Guilty, guilty, guilty! Which panel?
Presumably the liberal-libertarian panel at Stanford today. DeLong was on it.
I want details, though. What are the details, Ben?
DeLong prepared for the talk by taking off his shirt and tie.
And underneath? Grizzled mat of chest hair, or shaved and waxed?
Sheesh you'd never make it as a murder witness.
Underneath ... another shirt (not an undershirt, a cafepress shirt about jedi masters and obama)! He also snarked a few times in a way that would probably have infuriated me were I not sympathetic.
There wasn't a whole lot of engagement, I thought. Wilkinson made some comments about the overwhelmingly liberal media and claimed that the Heritage Foundation and Cato were poor Davids pitifully and mostly ineffectively attempting to influence policy against their might. Postrel wanted us all to know that she's written a book which is, surprisingly, not called Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Mankind. Brink Wossname was the best of the libertarian crew and J. Cohen the most vociferous of the liberals.
So the goal was to understand if liberals and libertarians should be allies? No. Simple answers....
Can't spell my own pseud! Didn't have that much wine.
I thought that essea might be your sister.
I can deal with left libertarians because some of them have been among the few who actually opposed the Iraq war. It's not liberals and Democrats covered themselves with glory. And my recent studies of WWI and WWII antiwar movements have made me realize how tied to war Democrats have been for a century now.
Hopefully PGD will show up and say his piece.
a cafepress shirt about jedi masters and obama
For reals? If so, DeLong is awesome!
10: No, "essea" is 3rd person singular present tense conjugation of "essear."
During my one encounter with DeLong, I found him painfully smart and oddly abstruse. It was a bit like hanging out with a Jedi master, though there was less swordcraft than one might have hoped.
15. In many ways this isn't surprising as is blog beside being humorous and informative is also rather abstruse in that not infrequently one must be completely up on all things economic to make any sense of what he's saying. It's really a shame about the swordcraft though.
DeLong has been oddly receptive to my comments, which are often quite harsh. His blog is his window on a world that most economists deliberately and successfully avoid (I'm not his only critic there.) He really makes an effort.
Indeed. I had high hopes for clank of steel upon steel. 'Twas not to be.
He told me that you help him keep it real, John.
16: Only about a third of his posts are technical economics, and I've learned not to troll those.
Ari, do you do consulting on Americanology?
21: I would concede. It's possible that I just end up reading him when he is on his more techie kicks.
He also has little posts that you wouldn't expect, like Homer and Dante and marine biology.
I want to hang out with DeLong sometime. I think everybody should. He's like a one man nerd mecca.
22: I do "consulting". If that's your thing.
I'd just like to ask you about some bibliography type questions, if you could write emersonj @ gmail.
He also has little posts that you wouldn't expect, like Homer and Dante and marine biology.
No one expects a post on the Spanish Inquisition.
Emerson is 27 because you couldn't find his e-mail address? Because I'm totally going to make fun of you.
Are there any panels taking place in San Francisco between February 12 and February 16? Or other things of interest? I'll be in town that week, and I require stimulation.
Yeah, because SF is boring-city if there isn't some kind of academic or political panel discussion happening.
February 16? Or other things of interest?
My birthday panel happens EVERYWHERE that day. Feel free to submit gifts for the panel's consideration.
Crap. I swear I forgot that I will be there to speak on a boring panel myself.
No one expects a panel on the Spanish Inquisition to be boring.
There are two Ari Ks at his little school, you know.
33: Suuuuuure. Still, what's the panel? I've got some old tomatoes and a pie or two lying around, Mr. Friedman.
Stanley, your b'day is February 16? Same as my daughters and Kim Jong Il.
They must be almost as tall as him by now.
37: I think we've been over this before, but yes. And an advanced happy birthday to your wee one and the Great Leader, if he's actually still alive.
Well, I'll be giving a talk on 2/13. It'll totally bore you.
Together, they could take him down, easy. If he's not already dead, that is.
