Steve Kyle

One thing I havent seen mentioned yet is the fact that the tools of analysis used by neoclassical economists often differ from those used by "heterodox" people (not always but often). Standard issue economists are taught to use mathematical reasoning which can end up meaning that you lose sight of things you cant count. More eclectically trained people sometimes use methods of argument more common to history or sociology or philosophy - with the result that leading econ journals (and economists) dont know what to make of them and wont publish them.

Some of the most important advances in bringing heterodox economics into the mainstream have been in figuring out ways to count things that were previously left outside of the analysis. Nevertheless, as long as "truth" involves a mix of things you can and cant count there will remain a tension between the purists and the more eclectic types.

On Paul K's topic, his example of what trade theory says is one I use every year in teaching intro econ - And every year some kid will say I am just an anti-market liberal. But the fact of the matter is that the theory tells us not that everyone WILL be better off but that everyone COULD be better off if, e.g. we had a benevolent dictator willing to make painless and costless transfers between citizens all of whom were benignly happy with having this happen. Perhaps when Prozac has permeated everyone's water supply this will become true, but it hasnt happened yet. (Nor has any "optimal lump sum redistribution")

Posted at May 30, 2007 3:15 PM in response to Heterodox Errors

Steve Kyle

I remember hearing that it was al Sadr who was the main support for Maliki. Is this true? And if so, wouldnt attacking his militia amount to sawing off the branch we are standing on? Who is next in line to be the US's government?

Posted at December 21, 2006 12:27 PM in response to Surging into the Abyss

Steve Kyle

or to put it more concisely, they live there. they arent going to lose because they will never leave. we are going to lose because we obviously cant beat them with the forces we have and will eventually leave.

unless of course, we want to win by nuking the entire country. I bet there are some who would actually go for that if it werent that it would make the oil glow.

Posted at November 30, 2006 6:05 AM in response to Enough Ghosts

Steve Kyle

The most ridiculous part of the whole exercise is the premise that Maliki “lacks a sense of urgency” to reach a political settlement and what is needed is to “light a fire” under his ass by threatening to pull out the troops.

This is patent nonsense. It isnt a lack of will or a lack of urgency that is the problem. It is that there is no way to get to a political settlement when none of the parties want one and there is no credible threat of force to make them do it. You could get the most hard-ass politician in the world in that job and it would still be impossible.

Threatening to pull our troops out or actually doing it (which I hope they do ASAP) wont cause Maliki to broker a settlement among the dozens of splintering factions - It will drive him further into the arms of whichever one he thinks he is safest with - and at the moment this seems to be Moqtada al Sadr. And what will be the difference from our point of view?

- The civil war will continue - but it will go on anyway whether or not we stay

- The Iranians will have a lot of power since they back Sadr - but they already do anyway

- All hell will break loose - but that is already happening

- Our troops will be out of the way and THAT is the one thing we have to power to change

Apart from this, we have no control over anything that happens inside Iraq. All that remains for us is to choose whether or not to have our soldiers in the middle and to do our best to influence what the various regional neighbors do about the descent into chaos that is now well under way.

Posted at November 30, 2006 6:01 AM in response to Enough Ghosts

If you want the best possible undergraduate education then you should go to the best possible small liberal arts college.  They are the ones who regard undergrad education as their first and most important mission.

 It may be fun to be lectured by famous guys so you can drop names but as a grad student at Harvard there was no doubt that profs had a lot less time (way way less) for undergrads than was the case at my small college.  There are some students who will do fine under such circumstances but I suspect they would have done fine anywhere.

 Further evidence for the superiority of a small college undergrad education is the fact that a disproportionate number of professors at those large research universities are alums of those small colleges.

Bottom line - You are best off if you go to an institution that has its comparative advantage in whatever it is you are looking for.  As an undergrad that would be undergrad education.  As a grad student it would be research. 

