Althouse: "But some of the criticisms that have been levelled at [Jeremy] Corbyn in the past couple of days are unfair."

September 16, 2015

"But some of the criticisms that have been levelled at [Jeremy] Corbyn in the past couple of days are unfair."

"He is neither a Communist nor a 'threat to national security.' He is a self-described socialist. In his republicanism, his anti-colonialism, his borderline pacifism, and his suspicion of big business, he represents an old and honorable, if occasionally misguided, strand of British radicalism, which extends back to Bertrand Russell, Keir Hardie, and beyond. Whether he can translate his radical beliefs into effective (or coherent) leadership is a fair question to pose. I doubt he can, myself. But on some big issues, Corbyn has raised valid points. Here are five of them...."

From "5 Things Jeremy Corbyn Has Right" by John Cassidy in The New Yorker.

102 comments:

Jaq said...: I think that Greece proves that disregard for austerity doesn't work. Apparently we are in a time now where all we have to do is keep digitally printing money and we will just get richer and richer and there is no end game other than utopia, if we would only just dare!

Of course it has resulted in hyperinflation every time its been tried in the past, but this time its different. His reasoning for unrestrained deficit spending is like that of a junkie who says he tried to quit one time for a few days, and it was terrible! He will never try that again!; 9/16/15, 8:58 AM
themightypuck said...: The first 3 of those things are extremely debatable and likely wrong.; 9/16/15, 9:06 AM
Alexander said...: 1. Anti-colonialism. Unless of course, the country being colonized is England. Then, full speed ahead!

2. What is "borderline pacifism"? Is it like "borderline chastity"?

3. As a self-described socialist, he represents an old and honorable, if occasionally misguided, stand of British radicalism, which extends back to Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, and Guy Burgess.

In his defense, if you are intent on surrendering the country to a horde of Muslims with the odd sprinkle of Afro-Caribbean just to ensure the maximum volatility in the upcoming bloodbath, then unilaterally removing nuclear weapons from the country is a pretty good idea. We want a massacre, not an apocalypse!; 9/16/15, 9:07 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: My question for Cassidy would be: why do you Lefties insist you are not socialists before you rationalize socialist policies? Do you not know how creepy and cult-like that is? It's like a fellow explaining that he is not a nazias a preface to telling you that the nazi's were right when they said the German Jews weren't really German, and Mussolini got the trains to run on time.; 9/16/15, 9:11 AM
Chuck said...: Of course The New Yorker found reasons to celebrate Jeremy Corbyn.

Here's what was in the Wall Street Journal:

"Many senior party leaders had hoped that the leadership contest would be an opportunity for Labour to make its peace with the voters and return to the centrist agenda of its most electorally successful leader, Tony Blair.

"That Labour appears to be turning in exactly the opposite direction partly reflects the quality of Mr. Corbyn’s opponents, three more-or-less career politicians with the usual preference for empty sound bites. But it also reflects the difficulties that all European center-left parties face in trying to articulate a response to 21st-century challenges: the need to bring down high government debts and deficits, which in turn means reducing the burden of unsustainable pensions systems, over-generous welfare, and the excessive tax and bureaucracy that stifles private enterprise and impedes job creation."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/britain-picks-up-the-greek-baton-1437941944; 9/16/15, 9:15 AM
Anonymous said...: ""But some of the criticisms that have been levelled at [Jeremy] Corbyn in the past couple of days are unfair.""

However, the New Yorker article doesn't touch upon many, beyond perhaps that growth in the UK has been in the London service economy (e.g. financial sector).

The part about the deficit rather than debt was laughable.

His economic plans are right out of the Castro playbook.

He has positioned the Labor party to the left of 90% of both the people and the 90% of the LP MP's

The next election will be interesting.; 9/16/15, 9:15 AM
Chris N said...: Somewhere, a pod in a brutalist bit of mid-century, British estate housing is missing its habitant.

Lean forward!; 9/16/15, 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: New Zealand did this and thrived. Didn't ban unions. Didn't abrogate a contract. they formed a coalition government, and solved the problem. McTigue was a farmer, not a poll, elected with like minded folks, and they solved the problem.

http://www.waynedaniel.net/images/Document1.pdf

We don't have a parliamentary form of government, but if DT or JB brought their entire slate to the podium, department heads, supreme court justices, along with a four year budget, and all the current and wanna-be members of congress who "stand with him" - you could achieve the same effect as a parliamentary election. "When you vote for me, you vote for them, don't bother unless you support all this, because I need them to help you be great again(tm)."

It's time government shrunk to the size it's not a burden. Maybe 25% of today's. Like Harding simply refusing to hire into half the patronage jobs. Nobody died. Nobody starved. Service got better because people found other solutions. Name another service today that's not one quarter the expense, effort, staffing, etc. it was in the industrial age.; 9/16/15, 9:23 AM
AmPowerBlog said...: John Cassidy's an idiot. Corbyn's a communist, an Israel-hater, and wants unilateral nuclear disarmament. But no, no threat to national security, I'm sure...; 9/16/15, 9:24 AM
Alexander said...: Ed Miliband was a looney!, they said. The wrong Miliband won!, they said. At least now Labour will pick a leader that's more sensible!, they said.

Well 'they' didn't know what they were talking about, clearly.

That being said, the only thing that will make the next election interesting would be if UKIP is able to consolidate enough regionally to win seats. Labour could resurrect Marx and make him the leader of the party and the Conservatives are going to pick up seats in... Scotland? The Midlands? London? Maybe a few marginal constituencies on the edges but nothing that will be worth bothering getting het up about.

