BBO Discussion Forums: Is Elizabeth Warren the Smartest Person in U.S. Politics - BBO Discussion Forums

From Krugman's blog today:

From Pulp Fiction (not an econ blog):

The Wolf: Jimmie, lead the way. Boys, get to work.

Vincent: A please would be nice.

The Wolf: Come again?

Vincent: I said a please would be nice.

The Wolf: Get it straight buster - I'm not here to say please, I'm here to tell you what to do and if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better ***** do it and do it quick. I'm here to help - if my help's not appreciated then lotsa luck, gentlemen.

Jules: No, Mr. Wolf, it ain't like that, your help is definitely appreciated.

Vincent: I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me.

The Wolf: If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the ***** car.

Ken Pulp Fiction is an all time great movie. It stands on its own but what makes it a truly great movie is that at the time it did indeed influence many other movies and many other people in the business.

With that said even great movies have their detractors and that is ok.

Then they calculated the effect on the national economy. When the Federal Reserve couldn't lower interest rates any further — the situation we're in now, known as the "zero lower bound" — Nakamura and Steinsson found a 1 percent increase in government purchases in a particular state resulted in at least a 1.7 percent increase in national income per person.

In other words, the federal government can stimulate the economy and create jobs, and the resulting increase in income will far exceed any cost to the taxpayers.

It appears I have to sign up with them to read the article. I gather the article refers to some paper, perhaps http://www.columbia....pers/fiscal.pdf

Or try this link

The more I read from Krugman the more obnoxious he sounds. I have known mathemaiticians like this. They sure as hell had better be brilliant because they aren't making it on personality. It is useful for a person to understand that not everyone who disagrees with him is a villain. Sometimes they are not even stupid. And, on occasion, they are not even wrong.

I have no intention of debating whether a thought I have is "truly an honest error" or whether I am "self-consciously exploiting deficit panic to promote a conservative agenda" and I don't imagine many others have such plans either. Such a presentation basically ends discussion, we just move on to who has the most votes.

To put it another way: If he intends to change any minds, rather than win applause from the choir, he needs to work on his communication skills.

Max Planck thought long and hard about this. But in the end even he gave up. His final position was:

Science does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.... Science advances one funeral at a time...

I see Paul Krugman has replied, at last, to your post.

It seems that he and I agree that he is obnoxious.It is always good to find common ground.

I gather he takes this characterization as accurate and intended. He thinks it is the best way to be effective. he could be right.

Would Krugman make such a good living as a guest commentator if he weren't so arrogant and obnoxious?

He is definitely perceived as obnoxious and arrogant by a lot of people, many of whom have done serious long term damage to the financial system, to the economy, to the planet, to the economics profession and the public. I don't think anyone can say, with credibility, that Krugman is intellectually dishonest or incompetent as is the case with so many of his detractors who are even more arrogant and obnoxious!

p.s. That most definitely does not include you. I think you are one of the most honest and thoughtful posters on this forum. If you had studied economics, you would probably also be one of the most competent posters on economic topics as well. I suspect this was not one of your interests in college.

Several weeks ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered perhaps the most important speech on the U.S. regulatory system in recent memory at a forum on regulatory capture organized by the Administrative Conference of the United States. In it, she described how the regulatory system was not working for the people as it should be – or as Congress had intended. Instead, she described how corporate influence over the regulatory process has become so far-reaching and so overwhelming that it has become fundamentally "tilted" to generate results that favor corporate profit at the expense of crucial safeguards necessary for protecting people and the environment.

Put differently, Warren's speech described how corporate interests had gone beyond capturing discrete agencies – a phenomenon that policymakers and political scientists have recognized for decades – and now have successfully captured critical components of the process by which agencies do their work.

This new approach to regulatory capture produces the same results as the traditional conception: substantive policies that advance industry interests at the expense of the public interest. In contrast, though, it is much more insidious – indeed, process capture is nearly impossible for policymakers to observe, let alone for the general public – and it is much more difficult to effectively remedy through policy reforms.

CPR and others in the public interest community have been working for years to shine a light on this understanding of the regulatory system and draw the attention of policymakers, the media, and the public. In fact, CPR Vice President Sid Shapiro spoke at the same event as Warren and raised similar concerns about regulatory process capture.

Warren's speech was significant because it represents the most high-profile articulation to date of the progressive diagnosis of what ails the regulatory system and the necessary reform remedies. Critically, the progressive vision of the U.S. regulatory system that Warren articulated stands in stark contrast to the narrative that has been peddled by most members of Congress in recent years and regurgitated throughout the media – a narrative that has generally framed the debate as whether or not we have too much regulation. Instead, Warren's speech makes the convincing case that our regulatory system is falling well short of what it should be accomplishing and that the proper reforms should be aimed at strengthening it.