Please, just stop
Stop complaining that I should go back to doing macro posts. I never stopped. Most are now at Econlog, but if you are too lazy to click over that’s your problem. I still do more macro blogging than almost any other blogger. I did two macro posts there just yesterday, I’ll do another later today.
Stop saying, “No, you are wrong, it’s actually X, Y and Z” in posts where I said it’s X, Y and Z. If you are too lazy to read the entire post, then please don’t comment.
Stop earnestly informing me of facts I knew before leaving Junior High School.
Stop trying to be clever, if you are not clever.
Stop being a Bob Murphy, and reading into posts things that are not there. And don’t blame me for not being clearer—I see exactly the same stuff in the comment section at Marginal Revolution, and no one can accuse Tyler and Alex of not being good writers. If you think I said something about Trump, provide an exact quote.
For instance, if I say my plumber is horrible, that’s not a prediction that my plumber will significantly reduce America’s GDP. Ditto for any one person, including the president. I never said the economy would do poorly under Trump. America would have had a Great Depression even if Smith had won in 1928. We would have had a New Deal even if Hoover had won in 1932. We would have had a Vietnam War even if Goldwater had won in 1964. We would have had a tech bubble even if Dole had won in 1996. We would have had an Iraq War even if Gore had won in 2000 (despite his claims to the contrary.) Kerry would have given us a housing bubble and crash. Presidents make far more difference than most people, but still make little difference in the broader scheme of things.
Stop saying I’ve changed my tune. The tune may change but the lyrics don’t. Pay attention to the lyrics, not the tune. In the future, I’ll have lots of posts praising Trump for things like the Taiwan phone call, and lots of posts criticizing him. None of those posts have any bearing on my view that he’s the most despicable politician in American history.
Stop claiming I’m too angry. It’s all a pose to jazz up my writing. Trump’s like a gift on a silver platter for me, much as Clinton’s election in 1992 made Rush Limbaugh’s career. Four years of Hillary would have been a nightmare for me—now I’m liberated. Poor H.L. Mencken had to write about people like Coolidge—imagine if he’d had a Trump to go after!
And don’t write comments saying I’m too “emotional” to see things clearly, at the end of posts where I defend Trump voters. I’m one of the least &$#*@%# emotional people in the whole country right now.
Like Elvis Costello, I’m not angry. (great performance, BTW)
Tags:
7. December 2016 at 08:18
Scott,
If you don’t mind an off-topic question, do you have an opinion on how much of the Great Recession was caused by a sudden spike in demand for money that the Fed failed to meet, as opposed to a spike in demand due first to perceived Fed tightening?
Clearly, money got tighter after Lehman failed on 09/16/08, and the FOMC kept interest rates at 2% a couple of days later.
7. December 2016 at 08:21
Scott, Te recession was triggered in late 2007 by a slowdown and then stoppage in base money growth. It was worsened in late 2008 by a failure to accommodate increased demand for base money. But that increase demand was a product of a deeper failure, the failure to do NGDP level targeting.
7. December 2016 at 08:30
I’m one of the least &$#*@%# emotional people in the whole country right now.
You know, we often don’t see ourselves as others do.
7. December 2016 at 08:49
Scott,
Thanks for the reply. As I understand your answer, it was the lower NGDP growth trajectory that caused most, if not all of the problems, as opposed to say a combination of new information about the balance sheets of financial institutions after Lehman failed and/or information about the ack of viability of CDS insurance, along with a lack of monetary expansion by the Fed.
7. December 2016 at 09:25
“We would have had an Iraq War even if Gore had won in 2000 (despite his claims to the contrary.)”
A new idea to me, but apparently people believe it.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/02/gore-wouldnt-have-invaded-iraq-nytimes
I’m still skeptical.
7. December 2016 at 09:29
I’m pretty sure Elvis Costello was angry. Good song though.
7. December 2016 at 09:38
“And don’t blame me for not being clearer—I see exactly the same stuff in the comment section at Marginal Revolution, and no one can accuse Tyler and Alex of not being good writers.”