If there's a wave worth watching, it will be the natives rejecting being colonized.; 9/16/15, 9:25 AM
Jaq said...: Plus, to belabour the point, most of the money we are just printing, since it has no place to go in the real economy, just ends up in the hands of the already wealthy, who know how to gather it in.; 9/16/15, 9:28 AM
damikesc said...: 1. Anti-colonialism. Unless of course, the country being colonized is England. Then, full speed ahead!

Indeed. If the First world is "obligated" to take in all refugees from the Third World, the only rational option is for us to colonialize the Third World and change their ways, whether they approve or not.

2. What is "borderline pacifism"? Is it like "borderline chastity"?

He's pro-Hamas and pro-ISIS. He isn't a pacifist. He has no problem with killing at all.

3. As a self-described socialist, he represents an old and honorable, if occasionally misguided, stand of British radicalism, which extends back to Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, and Guy Burgess.

I, too, find it amusing that the writer has to cite famous traitors to DEFEND him.; 9/16/15, 9:31 AM
lgv said...: I found all five to be wrong. Take #5. Bombing ISIS will cause more refugees. If ISIS starts winning, you will see more people fleeing the new caliphate. Every Shiite will run.; 9/16/15, 9:32 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Austerity doesn’t work. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the United Kingdom and the United States carried out the closest thing you can get to a scientific experiment in economics. On this side of the Atlantic, the Obama Administration took measures to extend its stimulus program, and then, under pressure from Congress, slowly applied some spending restraint. In Britain, the Conservative-Liberal coalition, after coming to power in May, 2010, immediately slammed on the brakes, introducing a package of spending cuts and tax increases, amounting to more than five per cent of G.D.P., that were intended to reduce the deficit quickly. So how did this experiment turn out? In 2009, the United States government was running a deficit of 9.8 per cent of G.D.P., and the United Kingdom had a deficit of 11.1 per cent. In 2014, the U.S. budget deficit was 2.8 per cent of G.D.P., and the U.K.’s deficit was 4.9 per cent of G.D.P.

1) The closest thing you can get to a scientific experiment is still not a scientific experiment. Be wary about any conclusions you draw from it, as there are way too many uncontrolled variables.

2) You can't judge austerity just by which direction you move, you also must take into account the starting point. Even after the spending cuts, was the UK really more austere than the US?

3) Why is the metric the deficit in a single year? Wouldn't it be better to compare the accumulated debt over the entire time period?

4) If you are comfortable drawing conclusions from this non-scientific experiment, how about we conclude that raising taxes increases the deficit, and cutting taxes lowers it? Isn't that just as well supported by the given example?; 9/16/15, 9:37 AM
Matt said...: Wow. This article has a whole lot of stupid in it.

1) Austerity doesn’t work.

He then compares UK spending and GDP growth to the US without noting any other factors that may have contributed. You know, like fracking. He presumes that Obama spent the US out of the recession rather than considering the possibility that the US economy has (historically, weakly) recovered despite Obama’s job killing policies.

2) The Conservatives are extremists.
He is speaking of UK conservatives but the rhetoric is similar to that against US conservatives. Since I don’t give a flying leap about UK politics, I’ll use this opportunity to speak to US conservatives’ “extremism”. If you were to ask conservatives if they would like to see the US Constitution interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended as well as the Amendments to said Constitution interpreted as those who drafted the Amendments intended, greater than 90% would answer “Yes, please!” That is not extremism. Extremism is wanting to make the Constitution mean whatever you feel it should mean any given day of the week.

3) The U.K.’s economy is unbalanced.

Don’t know; don’t care.

4) Nato’s eastward expansion is problematic.

First, “problematic” is such a mealy-mouthed word. What it really means is “I don’t like this thing but it isn’t objectively wrong.”

Regarding NATO expansion, the writer asks, “Why wasn’t Russia invited in?” To which I ask, “What makes you think Russia wanted in?” Russia still sees itself as a global power. Joining NATO puts them under the umbrella of US protection. They see themselves as the US’s equal.

5) Bombing ISIS does not appear to have done much good.

Agreed. But he offers no viable alternatives nor any criticism of the actions that allowed ISIS such a foothold. (Hint: it was the policies you, the writer, agreed with that got ISIS where it is.)

What should be done? Here is a place where Obama may have stumbled into something that works. I think it may be worth letting Russia take a whack at it as they seem intent to do. That region of the world is so messed up that I don’t think anything an outside force could do would work short of heavy occupation, which virtually no one in the West has an appetite for right now.

Let Russia handle it, they may succeed but they will probably find themselves with another Afghanistan, which hurt Russia’s global position while taking out a bit of ISIS with them.; 9/16/15, 9:37 AM
Alexander said...: He's pro-Hamas and pro-ISIS. He isn't a pacifist. He has no problem with killing at all.

Ah, I see. He's opposed to native population using violence to defend itself against the usual culprits. Well then, it looks like he's over an 80% pacifist! Good man!

John Cassidy though may provide cover for the annihilation of the English people, but he's going to keep the sense of humor. "If occasionally misguided" is classic English understatement for "were willing to sell all their countrymen into change and in many cases were quite looking forward to doing so."; 9/16/15, 9:38 AM
Matt said...: Oops... meant to edit the part about GDP...; 9/16/15, 9:39 AM
Michael K said...: The craziest thing Corbyn has said, although the differences are small, is that Britain should give back the Falklands. No referendum. Nothing.