It's a panel on anti-heckler COIN tactics. We come in after the audience and throw shoes from the back.
Your girls have a lethal cuteness and wiggliness, and are not to be underestimated. They remind me of one of my nieces at that age, but she's 13 now.
37: Oh yeah, and I didn't send you cake. Hope that pwnage tasted good just now, though.
Hope that pwnage tasted good just now, though.
Sweeter than a Krispy Kreme donut, but, like, in a good way.
I just put a program on my computer to remind me to take periodic breaks from typing, and I swear to Gay Jesus my reward for obeying it is some kind of animated misappropriation of Clap Your Hands Say Yeah cover art.
I've got some old tomatoes and a pie or two lying around, Mr. Friedman.
the boss at my new job went on and on the other day about how he loved, loved Thomas Friedman. Fuckity fuck fuck. I nodded politely and threw nothing. This world is a corrupt and fallen place.
34. Heebie's wish is the Hedgehog's command.
Be sure to live your life like there's no tomorrow, Standpipe.
Wilkinson made some comments about the overwhelmingly [socially] liberal media and claimed that the Heritage Foundation and Cato were poor Davids pitifully and mostly ineffectively attempting to influence policy against their might.
Unlike the WSJ, say.
Postrel wanted us all to know that she's written a book which is, surprisingly, not called Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Mankind.
Sounds like one of those bloody horrid conservative books about why people should get the fuck off the lawn because of their lack of respect for tradition, such as the display of lawn jockeys ... but... what's the concern troll part?
max
['Liberals need to understand the deep and abiding respect that many people feel for the Confederacy or what?']
what's the concern troll part?
There were multiple parts, but the best was when J. Cohen was exclaiming that (if you look at the past 75 years) the idea that liberals don't know how incite economic growth is absurd, and Postrel's response was to demand, loudly, of him, "is there even one regulation you would oppose?" (those may not have been the ipsissima verba, but fairly close).
She also announced that liberals had better not FUCK IT UP by opposing biotech or pharmaceutical progress (whatever progress might turn out to be) or by encouraging "corporate welfare with a green wrapper", ie, subsidizing or otherwise encouraging through government action specific environmental technologies. Actually, it was more general than that, but the restriction to specific technology is more defensible than the idea that it would be disastrous for the government to encourage environmental responsibility and responsiveness on the part of business (one might think that there are other, more objectionable forms of corporate welfare lurking about).
She gave a story which I gather was meant as a cautionary tale, to wit, about the CA law requiring such and such a percentage of zero-emissions vehicles, which was then changed upon the advent of gas-electric hybrids, which hadn't been predicted by the legislators.
For my part I don't really see the problem here: the law when it existed probably spurred a decent amount of research which will surely (surely!) have downstream benefits, and when, in the course of events, a decent enough technology came along, the law was changed. The system works! There seems to be an odd theory of motivation and innovation at work, according to which, since one can't predict from what quarter technological innovation will come, one shouldn't pursue or encourage reasonable reasonable: since it could come from anywhere, act as if it comes from nowhere.
And that's not the only thing I found baffling about that line of thought, inasmuch as it was developed (not much!)! But I should cease from rambling.
Wow. I'd never thought of Postrel as quite that much of an idiot.
...the Heritage Foundation and Cato were poor Davids pitifully and mostly ineffectively attempting to influence policy against their might.
Did he really lump Heritage in with Cato? Because Heritage is the very definition of party-line conservative (or what passes for "conservative" these days in US electoral politics), and not in the least libertarian.
With regard to Cato, it's not entirely wrong to characterize it as an ineffectively ranting David. Whilst they have enjoyed some policy successes where their agenda overlaps with that of the plutocratic wing of the GOP, in general they are outsiders to the GOP power structure that ruled Washington from 2001-2008.
