Anyhow, I somehow steered onto Greg Mankiw's blog...he's an economist at Harvard, and he summed up the political aspect of the issue quite concisely, so I'll use his words.
Many economic issues (e.g., health care, corporate taxation, the trade deficit) are vastly complicated, with experts holding a variety of opinions. When candidates disagree, it simply means that each is siding with a different set of experts, and it is hard for laymen to figure out which set of experts is right. By contrast, the gas tax holiday is not nearly as complicated, and the experts speak with one voice.
Why, then, are candidates proposing the holiday? I can think of three hypotheses:
Ignorance: They don't know that the consensus of experts is opposed.
Hubris: They know the experts are opposed, but they think they know better.
Mendacity with a dash of condescension: They know the experts are opposed, and they secretly agree, but they think they can win some votes by pulling the wool over the eyes of an ill-informed electorate.
So which of these three hypotheses is right? I don't know, but whichever it is, it says a lot about the character of the candidates.
10 comments:
For the moment, I'm not going to address your RS comment.
As an Obama support I'm curious what you think. As I'm watching CNN tonight, they have a bunch of Democrats yammering about how super delegates need to support the "will of the people."
But I'm confused. Essentially, it seems that the "people" seem to be whomever the Democratic super delegate want them to be. For instance, some super delegates are endorsing whomever is the popular vote leader, and ignoring the wishes of the people of their states (e.g. Bill Richardson). Others are endorsing someone who isn't the popular vote leader, but whom the people of their state support.
Is there something disingenuous here? Who exactly are the people whose will the superdelegates are supposed to be following?
RS
The gas tax is completely retarded. Take a look at your standard economics graph. What happens to demand when cost goes down? Yeah, that is exactly what we need. I'll write more about this later. time for food units.
joey
First off, Obama 08!
I just want to know: who are these "experts?" What are their qualifications? Who pays them? Are they swayed by personal opinions? Lifestyle?
We live in an age where any fact can be spun to support any personal take on any number of theories by a media conglomerate hegemony to an undereducated mass market. I understand I'm not talking to some of those people right now, but still.
Call me a conspiracy nut but I don't like liquid assets or credit. I don't like value on top of value/interest/debt. And sure, I'm basing my knowledge on how liquid assets work and came to be on a thorough reading of the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson rather than on any real socioeconomic or geopolitical markets training- but it seems so arbitrary! Value is market driven. Fact. What drives the market? Arbitrary. Malleable. Fluid.
Making money off of making money seems to be my way of putting it. Or making money from liquid value. Of course it's bloody complicated the whole idea is a fucking mess!
Letting people take money (they don't have) out of a bank (hereafter referred to as "the system," mainly for LULZ) and put the debt on something they do have (a house) is a terrible idea! -and an excellent way of making money. My point is, if I even have one: You can even read the latest issue of Mother Jones and they say pretty much the same thing current 'experts' are saying now:
"Unless you make decreasing carbon emissions a lucrative business opportunity that yields loads of profits, you won't see any goddamn change at all." (paraphrased)
So yeah. "The system," while I remain a part of it and work within it, can totally go fuck itself.
Jeff.
Experts: I'm going to assume they're talking about economists, whether petro-economists, political- economists, or whoever. In the case of a gas tax, I can't imagine anyone who could make a case for it as good policy other than a politician. But generally, I'm an expert at your mom.
Liquid Assets: I was in your camp for a long time actually, but mostly because I couldn't for the life of me understand how the stock market wasn't just a game that had no bearing on the underlying value of the company. (If that didn't connect, you can ignore it.)
But, I think valuing liquid assets isn't inherently arbitrary. I think if you view credit as moving future consumption or income into the present, for one reason or another, I think it makes sense and don't see how it can be avoided.
The problem, I think, has less to do with the principle of valuing liquid assets (despite the inherent complexity and uncertainty) than the application of those principles by a skyscraper packed full of business school students building mathematical models and figuring out ways to repackage, reshape, and transmute coherent assets (like, say...houses) into incomprehensible paper documents through a bundle, snip, tie, cut, mold, sleight of hand, wrap, package, and sell.
What exactly does Neal Stephenson say?
RS.
Are you actually confused, or are you trying to buckshot smear the democrats in some underhanded way by suggesting that multiple individuals sharing a different understanding implies the whole political persuasion is "disingenuous"? (yeah, I use that tactic too.)
I'll tell you my opinion anyway...
I think, in most cases, it simply refers to whatever candidate gets the most delegates through the primary process, so the people means everyone.
I don't think SDs should be tied to their states for the purposes of this process...because they are SDs by virtue of their position in the party, not in the electorate.
Jimmy Carter's a SD. It makes no sense that he'd be tied to GA. It would also make no sense to inflate the disproportionate influence of the low-population states by tying their Senator's votes to the state vote. Finally, to do so would probably give even more weight to high population states like NY and CA by virtue of having more Representatives.
So if I had to guess, the ones who are voting with their states are those who either 1) need cover to vote for the candidate they happen to like, or 2) they are politicians and they just kissing the booty.
But superdelegates, at least the add-on superdelegates, are from state level positions. So although Jimmy Carter doesn't represent Georgia (and probably shouldn't represent the United States in any manner whatsoever), there are some superdelegates who are add-on superdelegates, who come from the various state level parties, but are not pledged to any individual candidate.
And by the way, why is the process so goddamn confusing. I mean the electoral college may be an anachronism, but at least its easy to understand. The whole Democratic nominating thing is mass chaos.
And who is Jeff? I only like those who know me to know what a dumpkopf I can be.
RS
Jeff's the steady hand behind all those paintings I put up on the blog a while back.
And I think there are actually a few people who you don't know who just don't comment...
And yes, there are some SDs that come from state parties...but I don't think that changes the arbitrary skewed effect it would have on state representation, or the fact that the SDs are meant to represent the party qua party.
Ty: You still lurking on this? You just wrote a paper on this, what's the deal?
yo faux wonks, check what sullivan just posted.
j
Experts: I'm glad to hear you admit that this is based on an assumption. I do consider myself an optimist but when it comes to information I assume I never have enough of it- in this case, enough to trust that these people are "experts," in anything. At least without looking them up.
SUPER DELEGATES: Did anyone catch the super delegate segment on the Daily where they interview a new democratic SD? I shit you not, a college looking teen who was a total wanker, with Seasons I-III of ALF on DVD. What are the qualifications for this?
Stephenson: Essentially in book 2 of the cycle (The Confusion) he goes through a very detailed description of the genesis of the London Stock Exchange in the late 1700's. It's actually quite fascinating.
I'm not saying that all liquid value is arbitrary or arbitrarily assigned- I guess what I mean is that it's too easily manipulated for the gain of one class/caste/set/model over another and this should be remedied- gov't regulated or not.
RS: How-do? Pleasure.
Man Babies: Wow. Just... Wow.
Seriously, I don't even know what to make of the man babies.
I actually had a similar experience when I learned about Hamilton's creation of the US financial system, and how central banking and currency was set up in the first place. I was just like.....DAIMNN!
Post a Comment