Steve Kyle

Posted at March 1, 2006 10:00 AM in response to Inside Harvard Baseball III

El Campesino

 You are mistaken.  Clinton authorized warrantless searches OF FOREIGNERS.  NOT our own citizens.  You may think that is a bad idea but it is entirely within the law.  Indeed, the Clinton administration adhered to the FISA law every step of the way.  The problem with what Bush has done isnt so much that he has done warrantless searches (though that is bad enough all by itself)  No, it is that he has asserted that he is above the law, and can ignore it whenever he likes.  That is a threat to our democracy.  The President cant break the law whenever he feels like it.  Clinton didnt and Bush should be impeached for it.

Posted at January 17, 2006 10:11 AM in response to Up with Gore: With Liberty and Justice for All

So where in hell are the rest of the Democrats.  Why hasnt anyone who is actually in office made a speech like this?  Why arent they doing it every day?  What is the MATTER with them?  I keep waiting for them to wake up and realize what a crucially important moment it is when the President has said he can break laws any time he wants and isnt planning to stop.

 Are they waiting to see if this scandal has legs and then pile on?  WAKE UP you dumb pols, the only way it will get legs is if you lead the way. 

P.S.  It is very very good politics too.  Make a speech as forthright and on the money as Al Gore and you will win reelection in a walk. 

Posted at January 17, 2006 9:30 AM in response to Up with Gore: With Liberty and Justice for All

It is very easy, perhaps even human nature, to look back and see that whatever it was that happened was somehow inevitable or that irresistable historical forces made things be that way.  I think that this is where Calvinism came from - whatever happened was "meant to be" because of forces larger than ourselves.

 What we shouldnt forget is that if things had turned out differently, we would be citing THOSE things as inevitable and as evidence of some entirely different long range political or social trend.

Sometimes there really are long term forces that dominate, reassert or otherwise determine what happens.  However, history and society arent as deterministic as all that - Calvin was wrong. Sometimes shit just happens.\

Regarding the case in point I have a thought experiment for you.  What if Bobby Kennedy never got shot, and became President.  Suppose he became the most enlightened and wonderful president in history, the one we all hoped he would be in our dreams.  Would things have turned out the way they did?  Would we have had the conservative long term trend that we did or if so, would it have ended up where we are now?  I dont think so.  I think we would have taken a drastically different fork in the road and be in some other county entirely.

Similarly with the current President.  If Al Gore had shown a little more spine - if whatever needed to happen for him to win had happened, wouldnt history look mighty different by now?  We would be in the fourth term in a row of Democratic leadership and NOBODY would be talking about "long term conservative trends" 

Posted at January 3, 2006 7:01 AM in response to THE CASE FOR CORRUPTION

Since when has logic had anything whatever to do with Bush's utterances?  He says whatever his handlers think will play the best on the evening news.  There is no necessary relation to fact, logic or reality.  So why would we even credit him with TRYING to be truthful?  Though I wouldnt say he lies every time he opens his mouth, I would say that he has complete and total disregard for the truth every time he opens his mouth - If he even knows what the truth is.

Posted at January 1, 2006 2:48 PM in response to Logic

This discussion ignores something important which was hinted at in the original post.  Yes, the present value of the liability cancels out.  But what you do with the money matters a lot.  There are plenty of investments out there that the government isnt making that would yield a much higher return than a measly 5%.  For example, educating every child in the country to their fullest potential would cost way less than the Iraq war does and would have an immense return in the future through increased productivity, increased output, decreased costs from welfare or prisons or whatever else would have happened if they all remained uneducated.  Other examples include funding research for new energy technologies, or repairing our crumbling infrastructure, or any of a number of things you could easily come up with.

The point is that it matters A LOT what the money is spent on.  Too much of this debate centers on a sterile accounting approach of money in vs. money out as if it made no difference whatever if the Federal government did or didnt do all of the investments it is capable of doing.  This contributes to the right wing way of framing the issue in which ANY resources given to the government is just pouring money down a rathole.  We ought to be talking about this a lot more than we do.  We ought to divide the budget into capital expenditures and other expenditures to drive the point home. 

By the way, international lending institutions such as the World Bank make poor countries do exactly this - What is good for them would also in fact be good for us - it would focus our minds on the fact that some dollars are spent to produce future income while other dollars are spent just to increases consumption or spread it around differently. 

Posted at December 22, 2005 9:14 AM in response to WHY DEFICITS MATTER, AND WHY THEY DON'T