While reading this, I could not help but recall the long-standing adage: if government is the answer, it must be a very stupid question. I also recall the demand for an "industrial policy" during 1975-85, usually citing Japan, Inc. As a direct result, Japan has endured its Lost Decade which is now three decades long, topped by government debt of some 250% of GDP. We have seen this movie before and it is not a happy ending.
As for laissez-faire, that is another false front hyped strictly by liberals. Every time I hear it, I simply ask what part of the American economy is not highly regulated. The silence in response is, as I have written previously, deafening. This has been a primary driver of American industry to offshore sources: regulation drove production costs prohibitively high.
Global warming, aka climate change? Not serious in the slightest. Human activity is 1/3 of 1% of so-called greenhouse gases. That is, humans have introduced less GHG since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution than what a single year of nature does. Our impact to too infinitesimal to be measured.
If laissez faire has been the order of the day for all these decades, what have the SEC, FDA, FTC, FERC, DOE, ITA, FRA, EPA, OSHA, BIS, NRC, MARAD, BLM, OCC, CFPB, and the Federal Reserve been doing all this time?
I don't live on the UC Berkeley campus, so I can only guess that even the professors are captured by an epistemic bubble or an echo chamber — DeLong's unsupported assertions strongly hint at this. This is not so dissimilar to the recent Tucker Carlson interview with Hitler apologist Darryl Cooper where Cooper makes wild claims without citing evidence, logical argument, or cogent analysis from historians (or himself, for that matter); yet, Carlson and much of his audience buy the narrative unsceptically.
Thanks, Jim. The tragedy is that on issues like Hayek's thinking, Brad used to be very good. I still count his review of James Scott's Seeing Like a State as the best review out there. And one thing that made it good was that Brad argued against Scott's claim that there was nothing Hayekian in his book. Brad begged, correctly, to differ.
While reading this, I could not help but recall the long-standing adage: if government is the answer, it must be a very stupid question. I also recall the demand for an "industrial policy" during 1975-85, usually citing Japan, Inc. As a direct result, Japan has endured its Lost Decade which is now three decades long, topped by government debt of some 250% of GDP. We have seen this movie before and it is not a happy ending.
As for laissez-faire, that is another false front hyped strictly by liberals. Every time I hear it, I simply ask what part of the American economy is not highly regulated. The silence in response is, as I have written previously, deafening. This has been a primary driver of American industry to offshore sources: regulation drove production costs prohibitively high.
Global warming, aka climate change? Not serious in the slightest. Human activity is 1/3 of 1% of so-called greenhouse gases. That is, humans have introduced less GHG since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution than what a single year of nature does. Our impact to too infinitesimal to be measured.
David, Good stuff. It seems J Bradford DeLong brought a knife to a gun fight.
Thanks, David.
Nice fly swatting.
“Income inequality”
I don’t see the problem!
Two word phrase to invoke emtions.
Excellent rebuttal.
As to Richard's comment - those are a make work program for the bureaucracy (to little good), all on the public tax dollars.
I found it interesting that DeLong started with FDR.
Thanks, Herb.
If laissez faire has been the order of the day for all these decades, what have the SEC, FDA, FTC, FERC, DOE, ITA, FRA, EPA, OSHA, BIS, NRC, MARAD, BLM, OCC, CFPB, and the Federal Reserve been doing all this time?
I don't live on the UC Berkeley campus, so I can only guess that even the professors are captured by an epistemic bubble or an echo chamber — DeLong's unsupported assertions strongly hint at this. This is not so dissimilar to the recent Tucker Carlson interview with Hitler apologist Darryl Cooper where Cooper makes wild claims without citing evidence, logical argument, or cogent analysis from historians (or himself, for that matter); yet, Carlson and much of his audience buy the narrative unsceptically.
Not much difference between the Right and Left.
Great vivisection, David.
Thanks, Jim. The tragedy is that on issues like Hayek's thinking, Brad used to be very good. I still count his review of James Scott's Seeing Like a State as the best review out there. And one thing that made it good was that Brad argued against Scott's claim that there was nothing Hayekian in his book. Brad begged, correctly, to differ.
I agree.