O-Doodoo Economics

picture1After spending four lectures today explaining fiscal policy and why it was important for the President-elect to come up with some specifics to calm the market, I’m not looking forward to Monday. I told them how the last two days have set a record for the few post election slumps and some sense of direction and detailed actions were necessary. A bold move would be to name a Treasury Secretary.  At the very least, we could hear some of the components he supports of the democratic stimulus plan and which he feels are give aways or symbolic only. 

 

I’ve decided to put my resume out to the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg or perhaps Qatar.  I lived in a banana republic here in New Orleans for the last 10 years and I might as well get out before it goes nationwide. 

The one industry that might be slightly happier tonight is the auto industry.  Maybe that was because of the presence of the governor of Michigan in the room and the newly minted blue states containing auto workers that need to be kept in the fold for the midterm elections. If you’re part of the automobile industry it does look like you might get a bailout.  It looks like we might nationalize the big three.  So, I guess what’s good for GM really is good for America in Obama’s eyes.  The auto industry was the ONLY industry singled out for about two paragraphs worth of speech.  Since when did the auto industry get a special place ahead of retail, banking, the energy industry and agriculture?

The speech gave a laundry list of the very bad labor market statistics that came out this week first.  I knew those already.  Largest jobless claims in 25 years.  Looks like we’re in for the largest jump in the unemployment rate since World War 2 ended.   The Dallas Fed’s projections include no positive movements in GDP for the entire year of 2009 and unemployment of 8% by the end of the year and 10%+ within  six months.  That was the interesting part of the speech.  The rest of the speech was a blur of talking points straight off the Obama election site.  Obama may have just been overwhelmed by a day spent with folks that know what they’re talking about.  (Can we say ONE TERM PRESIDENCY??  YES, WE CAN!!!)

One answer to a Candy Crowley question really grabbed me.  Our President-elect said bravely   “I think I’ll pass on that.” 

The news is awash with speculation that Larry “Women don’t have the brain capacity to do math and science” Summers is going to be Treasury Secretary Redux.  He has written some seminal papers in finance and economics.  (Believe me, the math wasn’t that tough in any of them.)  He was once the Secretary of Treasury under Clinton.  Let me ask you, if you inserted ‘African Americans’ where the word ‘WOMEN’ is in that sentence, do you think ANYONE would want to be seen in public with this man, let alone appoint him to a cabinet position?

So Obama is studying Economics 101 and 102 now when he should be saying what points need to be pushed as part of a stimulus package.  We got some nebulous discussion about extending unemployment compensation and possibly bailing out cash strapped states.  But the bottom line is that he spent almost an hour giving no more information than he did during his election.  That is probably why he extended the press conference long enough to see the close of the stock market.  Maybe the entire set of investors in the US will have very nice weekends and forget the Obama fog-of-war on reality.

As for the press, it seems that the BIG question was the decision over the first dog.  Well, at least they can fluff something other than Obama for a change.

Like I said, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Bermuda … Qatar?  Any one coming with me?  If Reagonomics was Voodoo Economics, Obamanomics seems to be O-doodoo Economics and we’re going to be deep in it.


Dismal Scientists and the Folks that Use and Abuse Them

Today I will go into something  of which I can speak from authority.  As a dismal scientist myself, I’ll try to give you some insight into Obama’s dismal scientists starting with a brief introduction to them on this post. These are the guys that will most likely put together his economic plan.  Every time I’ve been pointed to his site for specifics by eager young Obamamites, I’ve found the usual platitudes and no details that are characteristic of his hopie-changie speeches spoke from teleprompters.  They typify the specifics-challenged Senator Obama.

From this week’s The Economist ( a great publication from the UK):

“On domestic matters, Mr Obama has assembled a team of sharp academic economists who premise their work on his supposed ability to sell sophisticated policy. Most prominent up until now has been Austan Goolsbee … a University of Chicago professor whom many expect to head a President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mr Goolsbee’s record suggests neither the hostility towards globalised capitalism nor the desire for large-scale redistribution that conservatives, spooked by tales of Mr Obama’s left-wing voting record, might fear: Mr Goolsbee is a problem-solver who favours such unsexy proposals as altering American tax forms. He got into trouble earlier this year for telling the Canadians not to worry too much about the anti-NAFTA rhetoric the candidate was emitting on the campaign trail.

“From Harvard Mr Obama plucked Jeffrey Liebman, who has produced good research on the earned-income tax credit and its role in moving people from welfare to work, and David Cutler, a health economist who wants doctors’ pay tied to medical outcomes. As of this week, though, Mr Obama’s newly appointed economics director is Jason Furman …. an economist in the Clinton administration and a top aide to John Kerry in 2004. His presence rebuts criticism that Mr Obama’s team has too little policymaking experience. Mr Furman, too, hews to the non-ideological centre, heading Washington’s Hamilton Project, an economic policy group co-founded by Bob Rubin, once Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary. Mr Furman is a staunch free-trader who once praised Wal-Mart and has favoured lowering corporate taxes. With a PhD from Harvard, he also does not lack for academic credentials.”

First, let me say there are degrees from Harvard and then there are DEGREES from Harvard.  I think we can all agree that George W. Bush’s Harvard MBA served only as a decoration.  I’m getting that same ol’ feeling from the Harvard Law Degree that Obama obtained.  There are hard ways of getting in to Harvard and easy ways to get into Harvard.  Legacies and diversity quotas stand among the latter.  Then, of course, there is the joke that Harvard is the hardest school to flunk out of once you’re in.  There are folks that struggle to get into Harvard and do a lot of homework that does eventually lead to credentials worthy of respect.  I’m willing to put Goolsbee and Furman in that latter list.  Their academic work is compelling and that is what I will focus on.

Goolsbee has had some rather impressive publications and topnotch peer- reviewed journals.  This is one way to tell the real deal.  You actually have to publish in a prestigious journal; not just manage or edit the journal.   Dr. Goolsbee is the real deal and teaches at the University of Chicago.  Yes, THAT University of Chicago that is well-known as a hot bed of Milton Friedman type, hands-off that market, monetarists.  His focus is primarily on markets and a lot of his research is in the area of the internet as market. His has experience as a policy wonk and has looked at both international trade and tax issues.

He has a lot of tax publications.  Now, I don’t think you’re going want to delve into the details, but do look at the titles and abstracts.  Here’s his on line vc which includes a lot of his publications.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/research/vitae.htm

Dr. Furman is also respected and has great credentials. He appears to have gotten in and out of Harvard the honorable way.  This is his vc listed at the Brookings Institute:

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/furmanj.aspx

I’ve heard that labor unions are fairly upset with his appointment.  Furman hasn’t been thrown under the gigantic Obama bus yet.  Neither has Goolsbee whose conversation with the Canadians about NAFTA was frequently cited as one of the problems costing Obama elections in Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Both of these dismal scientists are corporation friendly and have published papers criticizing the corporate income tax in the country.  Dr. Furman has done a bit of research in the social security arena.  I look forward to reading his articles as this is one area of interest to me.

Well, the purpose of this particular post is to introduce you to the players and you’ve got some homework you can do on your own if you you so choose.  As for me, I’ll go glean what I can out of their papers.  Again, that’s the best place to look for interests and tilts.  Given that The Economist didn’t send them directly up a flag post, I’m assuming they are both have a moderate-to-conservative outlook.  This would highlight a disconnect to me between those really liberal folks looking for Obama to be the shining beacon for the ultra liberal causes and also, those conservatives looking for Karl Marx in Obama’s closet.

I’ll look into them for the time being.  When the Obama campaign comes up with something more than touchy feeling economics positions, look back here,  I will be watching.