I think there’s a difference in being a good writer vs clear writer. Tyler is a good writer but not always clear. Alex is a bit more clear but not quite as good of a writer as Tyler. You’re a decent writer and decently clear. The best, by far, is Jim Hamilton. Succinct, accurate, reliable, and meaningful work. Every. Single. Blog. (His co-blogger is a different story). Every Econ-blogger can learn from Jim Hamilton.
“I’m one of the least &$#*@%# emotional people in the whole country right now.” Must be satire based on this post.
7. December 2016 at 09:48
I’m sorry Scott I was with you until the Iraq War nonsense. Any evidence for this? In fact one could argue that if McCain won the nomination over Bush we would not have had the Iraq war. It was really 100% volitional on Bush personally.
Why do you insist on ruining a good post with nonsense? I mean I remember when you said Trump is not Hitler he is Berlusconi. And Berlusconi’s Italy had a terrible economic record but who knows maybe Trump won’t be totally bad at his job.
7. December 2016 at 09:58
My strong impression is that Robin Hanson is less emotional than you right now. But admittedly, that’s an incredibly high standard 🙂
7. December 2016 at 10:07
Scott & Scott, I’ll float this idea out there for comment. Even by late 2007, the Fed had been failing to meet demand for money for at least a year, and during that time there was a sharp turn out of the housing market by previous homeowners. In the aggregate, Americans were tapping home equity for liquidity in 2006 and 2007. The exchange of equity for mortgage debt amounted to trillions of dollars even before home prices began to fall. This was mostly because homeownership was falling. There was a natural continuing inflow of first time buyers while long time owners were selling and harvesting equity. Of course, this was just interpreted as more recklessness by American households so it only added to the Fed’s resolve to refuse to meet demand for money.
7. December 2016 at 10:15
Here’s a graph:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=c4gN
7. December 2016 at 10:18
A comment and a question to Scott
I love when writers (or movie stars, singers, politicians) “yell” at their audience. It is fun and makes the experience of reading and responding more enjoyable. I also will take your advice on reading more carefully before commenting. But there is one thing I cannot let go of from your last essay. In your “Nationalism is in the Air” essay. you said
“Hmmm; national rebirth, idealized past, anti-Muslim, anti-PC, anti-press, anti-cosmopolitan. Seems kind of familiar somehow.”
You are obviously leading the reader to make some kind of inference when you say, without explanation, that “it seems kind of familiar somehow”. It felt to me you were conveying an implied ominous message. It seems obvious you were.
Or, are you asking us to believe that it was just a shadow feeling you cannot wrap your intellectual mind around? I find that implausible. I cannot believe you did not have something specific in mind.
To me, at least, the closest thing your statement reminded me of was the thirties.I believe you if you say that is not at all what you meant.
But what did you mean? I almost expect you to say “I meant just what I said, no more and no less”. But I believe you know exactly what you meant—I just want to know what it is.
7. December 2016 at 10:21
“None of those posts have any bearing on my view that he’s the most despicable politician in American history.”
-Even John Breckinridge?
“no one can accuse Tyler and Alex of not being good writers.”
-Tyler is a bad writer. Alex is a good writer who thinks Hillary is an inspiration to all girls everywhere. You are a good writer who falsely thinks you are being misunderstood. You’re not.
“And don’t write comments saying I’m too “emotional” to see things clearly, at the end of posts where I defend Trump voters.”
-You ain’t defending me.
U mad bro?
“Stop earnestly informing me of facts I knew before leaving Junior High School.”
-I don’t know what you don’t know.
Bob’s careful attempts to find how people refute themselves is actually a good thing.
7. December 2016 at 10:38
I’ve got to disagree on Gore and Iraq. The frenzy of justification leading up to the invasion was a textbook case of confirmation bias that, given Bush and Gore’s respective personal histories, I don’t believe Gore would have been nearly so likely to fall into.