The longest suicide note in history will have competition.; 9/16/15, 9:41 AM
sean said...: Shorter Cassidy: Some issues (e.g., an effective response to ISIS) have no easy and obvious answers. Corbyn has no answers to those issues, but whereas having no good answer when there is none counts as wrong for a conservative, it counts as right for a leftist.; 9/16/15, 9:44 AM
Alexander said...: RE: Falklands

Well of course. If you're intent on giving away the big islands to a bunch of foreigners who have no claim to them against the will of your own people, you're not going to draw the line at the small ones.

At this point, I suppose we should just be grateful that the new Blair administration didn't offer to throw the Home Islands in with Hong Kong to make amends.; 9/16/15, 9:47 AM
mikee said...: This article is about who is going to decide the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

This article, like the leadership under discussion, ignores completely the high likelihood of icebergs ahead for the UK, and suggests that steaming full speed ahead into the foggy night might produce a speed record for the crossing.

Good luck with all that, UK, as you sink into the abyss of the European future.; 9/16/15, 9:52 AM
Bob Ellison said...: "He is neither a Communist nor a 'threat to national security.' He is a self-described socialist."

Please, let us be adults. A socialist is a communist is a leftist is a frog. Don't be stupid.; 9/16/15, 9:53 AM
William said...: Do you think it's even possible that Cassidy could write an article headed "The Five Things Cheney Got Right About Iraq",; 9/16/15, 10:06 AM
cubanbob said...: David Cameron must be beloved by God, there is no other explanation for such luck.; 9/16/15, 10:07 AM
Rick said...: The Conservatives are the extremists. I have noted before that the Conservatives’ intentions go well beyond repairing Britain’s public finances: they are engaged in an ideologically driven effort to downsize the British state, particularly the welfare state

What a fool. The British left has engaged in an ideologically driven effort to increase the welfare state for roughly a century. In the very article arguing pushing it twice as far is not extreme Cassidy claims any cut is "extreme". This is leftist myopia at its worst.; 9/16/15, 10:17 AM
Birkel said...: So,in the same vein as communist Bertrand Russell?
Got it.
Thanks, New Yorker magazine.; 9/16/15, 10:17 AM
Static Ping said...: The point about the loss of manufacturing is a good one. However, Corbyn's solution is the typical government solution, setting up a new bureaucracy to throw money at the problem. This usually leads to one of two things. First, you could end up with a bureaucracy that is only concerned about its own self-preservation and expansion, which is good for no one other than the bureaucracy. Second, the bureaucracy could be captured by the manufacturing sector and then you have the joys of crony capitalism. The real solution is to make the business environment more friendly for manufacturing, if that is even possible. If it is possible, it would probably require things like lower taxes and other non-starters for Labour.

The other four points are weak at best.; 9/16/15, 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: cubanbob said...
David Cameron must be beloved by God, there is no other explanation for such luck.

On the other hand, I understand he has only a 6 vote majority (counting only Tories), so he doesn't exactly have a mandate. What he got out of the election was "exceeds expectations", not a landslide...; 9/16/15, 10:28 AM
Alexander said...: I like Cassidy's approach to pointing out that Corbyn's not right about everything. The part where he disagrees and diminishes others on the left, he is wrong. The part where he disagrees and diminishes others on the right, he is right.

See, fair and balanced!; 9/16/15, 10:29 AM
JCC said...: "Five things..." etc

You can find so much wrong in the stated quintuple, for example:

"Austerity doesn't work" How would anyone know? It hasn't been tried. Anywhere. Certainly not in the US or the UK.

"The Conservatives are the extremists." For, quoting, 'attempt to produce a balanced public sector budget primarily through cuts to spending..." Geez, that sh*t is extreme.

"The U. K.'s economy is unbalanced." Well, yeah, it's that euro community thing, passed and managed by the elite, over public opinion polls that suggested a majority of Brits didn't really support it, resulting in manufacturing and heavy industry heading for cheaper labor markets, leaving the UK with the center of the financial industry. It worked like it was supposed to, right?

And so on.

Corbyn is a rabid leftist, sympathetic to any leftist regime and opposed to any central or Western democracy, supportive of unilateral disarmament by the same Western democracies (but not the socialist regimes), etc.

So, hogwash.; 9/16/15, 10:30 AM
Sebastian said...: With defenders like that . . .

A National Investment Bank: why didn't Barry think of that? (Bernie still can.)

A communist is not a socialist is not . . . : the feuds of 20th century leftism were so entertaining, let's do it all over again.; 9/16/15, 10:31 AM
William said...: Doesn't Corbyn want to reopen some of the coal mines to put the miners back to work? Is that ok with Cassidy? I know Thatcher was heavily criticized for closing some mines that were uneconomical. That's definitely wrong. You can only close mines for environmental reasons. Is it ok to reopen mines to advance the interests of the working class? If you think capitalism has a lot of contradictions, you should check out the flaw lines in the old and new left. You don't see many minorities in either the coal unions or the environmental activists.; 9/16/15, 10:44 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: You're durned tooting that the UK's economy is unbalanced. The formerly productive Midlands--home to much manufacturing, machinery, mining and such, has fallen on hard times. And it's been that way for fifty plus years now. Meanwhile Southeastern England has raced far ahead of the rest of Great Britain. I'll paraphrase that great geographic sage Congressman Hank Johnson (Stupid Party--Georgia) who worried that putting more military equipment on Guam would cause it to tip over and sink into the sea. [Some things are so gobsmackingly stupid that only a member of the Black Caucus can believe them.} But, returning to the Johnson paraphrase, "If you put one pound coins in everyone's pocket in London and the rest of southeast England equal to the amount of revenue that they generate, Kent, Surrey, Essex and London would tip into the English Channel."

