By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, October 17th, 2012 
The debate was again very stimulating, and again I had trouble sleeping, more out of excitement this time, not because I was fighting against despair, as was the case after the first Obama – Romney confrontation.
This debate turned the election back to its substantial fundamentals. Obama’s September advantage has evaporated. It was perhaps inflated by the Democrats excellent convention performance and the Republican’s very poor one, and also by Romney’s 47% put down. Now there is a real contest between a centrist who is trying to move the center to the left (think Obamacare), and a professional candidate with unknown political orientation, clearly against Obama, though not clear what he is for.
Three competing approaches to governance, in fact, have been presented in the campaign. If Romney had won last night, he would likely win the election. Then there would be a contest between Romney, the Massachusetts moderate, and Romney, the severe conservative. There’s no telling what the result would be. But because Obama prevailed, he is still in there, and for three reasons I think that he will likely prevail. It’s a matter of authenticity, common sense and American identity.
Moderate Romney won the first debate because he performed well and because the President didn’t. That was reversed last night. The President was sharp, answering questions accurately and with authority, responding to Romney’s attacks precisely, most evident in the way he turned his greatest vulnerability, his administration’s handling of the attacks on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Romney tried to use the same technics to dominate and shape the discussion as he did the last time. But it was off putting. He insisted on talking when moderator Candy Crowley tried to keep him within the time limit, first with success, then failing. His attempt to bully a woman didn’t look good, as was noted on social media. And then there was the unfortunate turn of phrase “binders full of women,” a phrase that took off on the web immediately, revealing as it does a patronizing approach to woman and a view from on . . .
Read more: Romney Loses!
By William Milberg, September 19th, 2011 
Beyond the 1937-like craze in Congress today over cutting the budget deficit, there is a more serious debate going on in the US over how to stimulate aggregate economic demand in order to spur more rapid job growth. In this debate, there are competing views over whether to raise spending or cut taxes – sometimes referred to as left Keynesians and right Keynesians. Macroeconomists have mainly favored the spending route because the historical evidence is that spending gives more bang for the deficit buck since the initial impact brings a one-for-one boost to demand, while a tax cut initially loses some bang because tax cut recipients initially save a part of their higher disposable income. But there is agreement among those who engage in this debate that tax cuts too will stimulate demand and job growth, especially when they are aimed at lower income Americans who spend more of their disposable income on the margin than do the rich.
In fact, the greatest moment of success of Keynesian policy in the history of the United States is not the New Deal, as is often claimed by proponents of greater deficit spending in the current crisis. The height of the influence and success of Keynesian policy advisers was the Kennedy administration’s income tax cut of $13.5 billion over three years. The policy was strongly urged by President Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisers, led by the great American Keynesian economists James Tobin, Walter Heller and Arthur Okun. Facing unemployment rates around 7 percent, the economists sought to bring it down to 4 percent. By early 1964 (after Kennedy’s death), the proposal was passed into law. The tax cut is attributed with moving the economy to 4 percent unemployment and a very high rate of capacity utilization. In his history of that era, Michael Bernstein (A Perilous Progress) writes that “by the fall of 1964 the success of the tax cut was so apparent that, in the words of Arthur Okun, ‘economists were riding . . .
Read more: Do the Right Thing: Responding to the Economic Crisis
By William Milberg, September 8th, 2011 
The failure of economics in the runup to and aftermath of the Great Recession has generated a lively debate about how to reform economics and more specifically about the renewed relevance of Keynesian economics, which had fallen out of favor since the 1970s. The Keynesian message, so important in this latest round of political wrangling over the increase in the US debt ceiling, is that cutting government spending in a slump will only worsen the unemployment problem. The role of expansionary fiscal policy, according to Keynesianism 101, is to provide demand for goods (and thus for employees to produce those goods) when the main sources of demand in a capitalist economy — households and businesses – are not providing a level of demand necessary to generate a socially acceptable level of unemployment.
Keynesianism 102 is about the multiplier effect of changes in spending. This is the notion that an increase in demand (from any source, not just government but certainly including government) will impact employment and incomes with a ripple effect. This includes a direct impact and then a secondary impact when the direct incomes are then spent (in some fraction) and an additional fraction of that is spent, etc.