7. December 2016 at 10:50
@Randomize, I agree but only because I think W was singularly susceptible to arguments from his advisors to invade Iraq, and his advisors, in turn, were singularly determined to invade Iraq and couldn’t imagine letting 9/11 go to waste as an excuse to do so no matter what the facts actually were. Admittedly I was in a state of delusion right up until the invasion, having voted for W I couldn’t quite get my head around him and his admin being that stupid (to be sure I thought he was stupid, but not that stupid, nor did I imagine his admin was stupider then he was), and told myself it was all a bluff, right up until he went through with it.
7. December 2016 at 10:56
Scott,
Perhaps you could consider posting a link from TheMoneyIllusion to EconLog whenever you have a new post up there. That way, TheMoneyIllusion readers would be aware of all the (great!) posts you have going on over there; and you would have one centralized timeline of all you articles.
Not sure if this would be the worth effort, but something to consider.
7. December 2016 at 11:19
@Benny: Berlusconi’s Italy had a terrible economy because it was Italy. Trump so far is talking about a lot of pretty pro-growth things (at the expense of big deficits).
7. December 2016 at 11:27
Kevin Erdmann,
It certainly seems the Fed got distracted. It’s absurd that a central bank that has the power to determine NGDP would need to go to Congress to ask for roughly 5% of GDP to bailout AIG and the banks. I fail to see how more monetary expansion instead wouldn’t have been better, but I’m far from expert on the bailouts.
Am I wrong to think we may not even need a lender of last resort? Should a central bank focus solely on monetary policy?
7. December 2016 at 11:34
Scott F.,
It is strange that TARP and IOR were done in order to hold the Fed Funds Rate at 2% at the time.
7. December 2016 at 11:49
So long as you don’t ask me to go back in time and vote for Romney, and then give up alcohol, we’re good.
By the way, are you watching Westworld? Given some of your past comments on free will, you might find it more than a little interesting.
7. December 2016 at 12:04
Art, That’s just it, you don’t see the big smile on my face as I write these rants. Those who see me, know me best. But you are right that people don’t know themselves in the way others do—on the other hand they know things about themselves that others don’t.
Scott, Yes, the main problem was falling NGDP, caused by tight money. Of course there were other problems too.
John, Presidents have far less influence than you think. Weren’t McKinley, Wilson and LBJ peace candidates? Decisions to go to war are made by the foreign policy establishment, not individuals. Gore’s foreign policy “czar” was going to be Richard Holbrooke, who was a super hawk in 2003.
Market, Not really, Elvis is an even better actor than I am. On the other hand you are right that the song is about someone who is really angry, while claiming not to be angry. I added it as a joke–it’s how others see me. Read Krugman if you want to see someone who is seriously emotional about politics. To me it’s a big circus.
rtd, Yes, Hamilton is excellent.
Benny, On Gore, see my reply to Market. Berlusconi had a terrible record, but anyone else in the same position would have done poorly. It’s Italy for God’s sake!. Maybe not as bad (Berlusconi was awful), but don’t overrate the importance of presidents.
Kevin Dick, Or any of the GMU bloggers. But seriously, I’m not one of those snowflakes that loses sleep over Trump. I’ve lived through a lot. Life goes on.
Kevin Erdmann, Precisely what do you mean by failing to meet the demand for money?”
Michael, I thought people would see it as similar to Trump. That was the whole point. If I wanted to connect with the 1930s, I would have picked anti-Jewish.
Randomize and Tom, Oh really? Check out Holbrooke’s view. He was going to be Gore’s foreign policy czar.
BJH, I post there almost every day, and have a link in the right column of this blog. That’s my best blog, I have no idea why readers waste their time with the political garbage over here.
7. December 2016 at 12:05
Al, Unfortunately I don’t watch TV. But I agree with you on alcohol—I’m not willing to go down that road. (And I drink relatively little, maybe 3 drinks a month.)
7. December 2016 at 12:06
I should say I don’t watch much tv, mostly sports.
7. December 2016 at 12:09
“I’m one of the least &$#*@%# emotional people in the whole country right now.”
“You know, we often don’t see ourselves as others do.”
Nor do we always appreciate irony.