Now that's a problem and I'll agree that it's an unbalanced economy. But the way to solve it is to find some way to help the Midlands generate more money, rather than simply transferring it from the pockets of people in London to the pockets of people in Liverpool and Manchester. Corbyn is not the answer, and Corbynism won't be part of the solution. England tried that for almost forty years after the end of WW II, and England slept until Maggie Thatcher woke it up.; 9/16/15, 10:53 AM
Levi Starks said...: Without governmental intervention people will die
With governmental intervention people will wish they were dead.; 9/16/15, 11:26 AM
rehajm said...: Raising tax rates in the midst of a recession prolongs and exacerbates the length and quality of recovery, as demonstrated by the US, UK and Greece.

Next time try polices that induce and promote GDP growth and compare the results, if you're fortunate enough to have a next time.; 9/16/15, 11:37 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: It's funny how often (Leftist) self-proclaimed pacifists are big fans of groups like Hamas...seems almost like they want Western nations to be pacifistic but don't mind if...other...nations use violence and force to get their way. Odd.; 9/16/15, 11:41 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: 2. The Conservatives are the extremists.
To a Leftists this is really a tautology, though--no matter how extreme the Leftist is (and this guy is remarkable only because he's the MOST extreme to hold his position in recent history) the Right must ALWAYS be more extreme.

4. NATO’s eastward expansion is problematic.
Russia's westward expansion is apparently not "problematic." Hell, I'll bet its our own fault! Hey, right there at the bottom: Indeed, recent events bring to mind Warren Christopher’s 1994 warning that “swift expansion of NATO eastward could make a neo-imperialist Russia a self-fulfilling prophecy.” I KNEW it was all our fault somehow--if only we'd be nicer to poor ol' Putin he'd settle down.

Sometimes it's almost not possible to parody left wing thought (or "thought"); and this is in the presumably-respectable New Yorker!; 9/16/15, 11:47 AM
sane_voter said...: When the overdue Parliamentary boundary re-districting is completed, with the Tories in sole control, they will have a much stronger position than present. What really must scare the Labouristas is if Scotland does vote to leave the UK in a few years. That is dominated either by labour and the SNP. With that gone it will be very difficult for Labour to win without going hard right.; 9/16/15, 11:52 AM
sane_voter said...: What also benefits the Tories is that only voting eligible population is used to determine the size of a district. So illegals and non-citizens don't count. If the US had that that would be worth a nice chunk of Congressional seats for the GOP.; 9/16/15, 11:56 AM
Brando said...: The conventional wisdom is that Corbyn is going to keep Labour in the wilderness for a while. We'll see if that's the case. I'm interested in whether this is a sign of things to come over here--does this suggest Bernie Sanders could be the Democrats' nominee? I sort of hope so--he seems to represent the heart and soul of that party better than Hillary (who represents whatever she thinks people want her to represent).; 9/16/15, 12:02 PM
Brando said...: "What also benefits the Tories is that only voting eligible population is used to determine the size of a district. So illegals and non-citizens don't count. If the US had that that would be worth a nice chunk of Congressional seats for the GOP."

I'm not sure whether that would help or hurt the GOP--after all, if the eligible voters in your district are GOP leaning but you have a lot of ineligibles there, arguably the eligibles are overrepresented. I'm sure there's some mapping software out there that can show which party would stand to gain more seats.

Isn't this issue in the courts right now?; 9/16/15, 12:04 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Michael K. wrote:
"The craziest thing Corbyn has said, although the differences are small, is that Britain should give back the Falklands. No referendum. Nothing."
It makes perfect sense, Michael K. Peasants must be broken from their reactionary attachment to the land. I hope that Corbyn intends to send the current inhabitants of the Falklands to some place east of the Urals! I understand that a single boxcar contains enough wood and other material build three generously sized family dwellings of 27.3 square meters floor space each (with shared toilet facilities). Lean Forward! To a golden future!; 9/16/15, 12:36 PM
Static Ping said...: Brando: That is a good question. My thinking is the non-citizens and illegals tend to be consolidated in and around cities. This would mean less urban districts which tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic and more rural districts which tend to vote Republican. But, yes, it is possible that there are other factors that would confound this hypothesis.

Of course, this assumes that the citizenry count is accurate. Chicago and Philadelphia are well known for voter rolls that are, to say the least, questionable.; 9/16/15, 12:46 PM
holdfast said...: Leftists lie.

Liberals call themselves Moderates.

Progressives call themsevles Liberals.

Socialists call themselves Progressives.

Communists call themselves Socialists.

Remember, it was the USSR, not the USSC.

And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the head of the Democrat Party, could not articulate any differences between a Democrat and a Socialist.; 9/16/15, 12:47 PM
Jaq said...: And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the head of the Democrat Party, could not articulate any differences between a Democrat and a Socialist.

Neither can Bernie Sanders. When he ran for the Senate and was asked about it, he said he was "basically a Democrat." (I paraphrase); 9/16/15, 12:56 PM
Bilwick said...: And we also know what a gung-ho pro-liberty journal THE NEW YORKER is.; 9/16/15, 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: " centrist agenda of its most electorally successful leader, Tony Blair. "

Tony Blair, it was under his "New Labour" government that most of the thought-crime laws where introduced, the frontiers were fully opened for electoral reasons (to acquire a new voting base, Labour even admitted it), where the grooming gangs made their couple of tens of thousands victims because they were covered up by authorities (they "feared" to look "racist"), where schools could get islamized (Trojan-horse scandal) but the OFSTED goons would sniff out Christian schools who didn't teach their eight years olds about say lesbianism ...

