. (By definition, if you take your gross pay, deduct taxes and deduct whatever you save, the rest has been spent, ie is consumption.) If you decrease T, taxes, while holding S steady, then CS goes up. The same holds for I. If you decrease business taxes, holding business savings steady, I goes up.

They are two sides of the same coin -- increase government spending while holding taxes steady versus decreasing taxes. The repugs don't admit it -- in fact they actively lie about it -- but they are fully Keynesians.

But increasing G typically leads to immediate employment for the people who need it most -- the unemployed. It also concentrates the stimulative, multiplier effect, while a tax cut is often wasted (like $300 tax rebates, most families don't really notice it). Direct spending also has a greater multiplier effect.

The other problem is that because both businesses and consumers are scared, a decrease in T might lead to an increase in S, rather than an increase in CS or I. Normally, that wouldn't be a problem because S is recycled through banks via lending as either I or CS to those who will spend it. In the middle of a banking crisis, however, decreasing T is more than likely going to lead to S that is not recycled, which is why tax cuts is not the way to go right now.

So I agree that all the stimulus should go to spending, not tax cuts. But it's wrong to say that the Repug proposals are based on flat earth type thinking. They are basing their proposals on exactly the same "science" as the Democrats, but don't admit it.

[Demit]

53. Actual quote: "We surveyed a range of ECONOMISTS...a lot of experts, both Democrat and Republican"

I just saw the clip. Summers went on to say, "and, frankly, some of them think the stimulus should be larger, some of them think the stimulus should be smaller. The president balanced the different views and came to the approach that we've taken‚ and came to the approach as balanced in another way: between very substantial new investments; very important protections (to prevent teachers and cops from being laid off); and also tax cuts (we recognize we have to be able to help households be able to spend)..."

You apparently misheard Summers. Your post implies that he was saying that the president's plan is splitting the difference between two opposing things—Democrat and Republican. But "splitting the difference" is your phrase, not Summers'. Also, Summers did not say he was striking a balance (again, as if there were only two opposing things under consideration)—he was talking about balance in reference to, first, a whole range of views and then, the three components of the stimulus plan itself.

Misrepresenting someone's words, then riffing off of your own mistaken paraphrasing with faulty analogies, misleads readers on this forum and makes you look very, very silly.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

54. You have transcended simply being wrong. You are just LYING at this point.

You seem to be able to read and write yet you offer a quote and then willfully claim it means the opposite of exactly what it says.

"and, frankly, some of them think the stimulus should be larger, some of them think the stimulus should be smaller. The president balanced the different views and came to the approach that we've taken‚ and came to the approach as balanced in another way: between very substantial new investments; very important protections (to prevent teachers and cops from being laid off); and also tax cuts (we recognize we have to be able to help households be able to spend)..."

There is a stimulus bill on the table. This isn't about process, it is about product.

If you think "approach" refers to debating society process rather than approach to stimulus policy then you're far too obtuse or dishonest to lecture others.

To recap: My interpretation was correct. Yours is dishonest and moronic. There is nothing wrong with being a dumb-ass but there is MUCH wrong with being a dumb-ass who goes around slandering other people based on your own utter cluelessness.

\I did not misrepresent Summers' words, you did. Own it.

[Demit]

55. LOL! Okay, now you're shrill.

You reworded what Summers said and presented it as a quotation. I presented his words verbatim for others to see for themselves without your filter. One of us was being dishonest, yes, and that one is now resorting to hotheaded name-calling as if that will make his argument more persuasive. It doesn't.

As for slandering you, I made no factual misrepresentation. You're the one who, in your original post, did that. And it's killing you that you can't bring yourself to admit it.