7. December 2016 at 12:23
Gordon, Yeah, I knew that would go over Art’s head, so I thought I’d address the content. But man, how could anyone take something like that seriously?
7. December 2016 at 12:23
Why did households borrow against trillions of dollars of home equity in 2006 and early 2007? They needed money. Everyone agrees on this, I think. This has been painted as reckless overconsumption. What if that is wrong?
In 2011, most people agreed that extra liquidity was needed because households were in a phase of deleveraging, so they would use some extra income to pay down debt. What if that was already the case in 2006? Shouldn’t this be our presumption? That a sudden sharp increase in the harvesting of home equity is due to demand for money?
7. December 2016 at 12:32
Gordon, Yeah, I knew that would go over Art’s head, so I thought I’d address the content. But man, how could anyone take something like that seriously?
You categorically denied on another thread you suffer emotional upsets. Another time, another place, you may take responsibility for what you say.
7. December 2016 at 12:46
Actually, I was implying Art’s statement following yours was especially self-referential. Perhaps that went over everyone’s head. On the face of it, of course, his “we” covered everyone including himself, but I think the Gricean implication of that phrase suggests the speaker is leaving himself out. (As does my “everyone” above. 😉 )
7. December 2016 at 12:56
If Gore had been elected, there probably would still have been an Iraq War, but *Democrats probably would have supported it*. Thus, in a sense, Democrats are correct that, in an alternative universe where Gore won, we never would have gotten into an unpopular war.
7. December 2016 at 13:04
“None of those posts have any bearing on my view that he’s the most despicable politician in American history.”
More than George Wallace and Boss Tweed?
7. December 2016 at 13:24
Thiago, any of the fire-eaters of the 1850s were easily more despicable than Trump. Sumner’s just being stupid again.
7. December 2016 at 13:27
I see no reason to believe Gore would have pushed for the Iraq war had he been President.
7. December 2016 at 13:45
Thiago, any of the fire-eaters of the 1850s were easily more despicable than Trump.
Why go back 150 years? We had the Clintons less than a generation ago. Or Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy (who conscripted the Secret Service into assisting them in their sexual escapades). Or Mayor Thompson of Chicago. Or Theodore Bilbo. We’re only back to 1927 with the foregoing. How ’bout reviewing a precis of how George Wallace made use of his first wife between 1961 and her death?
7. December 2016 at 13:47
I see no reason to believe Gore would have pushed for the Iraq war had he been President.
Ejecting Saddam was a mainstream viewpoint in the Democratic Party ca. 1998 and Gore in Congress had always been part of the remnant of Henry Jackson acolytes.
7. December 2016 at 14:07
Why did households borrow against trillions of dollars of home equity in 2006 and early 2007? They needed money. Everyone agrees on this, I think. This has been painted as reckless overconsumption. What if that is wrong?
Commercial banks had about $487 bn in home equity loans on their books at the end of 2007, about $50 bn more than they did at the end of 2005 (12% more). I think savings banks have a real estate loan portfolio about 1/3 that of commercial banks and credit unions perhaps 1/2 that. Assets of commercial banks grew by $2,000 bn during those years, and outstanding mortgage debt by $2,600 bn, so I’m not seeing why you see HELOCs as so consequential.
7. December 2016 at 14:08
Poor old Sumner, he’s gone crazy. I like this part: “Stop claiming I’m too angry. It’s all a pose to jazz up my writing.” – sort of like mailing a death threat to the President, then pretending it was all a big joke when the Secret Service come knocking on the door… koo-koo.
7. December 2016 at 14:21
Scott,
What exactly do you mean by “despicable” politician. Does it mean that you don’t like him personally or are you making some judgement about his skills as a politician. For reference could you compare and contrast with a “despicable oncologist.”
7. December 2016 at 14:50
Scott,
How about you blog about sports instead of politics?
7. December 2016 at 15:56
Scott Sumner: I would read your Econlog posts but I was banned from commenting. I was informed that connecting the issue of property zoning to international capital flows is reason to be banned. Or the raising the issue of the criminalization of push-cart vending when the topic is the minimum wage.