And that quisling bag of shit is supposed to have had a "centrist agenda"?; 9/16/15, 2:05 PM
holdfast said...: Sorry, USSR not USCR.; 9/16/15, 2:28 PM
Alexander said...: Well yes. For example, you bring up the immigration. Well, at least they had the decency to lie about it! The left these days hardly bother to pull up the zipper after another fantasy about European genocide.

So he at least recognized that you can't talk about ushering in your own people's destruction. That's center-left if every I saw it!*

In fact, in the US you could even go so far as to say that promoting population replacement but keeping mum on the social costs is center-right!; 9/16/15, 2:31 PM
Big Mike said...: Austerity doesn't work, which is why Greece is so much better off than Latvia or Iceland.

And #3 looks a lot like "let's throw lots of money at the problem."; 9/16/15, 2:35 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Austerity doesn't work in exactly the same way that abstinence doesn't work.; 9/16/15, 3:50 PM
Unknown said...: The real Jeremy

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/09/now-is-the-time-124.html; 9/16/15, 5:12 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Jeremy Corbyn is an idealogue who has signed on to a lot of lies, some of which are against Israel, and some of which are may be a danger to act upon even for the United Kingdom.

He may be merely part of an old and familiar strand of British radicalism, exemplified by Bertrand Russell, but that's quite bad enough.

He won because more than half of the voters were newly registered supporters of the Labour party.; 9/16/15, 5:19 PM
David said...: "Conservatives are the true extremists."

Wow, what a great explanation.; 9/16/15, 5:35 PM
MountainMan said...: sane_voter said:

"What also benefits the Tories is that only voting eligible population is used to determine the size of a district. So illegals and non-citizens don't count. If the US had that that would be worth a nice chunk of Congressional seats for the GOP."

And I believe there is a case in the federal courts now on that very issue.; 9/16/15, 6:01 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Interesting extended quote, Althouse.

Do you have any thoughts of your own, that you care to share?

Were you going to plagiarize the whole thing for us?; 9/16/15, 6:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: If austerity works (as the evidence-haters here seem to believe) then taxing hedge-fund managers at exorbitant rates should make them VERY productive! Austerity for the richest of capitalists, for the bestest, most highest growth of pro-growth policies!!!!; 9/16/15, 6:22 PM
Quaestor said...: He is neither a Communist nor a 'threat to national security'...

Clever that he capitalizes the C, which leave open the possibility of Trotskyist affiliations. As to the denial of being a threat to national security, that's an opinion, not a truth.; 9/16/15, 6:33 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Clever that he capitalizes the C, which leave open the possibility of Trotskyist affiliations.

Don't stop there. If you add up the numerological value of the first letter of every word in his second sentence, it says "STALIN FOREVER!" But only if you do it under the supervised guidance of a licensed psychic during a seance in which all participants are holding hands, while closely examining the entrails of a newly sacrificed pigeon.; 9/16/15, 6:44 PM
Quaestor said...: Austerity is not intended to affect productivity. That R&B bottom-boy thinks so is more evidence of lightweight standing. Austerity is intended to address the problem of solvency. Anyone who has lost a job and can't find work knows exactly what austerity means. It means hotdogs and beans rather than steak. It means driving that clunker one more year. It means living with make-do rather than the optimal.

Thanks to Obama this country's sovereign debt exceeds our GDP. Obama and his Democrats have enlisted us in an exclusive club whose members include Sudan, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Greece. Notice those last four, they're the PIIGs, the EU basket-case economies that are facing austerity or default, a dire choice the next president will face thanks to the the smartest POTUS evah!; 9/16/15, 6:47 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/15, 6:50 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Austerity is not intended to affect productivity.

Which is precisely why it doesn't work. Even though it's worse than a policy that just doesn't work. It further decreases economic activity - the exact opposite of what's needed in a recession.

Keep trying with the metaphors relating individual (or family) budgets to national budgets. It's a glaring flaw in your inability to understand recessions, has been made by many people, many times, and has been corrected just as many. But not by any of the magic thinkers that require your stamp of approval before you'll listen to them.; 9/16/15, 6:55 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Obama and his Democrats have enlisted us in an exclusive club whose members include Sudan, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Greece.

Good point. You must instead be a fan of Germany's economic system as the best contrast. Starting with their labor policies.

D'oh!

I forgot. You hate labor. So tell us instead how China's system is the better example to follow.

China. The shining economic example for Republican poobahs nationwide!; 9/16/15, 6:58 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And a party run by actual Communists.

China: Some of the communism, all of the tyranny.

And most of the corruption.

Coming soon to take over America, at the request of Reich Priebus and his new RNC. (But maybe not by Trump).; 9/16/15, 7:02 PM
Jaq said...: It further decreases economic activity - the exact opposite of what's needed in a recession.

Sure, if there were any possibility whatsoever that during a recovery or even, should it happen, a boom, the money would be paid back. But the situation we have now is borrow and spend in good times and bad. But I am sure it will end well on account of how obsessed you are.; 9/16/15, 7:09 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I thought Greece's problems related to not collecting its taxes, anyway. Which must make it a Republican's idea of utopia.