Apart from academic curiousity, I don't see the point of dialogue between liberals and libertarians. Yeah, we have some points of agreement. So what? They don't represent any voters! Even among the small number of self-described libertarians, I would surmise that the majority are either (1) schmibertarians who are not really in play for the Democrats; (2) reside in coastal enclaves that vote for Democrats anyway.
The only meaningful bloc of libertarianish voters that interests me are in the Mountain West, and there I would prefer that they remain self-consciously libertarian and vote for Libertarian party candidates, so that they split the GOP coalition and throw elections to Democrats. Achieving that requires sharpening differences, not blurring them.
This seems like as good a place as any to ask my question.
Jonah Goldberg is giving a talk on Liberal Fascism (to accompany its UK publication) at the London School of Economics in a couple of weeks. Should I go along (it's free, so I won't be subsidising him) and heckle/ask embarrassing questions, or would it just legitimise his stupid endeavour? Bear in mind that nobody who isn't a US political junkie has heard of him on this side of the pond.
GY - At this point I think he's so much of a nonentity this side of the pond that it really doesn't matter. If it would entertain you to go along and abuse Goldberg for shits and giggles, don't be put off by a fear of legitimising him. The ex-broadsheet press will cover the meeting with three inches on an inside page that nobody will read. If he's lucky.
I would be very tempted to go along and mock him just for the fun of it. Bearing in mind that probably you will increase the size of his audience by a noticeable amount, and that the British tend to side with the underdog - which Jonah might manage to spin himself as, especially if you successfully mock him till he cries.
I'd be pretty amazed if the press cover it at all. He's far less high profile than most speakers at the Oxford Union and they only get coverage if something really controversial happens.
Jesurgislac: my current plan is to ask him if he the United Federation of Planets is fascist.
do it! Mind, the only people who'll give a damn are people who already have an opinion, so just have fun.
The only risk of his getting coverage is that, unlike the Oxford Onion, it's in London. There are plenty of journalists who would rather cover a meaningless talk in the smoke than a coup d'etat in the provinces. But I agree it's not likely.
You could ask him if there's any country in the world outside the United States that isn't fascist, and if not, why not.
There's always the 'entarte' option ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Godin
my current plan is to ask him if he the United Federation of Planets is fascist.
Ask him which treat is objectively more fascist: Ho Hos or Tasty Kakes.
I don't see the point of dialogue between liberals and libertarians.
I'm about as libertarian as you can get and still be called liberal, so no surprise I disagree with this. Libertarians go too far in the direction of minimal government, but the liberal impulse to tinker does too often result in excessive government interventions. Trivial examples are EU agricultural interventions that result in stupidity like wine lakes.
The libertarian critique of over regulation ought to be taken seriously. The harm they point to is often quite real. Starting a business, for example, is a huge pain in the ass due in large part to regulations crafted with large businesses in mind. Some tweaks have been made, but it's still absurdly difficult. I think that commerce is a very good thing, most especially at the scale of small business. Regulatory barriers favor large businesses because they are the ones able to hire compliance officers.
None of this means adopting libertarian legislative approaches - in fact quite the opposite: Liberals should take the critiques seriously but what we should take from them is the understanding the needed regulation should be crafted in a way that minimizes its negative impacts, most especially its burdensome effects on small business.
Another point where liberals ought to take libertarian ideas seriously is the fact that intervention programs quickly develop stakeholders and the stakeholders can make it very hard to get rid of the program if it turns out to be a bad thing. Case in point: Corn ethanol subsidies, which is now basically a vote buying program.
One area where liberals ought to adopt wholesale the libertarian approach is drug laws. Legalize, tax, educate.
stupidity like wine lakes
Stupid?! Think of the tourists. Lakes of wine, what a concept.
There's a lake of stew and whiskey too on Big Rock Candy Mountain
"There are plenty of journalists who would rather cover a meaningless talk in the smoke than a coup d'etat in the provinces."
Yeah, but there are dozens of meaningless talks a week in London. Ben Goldacre, for instance, is far more famous here than Jonah, but I've never seen one of his talks written up in a paper, even the Grauniad.