7. December 2016 at 17:04
Scott Sumner wrote: “Stop trying to be clever, if you are not clever.
Stop being a Bob Murphy, and reading into posts things that are not there.”
By making these distinct commands, it’s pretty obvious that Scott thinks I’m clever.
I mean, he doesn’t come right out and say it, but we can all read between the lines.
7. December 2016 at 17:43
Perhaps Sumner is mad because Trump was recently named the Time magazine Person of the Year, and he knows yet another comparison to Hitler would be blatantly obvious, instead of the usual just plain obvious?
7. December 2016 at 17:43
Scott is probably just pissed that his drugs stocks tanked; or that Trump plans to boil the oceans; or that the Trumpenfuhrer is Person of the Year.
I don’t care to speculate though. I’m the least trollish person on the entire internet right now.
7. December 2016 at 19:05
I’m not complaining and you’re still one of my favorite bloggers.
Similar to NGDPT, I wouldn’t mind seeing posts from you advocating for things you think Trump could do to improve this nation. Whether it be stated corporate tax rates, interest deductions, wage subsidies, drug laws, ACA replacement, patent law changes, whatevs. There are a LOT of things the president can do to improve economic (and happiness) outcomes and similar to your advocacy of NGDPT, advocating for things to do might be an effective approach with the Donald (not sure about his followers though, they seem a bit cray.)
8. December 2016 at 00:05
Scott
You said, “I never said the economy would do poorly under Trump.”
But you did say, “Tax reform and deregulation are more promising, but even here the claims of 4% to 6% RGDP growth are ridiculous, at least over an extended period of time (I suppose one or two quarters are possible.) Trend RGDP growth during the 20th century averaged about 3%, under wildly different policy environments. I’m not saying policy had no impact (I’m a moderate supply-sider), but people tend to overrate the impact.”
So just to clarify if we have more than two quarters of real growth over 3% you will admit that you were wrong both about the impact of taxes and about Trump?
8. December 2016 at 01:04
Hi Scott,
I’m neither an American, nor an economist – as such I don’t really have much to say on your posts on either American politics or on economics.
However I enjoy reading them and find them informative. Please don’t take the comment section to be representative of your reader’s reactions. I’d be willing to bet that most reader’s don’t comment.
8. December 2016 at 08:38
Kevin, Aren’t you confusing the demand for money with the demand for credit?
Gordon, Good observation.
Thiago, Yes, the worst.
Scott, You said:
“I see no reason to believe Gore would have pushed for the Iraq war had he been President.”
I never said he would. I said Holbrooke and others would have pushed for it, and Gore would have gone along.
dtoh, I mean someone lacking in all respects; personality is horrible, ethics are horrible, policies are horrible, character is horrible. There’s virtually nothing good about the man. I don’t even like his hair.
He the sort of guy the Philippines normally elects.
Dan, Last night I saw an NBA game where someone was called for dribbling in one spot for more than 5 seconds. And then someone was penalized for taking more than 10 seconds at the free throw line—same game! I never even knew those rules existed.
Ben, You can always leave comments over here.
Bob, Only you are clever enough to have seen that connection!
Philip, Check out my new post on the FDA, it’s right there.
dtoh, You said:
“So just to clarify if we have more than two quarters of real growth over 3% you will admit that you were wrong both about the impact of taxes and about Trump?”
What a strange question!! No, because that’s what I predicted. I’ll admit I’m wrong if what YOU predicted comes through, a new TREND rate of RGDP in the 4% to 6% range. But that won’t happen so I won’t ever have to admit I was wrong. 🙂
8. December 2016 at 10:00
Scott
You’re hedging now. Before you said I suppose 1 or 2 quarters might be possible, i.e. More than that is not possible. So 3 quarters of 4% growth might not make me write, but it definitely makes you wrong.
So feel free to make a prediction it’s fine to say what you think it’s not going to be, but why don’t you say what you think it will be.
8. December 2016 at 17:56
Scott,
I don’t try to guess what people would have done. I don’t see the point in pure speculation. I recall Gore opposing the war before hand, but I don’t recall why he opposed it.