Hating the IRS and hating Greece's ability to collect taxes. To similar results.; 9/16/15, 7:11 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I suppose that when liberals figure out that cutting taxes is a classic keynesian stimulus, then whoo-hoo! Tax cuts for everyone!; 9/16/15, 7:12 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "Hating the IRS. . . "
The IRS is hated because it is run by bullying, dishonest, unaccountable bureaucrats. Tax collectors have been so hated by so many people for so long they are used in the Bible as examples of the kind of people other people hate.
Please, liberals, make "it's wrong to hate the IRS" the centerpiece of every national, state, and local political campaign!; 9/16/15, 7:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Sure, if there were any possibility whatsoever that during a recovery or even, should it happen, a boom, the money would be paid back.

It would be "paid back" in the form of rebuilt infrastructure not needing repair later. Or in the form of a retained worker not needing to pay off debts. Or in just plain keeping the recession from being as bad - which most people (apparently not Tim) understand to be its own reward. Long-term unemployment is detrimental to society in many ways - lost skills, etc. The point is that the effects become structural and create a long-term drag on the economy.

Correcting these things is its own pay-back. Maybe not an interest-yielding Ponzi-scheme bubble economy type of payback. But a payback.

But the situation we have now is borrow and spend in good times and bad. But I am sure it will end well on account of how obsessed you are.

I guess I'm obsessed with what the numbers mean. We are spending less than we did, as should have been the case - and can make further cuts now in order to bring the deficit and debt back down. But that would require the right-wing to give up its Empire Addiction and actually go along with spending cuts that the Pentagon wants.

If you did that, I'm sure you'd even get cooperation with cuts to other social spending. But that would require compromise and as everyone knows, Republicans are anti-compromise.; 9/16/15, 7:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Thanks Terry for totally missing the point on what ails Greece!

Becoming more like Greece should be centerpiece of every Republican's national, state, and local political campaign!

Or becoming more like China. One of those two.; 9/16/15, 7:20 PM
Quaestor said...: Austerity doesn’t work… In 2009, the United States government was running a deficit of 9.8 per cent of G.D.P., and the United Kingdom had a deficit of 11.1 per cent. In 2014, the U.S. budget deficit was 2.8 per cent of G.D.P., and the U.K.’s deficit was 4.9 per cent of G.D.P. The country that followed a moderate approach, the United States, cut its deficit by considerably more than the country that imposed strict austerity policies.

Perhaps austerity doesn't work, but this example does nothing to validate that claim. Our national deficit has been reduced artificially by the expedient of something euphemistically called quantitative easing. QE is in a nutshell the purchase of Federal debt instruments by the Federal Reserve. It's tantamount to any of us run of the mill citizens making the mortgage payment with a Visa card. Weimar Germany tried a similar dodge, and touched off a runaway inflation that even Zimbabwe hasn't yet achieved.

The national government can perform such temporary miracles because it has the resource of a national bank to call upon (Yes, some lightweights will bluster "But the Fed is an independent body!" Independent only nominally. The Fed and Obama have been very cosy these last 7 years. The WH phone records prove it.) State governments cannot indulge in such accounting shenanigans, consequently their rates of indebtedness have only increased, except in states that have managed to rein-in the growth of public obligations like state-employee pension programs.; 9/16/15, 7:24 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Ok so we're now Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe but without the inflation that characterized the whole point of making those comparisons. Quaestor is trying oh-so-hard to make sense of these RW talking points. Maybe it's just that more effort is required.

Althouse should put his comments on an austerity program and then maybe he'll figure out a way of putting them together coherently.; 9/16/15, 7:30 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "Thanks Terry for totally missing the point on what ails Greece!"
What ails Greece is prime rib tastes and a hamburger budget, R&B. Paying back Greece's creditors won't hit their GDP too hard. The problem is that to continue financing a bloated public sector -- to avoid austerity -- they need the European banks that borrowed them money to continue to borrow them money at low interest rates, and the EU banks have balked at doing this (so far).
Greece makes money from ag and tourism. If they weren't in the EU, they would devalue their currency, demand for their ag products would increase, Greek beaches would be full of fat German tourists wearing speedos, and the Greek economy would correct itself in time.
Krugman agrees with me that the European common currency is a disaster.; 9/16/15, 7:58 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Well, I've heard it all. Even conservative observers notice that Greece doesn't collect the taxes it's owed - that tax evasion is a major problem for it. But apparently it's ok to bloviate on every other issue under the sun (some legitimate, most distractions) and there you go.; 9/16/15, 8:02 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: If you are trying to say that increasing the share of the economy consumed by taxes is anti-austerity, R&B, well, what can I say/ Both classical economics and keynesian economics says that you are wrong. The keynesian equation for GDP is Y = C + I + G + (X-M) = GDP. C is consumer spending. I is investment spending. G is government spending. X-M is exports minus imports. Consumer spending has a multiplier because consumer spending is voluntary; people pay a dollar for something that cost $0.98 to produce because they believe they are getting a dollar's worth of value. Investment spending has a multiplier because it's axiomatic that people invest expecting a return of greater than 0%. Government spending has no multiplier because the government does spend money to make a profit. Government spending can either come from taxes or debt. Increasing taxes reduces both consumer spending and investment spending. This decreases their multiplier effect.
This is literally econ 101, R&B.; 9/16/15, 8:14 PM
Quaestor said...: If they weren't in the EU, they would devalue their currency, demand for their ag products would increase, Greek beaches would be full of fat German tourists wearing speedos, and the Greek economy would correct itself in time.

The Golden Dawn neo-fascists will never agree on devaluation, because devaluation is austerity by other means.; 9/16/15, 8:15 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Sorry, should be "Government spending has no multiplier because the government does not spend money to make a profit."; 9/16/15, 8:16 PM
Quaestor said...: This is literally econ 101, R&B.