Currently readin This book by this guy. Just an okay book for me, I already know the Powell memo and Argentine Crisis.
But I axed myself:"Why have I never heard of this guy" I mean, I know Postrel & Wilkinson & fucking Jonah Goldberg have blogs. I know Will & Kristol are on TV. And I know Harvey is old, and his ideas are old. But still, even as an urban geographer or urban theorist in six years on a hundred intellectual/political blogs the name might have come up a few times.
More curious than angry. Just wondering if the model of fighting the MSM and Wurlitzer on its on ground might not be as effective as we think. I don't think the Old Left, or maybe even New Left, played defense and counterattacked as much. Although I guess that's liberalism, isn't it, the biggest forum is where they want to play.
And I coulda forgotten.
Probably pwnd, but I haven't heard anyone mention that Mark Thoma quoted comments from this thread in a front page post. I didn't think the comments were that funny.
Setser linked to a Dec paper from the Levy Economics Institute of Frustrated Real Liberals a short while ago. It got over to Thoma's, and ten people said:"Why haven't I heard of these guys? They're great"
And then Yves Smith linked to Steve Keen in OZ, and the comments were like:"Why hasn't anybody done any work after Minsky" as if hundreds of Post-Keynesians didn't exist.
(57 ff) I suppose I should have complained (as a concerned alum). Ginger Yellow, yes, do go along. With luck there'll be some other people who go to mock.
65: I'm not sure what part of your "libertarian critique" is not already accepted wisdom by smart liberals. Certainly I don't think that DeLong would disagree.
The insinuation that the Common Agricultural Policy springs from a liberal inclination to tinker is borderline slanderous. The policy of propping up farm prices originated with the political right (going back as far as Bismarck), and the strongest opposition to them today is from parties of the left (e.g. the Greens).
I'm wondering whether, in the midst of the depression, the economics trade might ultimately be forced to relate to reality.
Philosophy? Not so optimistic.
"War is the health of the state". Anarchists and some libertarians realize that much better than liberals and socialists do.
That's my main shared ground with libertarians. The drug war would be another, and some issues dealing with credentials and licensing monopolies would be the rest.
Too many of them are nativists, market-worshippers, Randian supermen, and Social Darwinists, though. And a LOT of libertarians became hawks after 9/11.
72.1 - Smart liberals is loaded - there's a tendency to read people we agree with as smart and ones we disagree with as less so. The mainstream of liberalism today certainly has a lot of tinkerer types, including ones who are smart by any reasonable measure.
72.2 Liberal or not, the CAP most certainly springs from tinkering. I haven't followed opposition to it closely enough to know, but dollars to donuts the opposition from the left is driven far more by environmental impact than the fact that it's a horrible misallocation of resources.
I also wonder if we might be working from rather different understandings of what liberalism means.
I axed myself:"Why have I never heard of this guy"
I don't know. But Paris, Capital of Modernity made a big enough splash that I remember when it came out (and I don't exactly stay current in the fields of geography or Marxism). Possibly, it was reviewed in NYRB or TLS or LRB. I know I put it on my list of books to read someday, though sadly, it's still there.
Jonah gave a talk at the school where I used to work. Colleagues who went said it was just embarrassing. He spend most of the time talking about some San Francisco hippies that were so dirty that new diseases were discovered on them. No, really.
One of my colleagues asked him to clarify his argument, and he replied by noting that she was European and therefore wouldn't understand. Later she said to me, "Imagine what he would said if he knew I were Muslim!"
re: 69
He has some podcasts up. He's been doing a series on Marx and 'Kapital'. Pretty sure I discovered the podcasts via a link at CT [although I had already read a couple of his books, so he wasn't new to me].
The Kapital lectures are online as videos and as podcasts.