I opposed the war, having even written letters to editor of the local paper about it, because there was no evidence Hussein had WMD, and even if I thought he’d had them, I favored containment.
9. December 2016 at 10:10
Dtoh, If you’d stop moving the goalposts every single comment, and pretending like it’s me who is changing, we might have a more fruitful discussion.
Go back and read the earlier things you wrote. That’s what I’m holding you and Trump to. If he doesn’t succeed, I’m right.
The claim is that Trump will boost the economies growth rate to 4% to 6%, and not just briefly but as the new normal. That’s the criterion for success.
If you want my prediction, it’s 1.5% average growth over Trump’s term in office. That doesn’t mean it can’t bounce around (I think 2017 will be more than 1.5%). Even in this recovery we sometimes have a couple quarters above 3%.
9. December 2016 at 16:02
Scott,
Just because I’m wrong doesn’t mean you’re right. If growth is above 1.5% and below 4%, we’re both wrong.
And just to clarify, I never said the economy would average 4%. I said tax cuts would “result” in 4 to 6% growth. I don’t think we will get there on January 20, 2016. I’d expect 3 to 3.5% average over Trump’s entire term with at least a couple of years above 4%.
I would like to clarify your views on this though. You have often said you don’t think tax cuts have that big of an impact on growth. So I assume your 1.5% prediction is mostly independent of whether or not tax cuts are implemented. Is that correct?
In my case, I think growth is highly dependent on tax rates. I’m not hedging my prediction…. I do think we will see major tax cuts under Trump, but I just want to be clear that if you’re right on actual growth results but if it is in the absence of tax cuts, you’d be right about Trump’s abilities as a politician, but it would not settle the argument of the relative impact of taxes on growth.
10. December 2016 at 10:38
dtoh, You said:
“So I assume your 1.5% prediction is mostly independent of whether or not tax cuts are implemented. Is that correct?”
Not entirely, I think tax cuts raise growth, but not by very much. (I was predicting 1.2% before the election)
Trump’s income tax cuts will be minor (and probably temporary), similar to Bush II.
The corporate tax cuts might do a bit more, but we are talking in terms of tenths of a percent per year, not extra percents.
Now if we did something drastic like switch to the Singapore system, then yes, 4% growth for a few years is possible. But obviously that’s not going to happen. Trump will tinker a bit, and claim a PR victory. He’s all about PR, not actual policy. Look at the Carrier fiasco, it’s all showmanship.
Also keep in mind that things like immigration have a big impact on growth. People who think Trump will raise growth dramatically must assume he does all the good things to taxes and regulation, and completely ignores his promises on trade and immigration. That’s possible, but I think his fans are too optimistic–wait until this stuff gets to Congress. It will be a mix of the good and the bad.
Just to reiterate—my growth predictions are for 4 years, not for 2017. It’s hard to predict year to year changes in growth. I’m sticking with 1.5% trend growth per year. Here’s one way of thinking about trend growth—it’s the growth rate between two periods of time with the same unemployment rate.
10. December 2016 at 16:54
Scott,
So fair disagreement. I think your 1.2% was probably about right if Hilary had been elected. But we disagree on the impact of taxes and the likelihood that significant tax cuts will be passed under a Trump administration. So I think there is a legitimate and well understood difference of opinion here. We’ll see who’s right.
As to trend growth, that’s a bit of cheat to claim it’s dependent on an unchanged unemployment rate. Taxes are about making systemic changes and IMO, lower taxes will result in lower trend unemployment, but we will live with your stipulation on this one.
In the interest of reciprocity, would you also be willing to agree that if inflation averages below 2% that we are not at the trend growth rate?
As to immigration, what makes you think immigration will go down. I think Trump’s been talking about illegal immigration. He has not said much about immigration per se.
BTW – Why do you describe Carrier as a fiasco?
18. January 2017 at 07:42
Scott,
Don’t know if you saw Jamie Dimon’s interview at Davos, but he’s also predicting 3 to 4% growth if the right policies are enacted.