One doubts bottom-boy has a clue what econ 101 refers to.; 9/16/15, 8:18 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Quaestor, Golden Dawn's economic plan is irrational. As far as I can tell, they want to repudiate Greek debt, and then blackmail the EU into giving them more money with the threat of an alliance with Putin.
My point re R&B's blathering about Greek austerity is that R&B has no understanding of economics. Not that he has a different take on economics, he literally does not know what he is talking about. He is making the mistake of thinking a political argument ("let's take all the rich peoples' money!") is an economic argument ("If we take all the rich peoples' money the economy will flourish!").; 9/16/15, 8:35 PM
Drago said...: R&B's: "Even conservative observers notice that Greece doesn't collect the taxes it's owed - that tax evasion is a major problem for it."

That is absolutely true.

No self-respecting Greek pays income taxes. I'm surprised, given the cultural and failure-to-prosecute acceptance by the authorities, that anyone in Greece pays anything at all. Yet a few do.; 9/16/15, 8:42 PM
Drago said...: R&B's: "Republicans are anti-compromise."

I refuse to meet you even halfway on that assertion.; 9/16/15, 8:45 PM
Drago said...: Quaestor: "One doubts bottom-boy has a clue what econ 101 refers to. "

Of course he knows. R&B's was simply in attack mode on that and jumped a little quickly on it and then wouldn't give us the satisfaction of saying it wasn't well thought out.

But there is no way he doesn't get "the bottom" or econ 101 stuff.; 9/16/15, 8:47 PM
cubanbob said...: The Drill SGT said...
cubanbob said...
David Cameron must be beloved by God, there is no other explanation for such luck.

On the other hand, I understand he has only a 6 vote majority (counting only Tories), so he doesn't exactly have a mandate. What he got out of the election was "exceeds expectations", not a landslide...

9/16/15, 10:28 AM"

Precisely what I said. First Cameron ekes out a six vote majority of his own party in a multiparty parliament where before he had to govern in a coalition. Now his principal opposition party has essentially made themselves irrelevant. Next what appears to be the up and coming party other than the EU isn't that far apart from his party. With that party voting largely in support of the Tories he will get as good as it gets. Unless He sends a telegram, how much more evident can it be that Cameron is either God's beloved in the UK or he really is ticked off at the Left in the UK.; 9/16/15, 9:00 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This is literally econ 101, R&B.

He gave me a lecture based on presuming I'd made a point that I didn't even make.

But keep up the nasty names ("bottom-boy"). It has as little to do with what I didn't say as anything. But somehow your homophobia must make it worth saying.

Personally, I think if you're going to throw ridiculous homophobic taunts at people, the term "cockholster" is funnier.

And boy, Quaestor, you really are one hell of a cockholster.; 9/16/15, 9:02 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: My point re R&B's blathering about Greek austerity is that R&B has no understanding of economics.

At no point was I "blathering" about Greek austerity. I "blathered" about the uncontroversial point that austerity is no way to stimulate an economy and usually, when enacted as the panic button of a recession, simply prolongs and worsens said recession.

Whatever else you want to accuse me of not understanding about economics, go for it. Just don't put words in my mouth.

It might make it harder to just be like "Ha Ha R&B's an ignoramus" but then if you had an objective point to make you'd probably have better things to care about than that anyway.; 9/16/15, 9:06 PM
cubanbob said...: Drago said...
R&B's: "Even conservative observers notice that Greece doesn't collect the taxes it's owed - that tax evasion is a major problem for it."

That is absolutely true.

No self-respecting Greek pays income taxes. I'm surprised, given the cultural and failure-to-prosecute acceptance by the authorities, that anyone in Greece pays anything at all. Yet a few do.

9/16/15, 8:42 PM"

Why would any self-respecting Greek pay a tax he or she doesn't have to and take food from their family's table? Pay tax for what? For moochers and corruption? It's not for nothing that tax evasion is a major national pastime in Southern Europe as an antidote to the thoroughly baked in corruption endemic in those countries. It's almost axiomatic that the more corrupt the state the greater the tax evasion.; 9/16/15, 9:21 PM
Quaestor said...: "Bottom-boy" refers to your laughable misapprehension of the normal distribution curve, not your sexual proclivities. Evidently you've memory-holed that incident, which is understandable.; 9/16/15, 9:40 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "I "blathered" about the uncontroversial point that austerity is no way to stimulate an economy"
So, R&B, you were applauding the Greek tax evaders?; 9/16/15, 9:57 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I think Greece has problems that go beyond whatever UK, etc., felt it needed to do during the height of the recent recession. It's really not worth arguing about and something almost everyone agrees on. It needs huge structural and governmental reforms that austerity won't touch. If the original article had to do with Greece and I missed that, mea culpa. I simply assumed, since it was talking about the kooky UK socialist, that it mentioned austerity in the context of British measures. Hope that makes sense but if not I guess we can have a few more rounds on it.; 9/16/15, 10:32 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Yes, "bottom-boy" is obviously just a math nerd's frame of reference, Quaestor. My apologies for assuming you think about (or possibly even experience) sex more than you do charts and graphs. I guess we all have to have priorities in life. Pity yours aren't more normal.; 9/16/15, 10:34 PM
Drago said...: R&B's: "My apologies for assuming you think about (or possibly even experience) sex more than you do charts and graphs."

I can't say that I've ever experienced "charts and graphs", but I am willing to learn.

I'm pondering the possibilities of the "ex" and "why" axes. Or "why" the "ex". For that matter, why not?

