Where’s the Beef?
Posted: December 13, 2012 Filed under: 2012 elections, Fiscal Cliff, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: Economists, fiscal cliff, Paul Krugman 54 Comments
Yup, Clara’s question is still germane.
I have a more earthy version of this having do to with lies and morons when I continue to watch the media cover the “fiscal cliff”. The coverage is singularly lacking substance and Media Matters shows us why in a study that shows that “Economists – And Economics – Absent From Media Coverage Of Debt Debate”. Journalists continue to bring politicians in to discuss the politics of the fiscal cliff in a complete vacuum of facts, data, economic theory, and reality or economic perspective. Why are economists absent from the discussion?
A Media Matters study found that economists have been strangely absent from discussions on budget negotiations, following a typical pattern of the media’s inability to host experts to discuss complex issues. This lack of expert analysis has steered the debate toward politics and away from core economic concerns.
In a recently published study of news segments discussing current budget negotiations, Media Matters found that the presence of economists was sorely lacking – out of 503 total guests in the 337 segments analyzed, only 22 were economists. The lack of appearances by economists is spread across all networks …
I’ve watched a lot of the coverage and there are a lot of things coming out of the mouths of people making these decisions that would never come out of the mouth of an economist whatever their voter affiliation. But let me start with one thing that strikes me as really, really, really obscene. The Republican mantra of “Increased Taxes Kill Jobs” is old school Keynes. I mean REAL old school Keynesian economics because the old Keynes model shows us that increasing taxes or decreasing government spending is contractionary fiscal policy. So, why hasn’t any moderator of bloviating pols mentioned this or asked about this as Republicans rant on about the evilness of Keynesian economics?
NeoKeynesians have discovered a lot about the subtleties of the impact of changes in tax rates or government spending since that first bit of insight came from the Keynesian models back in the day. Those subtleties are present in the studies you read that show that changing tax rates for the rich has a different impact that changing tax rates for others. It also has been determined that some government spending is more effective in a variety of ways than others. However, the point remains. That Republican talking point is actually quite old school Keynesian so why doesn’t one Media person ask them why they hate Keynes and say that continually? Is it because they’ve bought into the idea that tax cuts only should be discussed in terms of the republicans adherence to the dismissed Laffer Curve and hypothesis? Where are the economists that can actually ask these questions? There’s plenty of us out there writing, tweeting, blogging, and facebooking? Why not ask one of us?
Previous studies by Media Matters have noted that the lack of economists’ input helps spread conservative misinformation, leaving a substantial impact on public opinion. The most recent study, however, shows that keeping economists out of the debate also eliminates any discussion of economic issues.
One such issue is the so-called “fiscal cliff,” a combination of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could plunge the U.S. economy into recession in 2013.
However, of the 337 segments analyzed, 209 — 62 percent — failed to address the macroeconomic implications of either tax increases or spending cuts. While some microeconomic issues were discussed (such as the potential impact on healthcare costs), most of the segments were focused on largely non-economic issues, such as political leverage in negotiations, the Grover Norquist pledge, or concessions made by the two parties.
Meanwhile, economists have not been silent on the economic consequences of current budget negotiations. A recent International Monetary Fund study found that for every dollar decrease in government spending, the U.S. would experience as much as a $1.80 decrease in output. Conversely, the Congressional Budget Office noted that if Bush-era tax rates expired for high-income earners, negative effects on economic output would be negligible.
Given the fact that cutting spending and raising taxes are both large components of the so-called “fiscal cliff,” highlighting these findings when discussing budget negotiations would help inform viewers of the real economic stakes. Instead, the media have taken the economics out of a largely economic issue.
Not even Greg Mankiw would risk his reputation in the academic community spreading the lies that get put out there about the economy by Republican Politicians. Chief among the lies are the kinda crap we saw coming from the Republicans. There are all these completely untrue economic lies running around out there. It’s all surrounding ideological things the Republicans are still trying to accomplish. Social Security has nothing to do with the Federal deficit. It’s not going bankrupt. Raising the age of social security and medicare does not solve any economic problems and does not save money. It just costs shifts things to different programs and sectors of government. Higher marginal tax rates on the rich does not kill jobs. Lower marginal tax rates on the rich does not create jobs. Special tax treatment for speculative investment behavior destabilizes financial markets. Regulation of Financial Markets improves their outcomes. There is not a structural deficit problem. There is a cyclical problem that would be solved if real stimulus of the economy occurred. I could go on and on and on and have written extensively on this citing study after study and economic expert after economic expert.
