Tuesday, October 27, 2009
More Luv From San Diego
UPDATE below...
In response to this op ed, another love letter:
I first sent a response saying that I couldn't find the original paper, but sent a link to the graph from somebody's website. Then I managed to dig it up and sent this email to my fan:
UPDATE: Here is the guy's full response to my email above. (Then he sent me another email asking me about other things I had refused to answer.) It's good to see that I am changing minds.
In response to this op ed, another love letter:
I have to remind you of a famous quote I will paraphrase for you, "just because you think something you write is a fact, doesn't make it a fact". In your column titled "Is the Recession Really Ending?" You do exactly what every right wing hate and failure talker on AM radio and Fox News does to discredit President Obama. You make up things that support your phony conclusions and attribute them to the people you are criticizing.
First your unemployment numbers: Now where and when exactly did the Obama team warn that if the government did nothing unemployment would rise to 9% or if the stimulus passed this would not happen? That's like quoting anonymous sources and is total BS.
Yes unemployment is close to 10%, but there is real factual evidence that the early stages of the stimulus package just starting to work is creating jobs and most important saving jobs. And the "Obama team" including the President has said many times that the full effect of the stimulus won't be visible until sometime in 2010. One can only guess what the unemployment rate would be had Tarp and the stimulus not happened, probably nearing the Great Depression numbers of 20 to 25%.
Your words "A simple look at the facts suggests that the interventions have been abject failures..."
The only thing simple in this statement is your analysis of what happened! I guess a global credit crunch, global stock markets dropping up to 40%, financial panic, and potential failures of worldwide and domestic, multi-billion dollar companies such as AIG, Citi bank, and Fannie and Freddie, saved by TARP and Obama's federal intervention were just figments of the world's imagination. And your so called free- market approach, which I guess meant stay the course (since you never define it) would have corrected this crisis better then the emergency government interventions around the world that a consensus of economists (many nobel prize winners) agreed
worked and kept us out of a severe depression.
It's interesting that you never even mention the rebound of the US stock market to over 10,000 last week. Had the government done nothing to restore confidence and prop up the banks, and did as you suggest let the market run free ( which got us into the mess, a de-regulated market that is), we'd be looking at a Dow Jones average of around 2k or 3k, unemployment of about 25% and breadlines.
I think you owe the Union Tribune, and it's readers a column either apologizing for your short memory of the crisis and Monday morning quarterbacking, or a better attempt defending and most important of all DEFINING a free-market approach and how that would have saved the economy.
I'll be looking for it. regards, [Bob Murphy fan] san diego
I first sent a response saying that I couldn't find the original paper, but sent a link to the graph from somebody's website. Then I managed to dig it up and sent this email to my fan:
Found it, bottom of page 4:
http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
I realize there are plenty of people on talk radio etc. who would be upset if Obama rescued a kitten from a burning building. ("That's something Karl Marx would have done! He liked cats too!") But if I may be so bold, you are overreacting yourself. You confidently accused me of making up things when I wasn't.
Bob Murphy
UPDATE: Here is the guy's full response to my email above. (Then he sent me another email asking me about other things I had refused to answer.) It's good to see that I am changing minds.
It said without the stimulus unemployment would be 8.8% in Q4 2010! That does not support your accusations in your attack piece.
What about "abject failure" and defining somewhere a free market solution? Sorry, but you write from the Glen Beck school of journalism. regards, [name]
Comments:
I love how many casual observers feel (are told by the media) that the US has been functioning on an ultra regulated market until some right wing boogie man can in swinging a rather large deregulation stick and things hit the fan, you know because the free market was now on the loose. I guess the former puppet-n-thief’s (not to be confused with the new one) theory on abandoning free market principles to save the free market was proof for some that a free market existed sometime recently (thus negating a free market solution)!?!? Awe heck lets just devalue the dollar and see if that works, huh, what do you say!
Bob,
This is an example of someone who considers themselves well-read because they read a lot of newspapers, well-informed because they follow the sayings of the experts, and well-reasoned because they weren't instantly confused by all that data and opinion.
They pat themselves on the back for understanding something so wide-ranging and complex (man, that public education must be working after all!), ignore that experts are humans and sometimes substitute their opinion and interpretation of facts for knowledge of the facts themselves, and proceeded to shamelessly accuse you of simplistic hypocrisy.