I will wait for Laslo to offer up the final word on that particular subject.; 9/16/15, 10:43 PM
Drago said...: R&B's: "Personally, I think if you're going to throw ridiculous homophobic taunts at people, the term "cockholster" is funnier."

That's an awful lot of Laslo bait.

In fact, "Laslo bait" is Laslo bait.

I'll try and stop now.; 9/16/15, 10:45 PM
Drago said...: R&B's: "I guess we all have to have priorities in life. Pity yours aren't more normal."

Your view of Quaestor appears a bit skewed.

Sorry.

I promised to stop.; 9/16/15, 10:47 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: R&B, I highly recommend JM Keynes The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919). It is well written, it was intended to be read by policy makers (e.g. not econ wonks) and in it keynes outlines the ideas of modern, government-managed national economies. He even explains why classical economics needed to be updated for the modern age.; 9/16/15, 11:23 PM
Achilles said...: Greece spends so much on welfare transfer payments to people who don't work and government employees that the people who have to pay taxes don't feel like paying taxes that are way to high, so they don't.

Of course austerity wont work. More money for people that don't work! They should increase spending levels their tax base will not support! Everyone agrees to this! Except for you conservatives and econ jerks who should shut up. Everyone knows that government can more effectively apply capital than those stupid people in the private sector. Giving money to people who don't work stimulates teh economy stupid!; 9/17/15, 12:12 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: If you look at the data, Greece's interest payments on its existing debt aren't the cause of austerity. They are like 3% of Greek GDP. The cause of austerity is the refusal of the EU banks to lend Greece more money at absurdly low rates. To end austerity, the Greeks need EU cash. Debt forgiveness won't help them if it means the EU will turn off the money spigot. They are in the position of a person making $40 grand /year who has been spending $50 grand /year with the help of low interest credit cards -- but now their debt has gotten so high that all the cards are maxed out, and no one wants to give them another low rate card, so they are stuck on an "austerity" budget of $40 grand / year.; 9/17/15, 12:22 AM
Gahrie said...: I tried to tell the bank that the best way we could deal with my credit card debt was for them to keep lending me money, and to reduce my interest rate. My plan is to spend my way out of debt.

Wish me luck.......; 9/17/15, 12:40 AM
Gahrie said...: R&B's: "Republicans are anti-compromise."

Yeah Reid, Pelosi and Obama all have reputations as great compromisers...a pity the Republicans refused to work with them.; 9/17/15, 12:42 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: In economics you have what Keynes called forward-lookers and backward-lookers. Deficit spending works as a stimulus because the backward-lookers spend the stimulus cash like there was no tomorrow. Forward-lookers realize the borrowed government money will mean increased taxes or reduced benefits in the future, so they hoard their stimulus cash instead of spending it. Forward-lookers reduce the stimulative effect of deficit. Supposedly, the problem of forward lookers drove Keynes crazy.
There is some evidence that we are experiencing a "forward looker" problem in the US, and maybe in other national economies. Back in 2009, when Obama was asked why his stimulus program was much more government spending than tax cuts, he responded (flippantly) that people would bank their tax savings instead of spending it. Someone must have briefed Obama on the "forward-looker" problem. I've never heard that Obama took any college coursework in economics (unlike GW Bush). Krugman likes to poke fun at the predictors of high inflation (I am agnostic on the topic myself), but he has never, as far as I know, bothered to expalin his theory of how it is possible to dump so much money in the US economy and not experience inflation. I think he may have mentioned people "hoarding dollars" once or twice, which would point to his acknowledgment of the forward-looker problem.; 9/17/15, 1:36 AM
Rusty said...: Rhythm and Balls said...
If austerity works (as the evidence-haters here seem to believe) then taxing hedge-fund managers at exorbitant rates should make them VERY productive! Austerity for the richest of capitalists, for the bestest, most highest growth of pro-growth policies!!!!

Once again. Nearly there.
As in the case of Greece. Capital has fled. So no hedge-fund managers to tax. The bill is over due and there is no one left to lend the government money so austerity is inevitable. There is the Zimbabwe solution- their 10 trillion dollar(?) notes are used as packing. The people do what they usually do in those circumstances. They either leave or if they can't resort to barter or theft.
Wealth creation isn't inevitable and it is wealth creation that drives economies, not government largess.
You might want to give a copy of this to Bob.; 9/17/15, 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow, so a staff writer at the New Yorker is a leftist idiot. Color me shocked.; 9/18/15, 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Here "Rhythm and Balls", let me explain it for you in small words that even you can understand:

1: Government doesn't "invest". Government destroys investments, taking the money and giving it to cronies of powerful politicians.

2: The idea that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats, that have never created anything of value in their lives, are capable of deciding how best to "build the future" is psychotically delusional. The most a government can ever accomplish is to not fuck things up.

3: If "austerity" means raising taxes, then yes, it's a failure. Always and everywhere.

4: If "austerity" means cutting back the size, power, and scope of government over the internal economy, then it's the one thing government can do that has been repeatedly shown to increase economic growth.

5: The New Deal didn't end the Depression, it made it worse.

6: WWII ended the Depression in that it destroyed the manufacturing bases of almost every other country in the world, which meant that the US could make things for everyone else, sucking their wealth here and thus letting us grow and get richer. WW IV is unlikely to leave the US manufacturing plant untouched, making that a "one off" deal.

If you give a damn about people, cut back the size and power of government. If you just desire that you, and those who agree with you, run everyone's lives, and don't care that you are running those lives into the ground, then support more power to the politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, crony capitalists, and other such scum.; 9/18/15, 10:10 AM