Nobel prize winning Paul Krugman’s facts get attacked as polemics by a political operative on Sunday TV. This is the reality of our public discussion on the most important issues of our time. Krugman is frequently out there on his own. He’s always trying to argue from a fact based, scientific method based, reality gets to argue with pols. Why can’t the media bring on more economists and let us see a real discussion of facts and theories? We have so much obvious data sitting right in front of us. The UK’s recession is a great example. The UK with its conservatives and austerity package has the worst economy in the west right now. It’s due to those policies the Republicans want to enact here being enacted by Tories there. Both Europe and the US are in much better situations–albeit still stale because of the lack of true fiscal stimulus–because they’ve not completely done the austerity thing. He points out that Ben Bernanke and the overly conservative Fed appears to be the only grown up institution in the beltway these days.
Along with its new policy pronouncement, the Fed released its economic projections (pdf). What struck me is that the Fed expects the unemployment rate to be well above its long-run level even in the fourth quarter of 2015, which is as far as its projections go.
This means that the Fed is projecting elevated unemployment nine full years after the Great Recession started. And, of course, the Fed has been consistently over-optimistic.
This is an awesome failure of policy — not solely at the Fed, of course.When I wax caustic about Very Serious People, bear this in mind. Faced with an economic crisis where textbook macroeconomics told us exactly how to respond, people of influence chose instead to obsess over budget deficits and generally punt on employment; and the result has been a huge economic and human disaster.
So much of this is disheartening to me. However, the most disheartening thing is waking up every day for the last 4 years or so realizing that an entire political organization–one of the two in our duopoly–doesn’t care about anything but getting its way. Every day it becomes more obvious that Republicans are not about our country, our country’s economy, or our people. That kind of psychopathy should be punished severely. Over and over they’ve shown they will absolutely tank our economy for their donor base.
But, again, how will the majority of people know this if they’re only allowed political discussion that continually presents lies, ideology, and out and out crap as an ‘alternative’ viewpoint?
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
The Fiscal-Cliff Battle Is Already Over, and the Republicans Have Won It
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-fiscal-cliff-battle-is-already-over-and-the-republicans-have-won-it/266225/
If the Republicans win, it will be due to a massive lack of conviction and courage on the part of Democrats.
This was my thought, also, except I find it hard to see any difference whatsoever in the two parties. They are both beholden to financial interests. I do not see anything but meaningless lip-service by Democrats on behalf of the unemployed (or unions, or labor in general).
The only difference I see is the little stimulus in Obama’s budget request/fiscal cliff thing. It would seem he could promote that as a difference between the parties, if one were there.
Oh, never mind that’s Major Garrett 🙂
yup
I don’t trust Major Garrett–I didn’t know he wrote for the Atlantic either.
Yeah. I know … I found it weird …
It’s really very disheartening to see so much disinformation pushed constantly. Even this morning, Steve Benen showcases the latest unadulterated dumb ass crap from Boehner.
Sorry, Boehner, spending isn’t the problem
After taking a closer look at the specified cuts in the gentle fiscal incline, I’m almost completely convinced the best course in the longer run would be to jump off the cliff and stay there.
If I bought a bar and needed the floors cleaned, I would call Boehner. However, I wouldn’t even let him near even my undergrad finance or econ classes if I were teaching undergrads any more. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
I agree, Every time he opens his mouth about taxes, or most anything else for that matter, I’m astonished that he doesn’t seem to know as much as I know and my degree is from UWMAO, (the University of Working My Ass Off). This guy grew up in a bar, (nothing wrong with that unless that’s where you should have stayed) and he should have stayed there. I’m sure he’s a great drinking, golfing, horsing around fella, but he has all of the intellectual lustre of a bar foot rail.
Ralph,
I’m starting to think the same thing. Let’s just go off the cliff and the heck with all the silly infighting. We should just go back to the Clinton tax rates and be done with it.
Back to peace and prosperity? Let’s “jump” now!
Susan Rice has withdraw her name from consideration for SOS
BREAKING: Susan Rice withdraws her name from Secretary of State consideration http://huff.to/12nTtPP
Sorry to hear that, it was gonna be a good fight.
on another note, when Joe L said goodbye to the senate, one person was there and it wasn’t McGrumpy or Lady Lindsey. So much for the gang of three
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-joe-liebermans-sad-sendoff/2012/12/12/b2ac4608-44b1-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_story.html
I’m playing the world’s smallest violin for Joe Lieberman.
Good riddance to Leiberman.
@davidfrum: It’s confirmed: lying to David Gregory a bigger offense than lying to Congress.
But people lie to David Gregory every week and nobody cares. Of course, Congress lies every day, so there is that.