This is what we're up against.
This is an example of someone who considers themselves well-read because they read a lot of newspapers, well-informed because they follow the sayings of the experts, and well-reasoned because they weren't instantly confused by all that data and opinion.
They pat themselves on the back for understanding something so wide-ranging and complex (man, that public education must be working after all!), ignore that experts are humans and sometimes substitute their opinion and interpretation of facts for knowledge of the facts themselves, and proceeded to shamelessly accuse you of simplistic hypocrisy.
This is what we're up against.
Just curious -- how did the Romer report come up with their unemployment curve? I say this because it's not a smooth line, but rather bumpy. I mean, would anyone really complain that it didn't look exact enough?
Anon 2:
Romer and Bernstein's unemployment numbers in the graph are based on a model they constructed by taking an average of private forecasts and FRB model multipliers. See Appendix 1.
Best I can tell just eyeballing, the lines in the graph are constructed by plotting 3 month moving average of headline (U-3) unemployment, seasonally adjusted. Data points are plotted on each calendar quarter (so they look a bit bumpy).
Romer and Bernstein's unemployment numbers in the graph are based on a model they constructed by taking an average of private forecasts and FRB model multipliers. See Appendix 1.
Best I can tell just eyeballing, the lines in the graph are constructed by plotting 3 month moving average of headline (U-3) unemployment, seasonally adjusted. Data points are plotted on each calendar quarter (so they look a bit bumpy).
Bob,
We need an expert like you to slay this dragon that it was deregulation that caused the crisis. I did my best with my blog, http://www.proudprofiteer.com/2009/10/mortgage-crisis-the-glass-steagall-myth/, but I am no expert.
This BS has a lot of sway with regular people, who believe it was deregulation that caused the crisis. They believe if Glass-Steagall wasn't repealed it would have prevented it. As you know, it would have not prevented a crisis. It may changed the crisis somewhat, fake money would have still wreaked it's havoc. So what do they then ask for? More gov't intervention.
I'm sure your fans won't be happy. You are disputing their feelings with facts. That's not fair.
We need an expert like you to slay this dragon that it was deregulation that caused the crisis. I did my best with my blog, http://www.proudprofiteer.com/2009/10/mortgage-crisis-the-glass-steagall-myth/, but I am no expert.
This BS has a lot of sway with regular people, who believe it was deregulation that caused the crisis. They believe if Glass-Steagall wasn't repealed it would have prevented it. As you know, it would have not prevented a crisis. It may changed the crisis somewhat, fake money would have still wreaked it's havoc. So what do they then ask for? More gov't intervention.
I'm sure your fans won't be happy. You are disputing their feelings with facts. That's not fair.
ProudProfiteer,
My advice (which you didn't solicit) is to ask your opponent to define their term. Ask them what "free market" means and then ask how a free market (if it's defined as a market without govt regulation) can be in existence simultaneously with govt. Also I'd ask them which of the various regulations on the books (such as the Federal Reserve Act) they do not include in their "de-regulated free markets caused this" view of history.
My advice (which you didn't solicit) is to ask your opponent to define their term. Ask them what "free market" means and then ask how a free market (if it's defined as a market without govt regulation) can be in existence simultaneously with govt. Also I'd ask them which of the various regulations on the books (such as the Federal Reserve Act) they do not include in their "de-regulated free markets caused this" view of history.
Clearly the guy relying on absolutely zero evidence isn't a dogmatic, that is where he got all his numbers from.
Regarding deregulation as the cause, the ultimate irony is that Bush was a bigger regulator then any of his predecessors.
The comment of a "de-regulated market" cracks me up. There was a comment posted on a Mises blog a few months back where the guy listed every federal regulatory agency (he even admitted he probably missed a few or twenty). The list was three-four paragraphs long, filled with agencies and abbreviations.
So, according to this deluded "fan" all of the people at those agencies come to work and sit on their hands all day, while the reckless free market makes people poor.
So what exactly are we paying these agencies for? (Don't snicker, libertarians ;) )
Post a Comment
So, according to this deluded "fan" all of the people at those agencies come to work and sit on their hands all day, while the reckless free market makes people poor.
So what exactly are we paying these agencies for? (Don't snicker, libertarians ;) )
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]