I’m in Washington, D.C. this morning, kicking off the new year in a new job. There are some rules about blogging (and so forth) and, while it is permitted, I think it’s best for me to hand over the reins to my friend and colleague, William K. Black so that I can give my full attention to the tasks ahead. I appreciate Bill’s willingness to take over as Editor-in-Chief of NEP.…New Economic Perspectives
Hiatus (personal)
Stephanie Kelton | Chief Economist, Senate Budget Committee (minority)
5 comments:
I hope the system with its unstoppable momentum and tyranny of the majority doesn't crush her owl spirit.
It won't crush her spirit, but it might make her position and input, irrelevant.
I expect her experience will add a much-needed dose of political realism and a practical problem-solving orientation to MMT discourse.
I expect her experience will add a much-needed dose of political realism and a practical problem-solving orientation to MMT discourse.
Actually, that's not what economists are supposed to do either academically or a advisers to politicians. They just set forth the economics and let the political people handle the policy and selling it.
This is pretty much what the Obama administration did with the stimulus. Christina Romer said that it would take 1.5 T, and primarily spending rather than tax cuts. The political people came back with the view that 1.5 T was not practical politically. So she went back to her spreadsheet and cut it down to 1.2 T. After the pols were done with it tho, it was down to 0.85 T and laden with tax cuts.
Same with Iraq. Gen. Shinseki said that the occupation would take 500 K boots on the ground and stuck to his guns on it. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld fired him and replaced him with someone that would reduce the figure to what they wanted. "The Iraqis will greet us with flowers as liberators."
Neither economists nor generals should be thinking in terms of what is doable politically but what works and building a case for it for the pols to use to convince those that choke on the plan and want something that won't work instead, but is "doable."
Tom, your view is aloof. There is no such thing as "the economics" as some sphere of pure scientific knowledge independent of practice. Political economy is ultimately a practical art with some scientific supporting elements. No school of economics that is not realistically grounded in social and political practice is worth anything.
What economists can do however, working with either political practitioners, professionals and activists, and given some conception of social values to be realized, is offer various menu options along the lines of "not very ambitious", "somewhat ambitious", "very ambitious", "extremely ambitious" and "revolutionary", and then leave it up to the politicians to decide which action plan should be pursued.
Post a Comment