Skip to main content

Somebody Get This Man a Times Column

At my notorious interview for a new job (still no word on that, by the way) one of the questions which I rather flubbed was "Which New York Times columnist would you fire, and who would you hire as a replacement?" Decent question, but I don't read every columnist, rather I get them filtered through Twitter and blogs, so I couldn't really answer for the first part, but for the second I blurted out Karl Smith of Modeled Behavior, though his paragraphs are way too short.

Sort of like how when someone insulted you on the playground back in elementary school, leading you to think up a devastating retort sometime late that night, now I think of the best answer to that question: Steve Randy Waldman. He's got a brilliant update to his post on depressions, and while it's as usual a bit technical, here's a quick answer to my point about breaking the plutocracy:
There is supposed to be a constituency for stimulative policy. The conventional story is that, during a downturn, election-seeking politicians will be recklessly pro-expansion, in conflict with and checked by an independent central bank. But, at least in the United States and Europe, there is surprisingly little appetite among politicians from “mainstream” parties to emphasize either fiscal or monetary expansion. On the contrary, the political conversation revolves around restraining deficits and “being responsible”, which is code for ensuring that the demands of creditors (public and private) are fully satisfied. This may change. In Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, parties now viewed as “fringe” may gain influence. But despite a years-long downturn of Great Depression severity, so far elected politicians in all these countries have emphasized a narrative of necessary adjustment and responsibility, and have almost never agitated for monetary policy better tailored to Southern Europe or threatened disorderly default.
Can't argue with that. As I said, Obama has clearly been captured by the plutocrats; it would take an insurgent outsider to try powerful stimulus. I also loved this footnote:
In Japan, Germany, and France, more than 50% of the total population is over 40 years old. (56.5%, 57.2%, and 50.2% respectively.) They do have children in these countries, so there are many more retirees and working-age people over 40 than there are younger workers. In the US, “only” 45.5% of the population is over 40, but I think as a polity, the United States behaves as though it is substantially older, because its unusual fecundity (for a developed economy) comes from relatively poor and disenfranchised immigrants. By comparison, China’s over-40 share is 40.3%, Brazil’s is 32.8%, and India’s is 27.1%. In the 1970s, when the US policy was, um, plainly inflationary, the over-40 share of the population was 36.1%.
One wonders what the policy balance would look like if we had mandatory voting, given younger voters' notorious apathy, or when the bulge of baby boomers have died off.

Anyways, I don't know if Steve would even want a Times column--I imagine writing under their constraints might be more obnoxious than it's worth--but he's for my money the most consistently interesting and broad-minded econ writer out there. Check him out.

PS: I should also mention that the man himself (at least online) is extraordinarily generous and kind-spirited. He somehow started reading my stuff and linking to the best of it on occasion, which has been enormously satisfying and helpful. There are far too few established writers actively on the lookout for new voices; most people just interact with those who are already big.

He also makes a consistent effort to find common ground among competing ideological camps, something which, while not to be tried when facing fanatics like Eric Cantor, is still worthwhile in the policy arena. Too often in the blogosphere writers get in ad hominem slugfests with people who are basically on their side. Slugfests are not always bad--people like Jonah Goldberg really are fools--but Steve has a good impulse towards generosity and gentleness.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves that

The Conversational Downsides of Twitter's Structure

Over the past couple years, as I've had a steady writing job and ascended from "utter nobody" to "D-list pundit," I find it harder and harder to have discussions online. Twitter is the only social network I like and where I talk to people the most, but as your number of followers increases, the user experience becomes steadily more hostile to conversation. Here's my theory as to why this happens. First is Twitter's powerful tendency to create cliques and groupthink. Back in forum and blog comment section days, people would more often hang out in places where a certain interest or baseline understanding could be assumed. (Now, there were often epic fights, cliques, and gratuitous cruelty on forums too, particularly the joke or insult variety, but in my experience it was also much easier to just have a reasonable conversation.) On Twitter, people rather naturally form those same communities of like interest, but are trapped in the same space with differe