I agree with Tom. Republicans don't really believe in free markets -- that's just a mantra to fool the voters. As George Stigler (!) said of supply-side economics, it's just a gimmick to win an election.

Republicans believe in using the power of government and selective application of competitive principles to lock in the hegemony of the corporations that happen to be on top in the current election cycle. Nothing could be more antithetical to "free market" economics as understood by any mainstream economist, far less a member of the old Chicago School like Stigler or Milton Friedman.

Posted at October 20, 2007 5:23 AM in response to Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy

asymmetrical intimidation

This, I think, is the key to saving the Constitution. Somebody needs to put the fear of God into the Beltway opinion-making class. For starters, it should be made clear to Maureen Dowd, for example, that if she tries to give Clinton or Obama the Gore-2000 treatment, even a little bit, it'll be a cold day in hell before she sees the interior of a Democratic White House. And make it stick.

This reminds me of what Robert Wright (I think) said of Newt Gingrich in 1994. Should we retire to our brie and chardonnay and discuss what a brilliant coup Newt has wrought? No! "That's the kind of nerdiness that got us into trouble in the first place. I say we beat the little butterball to a pulp."

The problem is making the threat credible, like a vow never to negotiate with hostage-takers. Liberals do have a long history of nerdiness. Once Clinton or Obama is in the White House, following through on the threat brings no additional reward, so it'll be tempting to relent.

Here's my fantasy solution. Suppose, after being crossed by MoDo, Obama puts more money than he can afford into escrow, with instructions, "If Maureen Dowd sets foot in my White House, give all this money to the American Nazi Party." Now, Obama can't afford to relent. Tom Schelling, handily available at the University of Maryland, could doubtless come up with something better.

Posted at September 11, 2007 7:10 AM in response to Crank Politics

Several other practical problems with impeachment:

1. Nobody sane wants to impeach just Bush. President Cheney??!?? But can you impeach Cheney? What can you charge him with? Whatever he's done has clout only because Bush signs off on it (at least implicitly). Officially, he has no power, so he has no power to abuse.

1a. Cheney's a dead man walking anyway. There's a good chance he'll kick off any time. So why bother?

1b. What if Cheney's impeached and the shock reactivates his heart problems, but he lives? (I think he's the undead, anyway.) Suddenly Cheney's gone from Count Dickula to a pathetic sick old man. We're in the position of picking on him, backing off on Bush, or risking the worst-case scenario, "President Cheney." Now what? (Aside. Cheney won't have to have a heart attack for this strategy to come into play. All he has to do is announce one.)

2. Suppose we can impeach, and convict, both Bush and Cheney. This puts Pelosi in the White House early in a leap year, where she might be tempted to run as an incumbent, disappointing at least four Democratic senators (Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden). So, working backwards, when voting whether to convict, they have to weigh "the right thing" against their ambitions. That's a lose-lose for them, so working farther backwards, they'll be wise to think ahead and work to sabotage impeachment before it comes up in the House.

3. Impeachment is too good for Bush and Cheney. If they're impeached, they'll fade away like Nixon did, and Bush, at least, will have twenty years to quietly rehabilitate his legacy. I'll take my revenge served cold, if you please! Devote large portions of 2009-2012 to holding hearings, arresting the small fry who didn't rate a preemptive pardon, and passing the omnibus "Bush Was Wrong" Act clarifying the impermissibility of all his abuses of power. It may even take the Anti-Yoo Amendment to the Constitution. But do it all slowly, so Bush can sit in Crawford and follow along at home.

4. If the impeachment itch is too demanding, there's always Gonzales, Alito, and Rice, perjurers all.

Posted at August 7, 2007 8:28 AM in response to Impeachment Pit

It's not at all obvious that many (most?) college students are better prepared for a white collar career by college than they would have been by four years of, say, service in the Navy. They know it, too. But somewhere in the last couple of generations the zeitgeist has shifted from "college graduates are smart" to "those who aren't college graduates are dumb." Inasmuch as one's aura of smartness gives him an immense advantage when seeking careers involving an office, a salary and health insurance, teenagers even remotely able to succeed in college cannot rationally contemplate anything else.

Maybe the thing to do is not to throw more cash at colleges and college students, but to try to restore the idea that not going to college is okay, too. And the way to do this, IMHO, is to guarantee a decent level of life necessities to everyone, even high school dropouts. Then the decision to continue with schooling will be driven by one's ability to benefit from the experience, not by fear of poverty and sickness.

Universal health insurance would be a good start.

Posted at July 31, 2007 8:37 AM in response to Taking the Public out of Education

If your capital markets are efficient, or even if they're not, there's a natural upper limit to the accuracy of publicly-disclosed macroeconomic forecasts. If my forecasts were reliable enough that I could consistently make money by taking the market positions that my forecasts suggested, I'd call my broker, not a press conference. If I announced them, everyone would rush in and my profit opportunity would be spoiled. I wouldn't even reap my due reputation, because all that arbitrage would knock my forecast off the mark.

The real question is, "do there exist hyperforecasters who can predict economic conditions well enough to prosper by acting upon them in secret?" My guess is, Yes.

Posted at July 2, 2007 1:15 PM in response to Predicting with a Handicap: Why are Economists’ Predictions So Often Wrong?