There are two corollaries to the lesson of Keynesianism 102 that are worth mentioning because they have been raised in the current policy debate. The first is about the differential multiplier effect of a spending increase compared to a tax cut. Empirical studies show that the multiplier effect of the former is greater than the multiplier effect of the latter. The second is about the differential multiplier effect depending on the income of the recipients. Since the poor are more likely to spend a higher percentage of additional disposable income than the rich, a tax cut that benefits low-income people will have a bigger multiplier effect than a tax cut that benefits the rich.
These lessons have not been integrated into current economic policy in the US, where deficit spending and progressive tax reform and expanded benefits for . . .
Read more: Unemployment Equilibrium: Keynesianism 103
By Michael Corey, July 19th, 2011 
When I heard President Obama’s Press Conference on June 29, 2011, I wondered if corporate jet tax policies were being driven by a simulacrum or pragmatism. The references to corporate jets seemed to be more aligned with a simulacrum; and the tax policy aspects seemed to be driven by pragmatic concerns with a smattering of campaign type rhetoric. Consequently, the President’s comments generated some strong reactions from associations/lobbyists, the private sector, and unions.
On June 29, 2011, the President and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, and the International President of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers issued a news release with an attachment of a letter addressed to President Obama which was critical of his remarks about corporate aircraft and proposed changes to the tax code. After complementing President Obama on his emphasis on manufacturing, new technology and innovation, they expressed concern that his rhetoric and proposed tax changes would negatively impact the United States general aviation industry which has about 1.2 million jobs linked to it, contributes about $150 billion annually to the U. S. economy, and is a major source of exports.
During the severe economic downturn in 2008, ill-informed criticism of corporate jets and business aviation exacerbated the challenges facing our industry, which led to depressed new aircraft sales and jeopardized very good, high-paying jobs throughout the United States. More than 20,000 highly skilled IAM members were laid off in this industry.
As our industry looks to begin a recovery and the workforce returns to their high-skilled jobs, we are very concerned that the rhetoric coming from some in your Administration will lead to similar economic difficulties. While such talk may appear to some as good politics, the reality is that it hurts one of the leading manufacturing and exporting industries in the United States. And it adds to the pain so many working families have endured.
Ed Bolen, The President and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association, a lobbyist, which represents more than 8,000 companies which serve the business aviation . . .
Read more: Is a Simulacrum or Pragmatism Driving Corporate Jet Tax Policy?
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, December 7th, 2010
 On the left, there has been great disappointment with President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. The compromise on tax cuts and unemployment benefits announced yesterday underscores this. Nonetheless, I think it is important to remember that this should provoke not only criticism and analysis but also practical action, and that the action should be predicated upon a recognition of accomplishment along with critique.
Many of Obama’s critics from the left, including Martin Plot I’m sure, do recognize the accomplishments of Obama and the Democrats. But they are understandably frustrated with how things are going. While I think we got a much better stimulus package under Obama than we would have under Republican leadership, that’s not saying much.
A significant effort to address structural problems with the economy, including its escalating inequalities, was not forcefully presented and defended as being economically wise and socially just. The attack on the human rights abuses of the Bush era was too quiet at best, nonexistent at worst. Given Martin’s experience with the Argentine dictatorship this is a particularly important point for him. I understand and respect this.
And disappointment goes further: there was no climate change legislation, no immigration reform, and no labor law, making it easier to organize (The Employee Free Choice Act). The Republicans succeeded in blocking numerous legislative actions and now they have control of the House and have the Senate under control, even more than before in the age of the ubiquitous filibuster.
So Plot’s critique is important. Does this prove that the power in the United States is stacked against progressive change? That power is not an empty space as Martin chooses to put it? That the space, where power is exercised, is permanently occupied by corporate power and Republican interests? I think not, primarily because it is easy to imagine things developing differently if the Democrats play their game better, and crucially if Obama had succeeds in (what I take to be his central political project) changing the nature of the center of American politics. Further, I am far from sure that continued failure is on the horizon. Things can turn around.
. . .
Read more: For Disappointed Democrats, Action is the Answer
|
Blogroll
On the Left
On the Right
|