« He's a Muslim -- And His Minister's Nuts Too! | Main | California Love » For Economists Before She Was Against Them06 May 2008 12:05 pm And oh what a time it was: It should be said that I wouldn't find anything especially objectionable about going for a policy most economists don't like if you were able to articulate some kind of reason for doing so. But all Clinton has to offer in response is vacant anti-elitist posturing. Comments (22)
Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he had a sweet rug back in the day. 
Yes, exactly. There's a huge difference for being against elitism when elitism is wrong, when it is about nothing but serving the interests of the upper-classes, or when it's simply about self-serving elite opinion masquerading as academic truth. This isn't one of those instances. This is entirely about trying to convince people who don't have the time to study that smart and/or educated people are wrong because they think they are better than other people.
I'm resposting this from a few days back. Hillary Clinton, 8/8/07: "But instead of investing in the infrastructure of the future and growing our economy, we continue to make do. We patch and repair. We ignore the advice of our engineers, economists, businesses, unions, community leaders. We try to build our children's future with our grandparents' infrastructure. And we are falling further and further behind." Hillary Clinton, 10/8/07: "I will also harness the power of innovation to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. This is a problem that if we don't deal with it we're going to be slowing our economic growth. Economists estimate that every $1 billion spent on fixing crumbling infrastructure creates nearly 48,000 new jobs. My Rebuild America Plan invests $10 billion over ten years in an "Emergency Repair Fund" to begin addressing the extensive backlog of emergency repairs needed in our country." Iowa caucus, 1/3/08: Barack Obama wins. Sen. Clinton finishes 3rd. Hillary Clinton, 1/11/08: "If you’ve lost your job because construction has slowed down, you don’t care what the economists are talking about, do you? What you care about is who is going to help me?"
After all the contortions that Krugman has put himself through on her behalf, her throwing him under the bus was a particularly fine touch. But the saddest lesson in all of it is that Republican-style smear politics works. Who would have imagined her chances in the primaries today not long ago? People will swallow anything. The quote in the paper today from a woman who'll vote for her because both are working mothers made me want to throw up. Maybe my problem isn't with Clinton or Penn but with the American people. If I knew I was such an elitist sooner, I'd have backed Obama instead of Edwards back in the day....
We need a pool on when Hillary does a speech about protecting our precious bodily fluids from the evil elitest plot to put flouride in the water...
Where was Hillary in that youtube clip?
Who would have ever thought a leading Democratic candidate for president would be promoting anti-intellectualism?!
@Dawn: Um, Andrew Sullivan, maybe. Me. My friend Tony. The many, many other people who've never thought Clinton had a sincerely principled bone in her body.
I suppose MYs point is that if you seek the advice of economists on one issue you must always agree with the consensus of most economists on all issues. Is that correct? Listen, I agree that in this particular case the economists are right and Clinton is wrong. But can I reserve the right to disagree with most economists on other issues in the future? For example, for decades, the consensus of economists was that low unemployment is bad for the economy because it causes inflation. Thus policies seeking to reduce unemployment below a certain level are bad. I disagree with that. Economists also generally believe that social spending is bad and that austerity and shock treatment are good for third world countries. I disagree with that as well. The fact is that economists are real douchebags on a whole lot of issues. So can we get over the fact that HRC and WJC like to tout economists when those economists agree with with them and trash talk economists when they don't. Geez. It's politics, people.
I suppose MYs point is that if you seek the advice of economists on one issue you must always agree with the consensus of most economists on all issues. Is that correct? I think the key point is what Ezra Klein noted - it's not just economists, it's experts in fields of public policy and energy, environmentalists, and experts of pretty much all types. It's sad that it's become about "economists" becuase I am basically of the opinion that economics as a discipline has toppled into moral and intellectual bankruptcy with only a few exceptions, and I generally agree that standing "against the economists" - on "free" trade, say - can be a very positive position. In this case, though, what Clinton has taken a stance against can be understood not simply as the discipline of economics, but the interdisciplinary consensus of experts. That's a very different thing.
Listen, I agree that in this particular case the economists are right and Clinton is wrong. But can I reserve the right to disagree with most economists on other issues in the future? You have the right to believe whatever you like. Just like the creationists and scientologists.
The fact is that economists are real douchebags on a whole lot of issues. So can we get over the fact that HRC and WJC like to tout economists when those economists agree with with them and trash talk economists when they don't. Geez. It's politics, people I think you have to be pretty blaisé to not let Hillary's hypocrisy bother you. At one point she voted for the Banks' Bankruptcy bill and now she's a raging populist who's disdainful of those egghead intellectuals? It's a bad sign. Shows her desperation. Just as it was a bad sign when Al Gore went all populist in 2000, after 8 years in a not very populist administration. Gore was on the radio today and he believes the primary will be sorted out before the convention.
Geez. It's politics, people Really, if that's the case, then why not go a little farther promise a Hummer in every driveway, and free gas for the rest of eternity? It's politics, people!
I disagreed with a lot of economists who predicted the tremendous benefits to U.S. working people by passing NAFTA, but then, I probably was more familiar with the treaty than most of those, since they were mainly doing the Pavlovian barking once someone rang the "free trade" bell.
But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent. The study is titled "$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium," by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%." This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.
It's not just economists and experts in various fields, it's anyone who's had a freshman macro-econ class, or even no college but doesn't run screaming if you attempt to work out a math problem. (On Politico I've been attempting to explain to a deluded Clintonite that a savings of 5 cents a gallon, the best -case scenario for the post we were discussing, would only save him $20/month on gas (his estimate) if he was currently spending $1400 per month on gas. ($20)/($0.05 per gal) = 400 gallons; (400 gal)($3.50 per gal) = $1400.) Can anyone explain why Obama's losing the no-college vote is a grave concern, but Clinton--of Wellesley and Yale--losing the college-educated vote over and over is no biggie?
It's not just economists and experts in various fields, it's anyone who's had a freshman macro-econ class, or even no college but doesn't run screaming if you attempt to work out a math problem. (On Politico I've been attempting to explain to a deluded Clintonite that a savings of 5 cents a gallon, the best -case scenario for the post we were discussing, would only save him $20/month on gas (his estimate) if he was currently spending $1400 per month on gas. ($20)/($0.05 per gal) = 400 gallons; (400 gal)($3.50 per gal) = $1400.) Can anyone explain why Obama's losing the no-college vote is a grave concern, but Clinton--of Wellesley and Yale--losing the college-educated vote over and over is no biggie?
To be technical, that's a DNC soft money ad, not a Clinton ad.
I can understand that there might be a situation in which you would ignore economists. Wouldn't that also apply to say, scientists as well?
Comments closed May 20, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It should be said that I wouldn't find anything especially objectionable about going for a policy most economists don't like if you were able to articulate some kind of reason for doing so. But all Clinton has to offer in response is vacant anti-elitist posturing.
Not true. She said that if her policy was implemented correctly, then it would work. What could be more clear?
Posted by Jim W | May 6, 2008 12:11 PM