His book on the New Imperialism is pretty good, too.
i think harvey may be slightly better known over here (uk) than there -- i've seen reviews too (lrb i imagine; he doesn't get op-eds or anything)
54: There were multiple parts, but the best was when J. Cohen was exclaiming that (if you look at the past 75 years) the idea that liberals don't know how incite economic growth is absurd,
'And by that definition, who does?'
and Postrel's response was to demand, loudly, of him, "is there even one regulation you would oppose?"
These panel doohickeys are more talking point fests that anything, I think.
She also announced that liberals had better not FUCK IT UP by opposing biotech or pharmaceutical progress
By supporting government grant of monopoly via patents? Or by opposing stem cell research?
or by encouraging "corporate welfare with a green wrapper", ie, subsidizing or otherwise encouraging through government action specific environmental technologies.
No money for poor people, or non-financial corporations!
(one might think that there are other, more objectionable forms of corporate welfare lurking about).
But that's the best part: since anything can be labeled as corporate welfare, you have an abundance of targets from which to choose, so one need be merely selective in target acquisition. Then you can just oppose corporate welfare for anyone who isn't contributing money to the cause!
about the CA law requiring such and such a percentage of zero-emissions vehicles, which was then changed upon the advent of gas-electric hybrids, which hadn't been predicted by the legislators.
The Honda ZPG car versus the Prius.
the law when it existed probably spurred a decent amount of research which will surely (surely!) have downstream benefits, and when, in the course of events, a decent enough technology came along, the law was changed. The system works!
If I remember that one correctly, Honda had their vehicle ready for Cali, and then the Prius came along. You're right that that's only cautionary in the sense that the law needs to be flexible or modified later as events warrant. (If you wanted to make a real cautionary tale, it would be about laws that are NOT modified due to political pressure, even though it is self-evident counter-productive.)
since it could come from anywhere, act as if it comes from nowhere.
Spontaneous emergence of innovation ('innovation') due to lack of government interference. cf Bernie Madoff.
And that's not the only thing I found baffling about that line of thought, inasmuch as it was developed (not much!)!
55:Wow. I'd never thought of Postrel as quite that much of an idiot.
Postrel was one of the glee-bertarians that, much to my surprise and dismay, suddenly discovered that vast social engineering projects and repressive security measures were A-OK when applied to such wonderful projects as killing a bunch of subhuman (their POV) Arabs into democracy in Iraq. Prior to that, while I thought that various lib types could be annoyingly stridently ideological, at least they would be reliable in opposing the kind of quasi-fascist crap that the R's (and too frequently the D's) so often wish to implement. Sorta like the ACLU. HAH. No. When push comes to shove and a plane flies into a building near, around or close by to the people in the think tanks, then throwing out a few million sieg heils is totally the way to libertarian paradise. Or some shit.
max
['So, Postrel: fucking annoying.']
If I had known that about Postrel, max, I could have not asked a much better question than the one I actually didn't ask. (Something along the lines of "what are you doing here, exactly?".)
I would have said Postrel was just out-and-out trolling. The guy from Cato Unbound wasn't much better, Brink Lindsey was all right, and Brad Delong was on weird form. Joshua Cohen and Pamela Karlan--who proudly announced that she had no internet presence--were very impressive, however. Guess I should read the Boston Review more often.
Nobody expects the California economist!
I stood right next to you, Brad, when you were taking leave.
Me! Right next to the California economist!
85: Actually, weren't we all wondering how long he could resist the urge to jump in?
Man, can't a guy do drive-by anonymous critiques on the internet without getting called on it?
I enjoyed your talk, but honestly didn't understand most of your interventions in the discussion later on--some jokes misfiring or going over my head, I don't know. I suppose I was disappointed there wasn't any calling of nonsense about "just letting the economy rip" from Will Wilkinson. And I had hoped you would back up Joshua Cohen when he argued that liberal policies actually have done pretty well on economic growth, thank you very much.
Re: " stood right next to you, Brad..."
I saw you, and talked to you, but I did not know that you were you. So I did not deal with you appropriately...
deal with you appropriately
Yet another spanking in costume narrowly avoided.