Guess congress wants the monopoly on lying … do as we say not as we do
David Corn @DavidCornDC
I might rephrase my question for McCain. Senator, would you rather have Susan Rice or Sarah Palin as secretary of state?
David Gregory wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him in the head and knocked him unconscious.
I have a confession to make. I secretly didn’t want Susan Rice to become SOS. I publicly supported her because she was being attacked by the right, but I honestly didn’t think she had the temperament or gravitas to represent the United States as our chief diplomat. She would be compared to Hillary Clinton and not favorably so. Kerry is better known and liked by the rest of the world from what I can tell.
I agree with you, Janicen. Her investments in tar sand to begin with was a huge conflict of interest. Her career as a warmonger for another. I actually agree with Taylor Marsh and Glen Greenwald (I know some of you aren’t great fans of theirs). And Glen Ford at BAR had some serious issues with Rice.
I acutally think Kerry would be better.
But janicen if they nominate Kerry, then his Senate seat opens up which gives Scott Brown another shot at getting back into the Senate.
Warmonger? What war did she help start? You think McCain hated her because she was too much of a warmonger?
If you’re talking about Libya, she helped Hillary convince Obama to join there.
I know, Fredster. I think that may have been part of the GOP’s motivation to attack Rice. That doesn’t change the fact that I think Kerry would be a better SOS.
I think all those things Rice said about McCain during the 2008 election created all this frankly. I still remember she was a proxy for Obama against Clinton too. She said some very bristly things.
I really don’t like Kerry for SOS and that has nothing to do with Scott Brown. An SOS has to have strength to buck a tide and I’ve always felt Kerry could be rolled too easy.
Let’s face it, nobody is going to be as good as the outgoing SOS. That’s just a natural fact.
If I were Obama I would have a talk with Richard Lugar about SOS.
Maybe we can start a draft Lugar movement
I agree. I never cared for Susan Rice and said so in my posts about her. I just don’t like to see someone attacked unjustly.
That’s my feeling too. Frankly, I hope Obama goes for some one other than Kerry.
It looks like Obama is going to nominate Chuck Hagel for SOD,.One GOP cabinet member is ok, but Lugar would be one GOP’er to many.
I can’t imagine why any one would think Hagel is qualified for that position …
You may have a point Mouse. Hagel was an enlisted Army infantryman in Vietnam. I don’t recall anyone who has been the tip of spear serving as SecDef before. The view of the Pentagon from the tip is vastly different from the normal perspective and I would love to see him take care of defense cuts.
As an example, the 734 golf course owned by tne Pentagon and spending of $500 million a year on marching bands seem a bit of a budgetary stretch to this old Marine.
I don’t think Lugar would take SOS, he’s likely to stay in retirement.
Charles Pierce!
The Defenestration Of Susan Rice
Can you post this to the new post up top? It’s perfect!!!
I think Kerry would be a good SOS. He has the experience and background and even cares about environmental issues. He could probably do Defense too, except that would bring up his Vietnam war protests. I do not think Scott Brown can beat either Ed Markey or Deval Patrick for Senate. Brown’s name is mud in MA after the way he ran against Warren.
The only problem with Pierce’s take is that Kerry is dying to be SOS. He has wanted it for years, so no one is pushing him into it.
They (Tweetie and John Feehery) just called Bob Schrum a Puma on Hard ball … I wasn’t aware that moniker was still in their consciousness even!!!
Economists don’t make for good television. They will tell you what’s right and what’s wrong and even prove it with models and graphs. Where’s the fun in that? You start talking actual facts you leave no room for wild speculation, wishful thinking, stereotyping, and belief systems. The last thing the corporations who control the media want us to know is the truth.
Republicans are no more than malevolent spoiled rotten teenagers!
Jon Chait: Is Obama Punishing the GOP Because He’s Mean?
I only wish Obama would really punish the GOP for killing the middle class.
This stuff always drives me nuts!
It’s already depressing to watch Mary Matalin and George Will trying to argue economics with Paul Krugman, but even more depressing is the fact that this is pretty much as much as can get.
Most of the times, these empty talkingheads would discuss such matters among themselves, maybe invite some rightwing politician.
Strangely, when it’s a matter of war, you can’t turn your teevee without seeng some (former) General or someone who used to wear a unifrom.
The trial balloon went over like a lead balloon, so Dick Durbin says the WH is no longer considering raising the Medicare age.
Good!!!!!
Not to mention it would cost Medicare more with the youngest and (generally) the healthiest dropped out.
Obama on Susan Rice.
Now for something completely different.
Woman hits bobcat, gives it a ride to downtown Bangor