Members Of Congress Speak Like High School Sophomores, Sunlight Foundation Report Says
by Amanda Terkel
Interesting short post. Apparently dumbing down the message. Things get noticeably worse during the Bush II administration and fall off the map with the rise of the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, and Fox News as the political medium of choice. Coincidence or pattern?
Sunlight did not reach a definitive conclusion on why lawmakers' speech patterns have become simpler over time, although Drutman wrote in a blog post, "Perhaps it reflects lawmakers speaking more in talking points, and increasingly packaging their floor speeches for YouTube. Gone, perhaps, are the golden days when legislators spoke to persuade each other, thoughtfully wrestled with complex policy trade-offs, and regularly quoted Shakespeare."
21 comments:
Hey guys,
Heads up, Sumner talking MMT again
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=14459
From the piece by Sumner that Armo refers to; this is an example of what I would call "semantic communication" that I literally cannot understand:
"But there’s one problem with relying on interwar analysis—it’s very much a product of its time. Prior to WWII, pure fiat money regimes were treated as pathological cases, associated with hyperinflation."
I literally have no idea what this means.....
@Paul, do you see this the same way? ...any thoughts?
Resp,
Which part don't you understand Matt? You mean the two sentences don't make sense to you?
Well for instance the way the first sentence reads (to me), I interpret that he is making a claim that there is some sort of problem with analyses that were done in the interwar period (1920-1940 ish), and the problem is because they were produced during this time? I dont see how this follows?
Resp,
Yea that is partly what I draw from the first sentence.
I also believe the author is saying that each period is so different that conclusions drawn from one period can not be applied to another.
First sentence is a proposition, the second sentence is an observation which is suppose to support the proposition.
Personally, I believe it could have been written better. Let me know if any of my writing comes across as being hard to understand. I've always had language issues. I would appreciate the heads up though.
So then why dont we analyze the present system? (like MMT does)
Instead of talking about the past inter war period?
What is the purpose of this?
resp,
The author implies that MMT is post-Keynesian - meaning MMT has conceptual foundations in Keynesian. Since Keynesian suffers from inter-war analyses then MMT fails. The whole thing is tied together fairly loosely.
so it's sort of "guilt by association"....
Seems similar to sectarianism in Theology....
There is no "Keynesian Mathematics"...
This kind of stuff drives me crazy...
Resp,
Matt, his point seems to be that fiat currencies are inherently hyperinflationary, so just wait, hyperinflation is just around the corner if command central doesn't do a Volcker to prevent it. He seems to be saying that MMT doesn't get that.
His presumption is that money is superneutral.
"Money in a model 'is said to be superneutral if changes in (nominal) money growth have no effect on the real equilibrium.'"
Again, ignores monetary economics, money & banking, and finance, thinking that money is a veil over what is essentially barter exchange of real goods.
It's base on the old idea that money is the grease that makes the wheels of the machine turn but doesn't affect output, although if there is too much grease it can gum up the works (inflation). The amount of money is adjusted by the interest rate, which rebalances saving and investment.
Just more QTM.
This kind of stuff drives me crazy...
Heh, I stopped reading after the third paragraph.
Tom,
How does MMT view money, if not grease?
Thanks.
In addition to consumption, money is used in investment to increase supply capacity. As capacity increases, increased effective demand due to more money is met with increased supply instead of leading to inflation. Money is not neutral. It is very active in creating more output capacity as well as providing the demand for output. That is what capitalism is all about after all.
Moreover, New Classicalism presumes equilibrium at full employment as the natural state of the economy. so that the economy is always at capacity absent a shock, and adding money results in effective demand in excess of supply, which results in inflation. Keynesian holds that there is no natural equilibrium state at FE. That's an incorrect assumption that vitiates the model wrt reality.
Somehow this is not surprising in the least. Incidentally, I hope more people see this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/sunday-review/the-debate-over-the-american-community-survey.html
“We’re spending $70 per person to fill this out. That’s just not cost effective,” [first-term Republican congressman Daniel Webster] continued, “especially since in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey.”
...I think my brain is bleeding.
The list of things you don't need to know to be a congressperson seems to grow by the day.
Thanks to this blog for pointing to a bunch of interesting articles from a variety of sources. Because of this, mike Norman has become a daily visit for me.
I'm also a daily visitor to MikeNormanEconomics. But this blog should more accurately be called something like "What Tom Hickey Finds Interesting"
no offense Mike! :)
JK, there's a reason I find these things interesting. They either indicate a trend that is rising or falling, or else involve an institutional issue that is important to understanding the economic and financial climate.
Economics and finance cannot be isolated from the social and political matters in which they are embedded. I don't always signal what I am thinking about this in every post, but I do tie it together every now and then, as I did today with "institutional fascism," one of the most important trends other then climate change in shaping the global future in the coming decades.
Tom,
Thanks for the thoughts. I was just poking fun that it seems more like your blog and than mike norman's blog.
As for what Tom Hickey finds interesting.. keep em coming. Nearly everything you post I find interesting.
"Economics and finance cannot be isolated from the social and political matters in which they are embedded."
Tom,
I dont think they should be separated from theology either... If you read the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, they ARE embedded. Somehow they have been removed from Theology over the last 2,000 years. Perhaps the Academe of Theology dont consider them "spiritual enough" or "too tangible/earthly".
No matter what these people say, to separate these issues from Theology is a non-scriptural approach, very dark.
Resp,
@ JK
Just pointing out that there is method to my madness in what I find interesting. I.e., it's not random selection, as it may superficially appear.
If money is 'super-neutral' why increasing money printing (NGDP) should do anything? Why do changes in the quantity of money affect the underlying bartering at all? It's just a nominal difference between prices, but proportions and relative magnitudes stay the same within the production and bartering trade system.
This whole ideology of monetarism is contradictory.
And off course, money neutrality is foolish, even Say knew it and didn't believe his own law later in his life (google it, there are quotes from the own Say).
Sumner is a boring ivory tower economist which has no idea of how the world operates.
Post a Comment