Go, Brucie!
October 13th, 2009 . by economistmomBruce Bartlett did a nice job arguing against stuck-in-the-70s Larry Kudlow on CNBC today, in discussing his new book, The New American Economy. (Bruce blogged about the book’s “RIP Supply Side” message, here.) I was looking for the right adjective to describe Kudlow’s and his CNBC co-anchor’s reactions: confused, incredulous, insulted, panic-stricken, desperate, outraged, apoplectic?… Then I figured out that Kudlow and other stuck-in-the-70s supply-side tax cutters must feel like a teenage boy whose girlfriend has just dumped him for his rival. I mean why else would Kudlow be looking so flustered over “Brucie’s” new book?
More on Bruce’s book later this week. And more catching up, too. (I’m so behind keeping up with the discussions on my own blog, it’s not funny!)
UPDATE Thursday, 10/15: David Frum does a very nice video interview with Bruce on Bloggingheads.tv, here.
Kudlow was just a hyperbolic talking point machine. He knows the phrases that his audience likes to hear, and, being the entertainer that he is, he just keeps throwing them out there no matter what arguments his ostensible interviewee is making.
Hmm, just throwing out audience-pleasing phrases. Reminds me of http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_live_poll_allows_pundits_to
What we’re learning is that a rather brain-dead Keynesianism lies at the bottom of the thinking of most of those who gave us the failed “supply side” movement.
Bartlett’s talk of “demand” and “supply” sounds like an astrologist talking about astrological forces — i.e. it’s magic talk with no connection to real microeconomic forces moving through the heterogeneous structure of production and consumption.
Bartlett has betrayed his friends and intellectual allies in confusing ways and often on dubious Keynesian grounds — no wonder Kudlow is dismayed.
I find it curious that the same people who threw me under a bus when I criticized George W. Bush in my Impostor book now accuse me of betrayal. I also find it curious that they don’t address any of the facts or analysis in my book, but instead feel that name calling is sufficient to dismiss my argument.
Greg,
Not that you seem like a serious, thoughtful guy, but…
Elaborate on this supposed “betrayal” by Bartlett. Are you saying (1) that you think he was and is sincere, but should refrain from voicing his views on this extremely important issue (our long-term fiscal imbalance) out of loyalty to some group, or (2) that you think he has been insincere, and chose to voice views he believes are wrong for some ulterior motive, and if so, what motive (and do you think he considered it worth the backlash from the group to which he had belonged and from which, I assume, he earned a living to a significant extent).
If you look at the Kudlow point toward the end re: “universal truths,” he sees them as “low marginal tax rates and a strong currency.” But how you get there in an era when we have a high debt, high deficit and low-to-negative economic growth is entirely unclear. In 1983, I think it was plausible to hope that borrowing would manageable, and growth in the private sector relative to the public sector would allow us to pay back the debt (Heck through about 1981 we still had a trade surplus, and measured wealth in GNP.)
Well, in fact though the road was long and filled with unforseen hazards|dividends (Hazards: persistent trade and public deficits, S&L crisis in the near term |and| Dividends: cold war, new economy) we did just that, it took a long time, but the supply side by and large delivered over the long-haul.
But how you do that now… take that same leap of faith from our current position is by no means a forgone conclusion as the CNBC team seemed to presume. –SO– much is different, for me, Bruce’s message is important because it acknowledges those differences. I don’t see where there is a reason to squabble on this one. D&Rs are all in the same boat, the problems are fundamental at this point. You have to spend and you’d better buy things worth having because we are nearing a projected debt limit here. At the same time because our macroeconomic crisis here and now began as a financial crisis, it is very difficult to argue for a reduction in safety net programs — this is a 1930’s nee-markets problem, not a 1970’s nee-governments problem in terms of conditions of creation.
When the patient presents with different symptoms, the doctor should be informed and adjust protocol accordingly. But then perhaps health acre analogues are particularly insightful right now for reasons of associated partisan confoundedness.
Peterson wrote a book a while back, “Will America Grow Up Before it Gets Old?” That is still an open question.
As for the “Imposter” hypothesis, even Kudlow validates that one at this late date, so really what is left to hold on too. It is time for the Rs out there to take responsibility for offering viable solutions that speak to current times.
Regardless of any facts, one way or the other, Ludlow appeared to be a clear winner in this debate. Bruce was kept on the defensive throughout. This has NOTHING to do with MY opinion in the matter. It is an observation, and it is how I believe Mr and Mrs Common Man will view the discussion.
I was looking for the right adjective to describe Kudlow’s and his CNBC co-anchor’s reactions: confused, incredulous, insulted, panic-stricken, desperate, outraged, apoplectic?…
The two words that occurred to me in watching Kudlow’s performance were “loud” and “cliched”. An example of the second is his following statement:
“Have you converted to a European-style, value-added tax, government-controlled economy as per Obamanomics? Have you completely flip-flopped from your earlier free-enterprise positions?”
Kudlow repeatedly referenced Europe and his co-anchor, Trish Regan, also used the “Obamanomics” phrase. In any event, I agree that Kudlow seemed flustered and “stuck-in-the-70s”. I fact-checked some editorials of his years ago (at this link) and none of this basic arguments have changed. He’s long struck me as someone who came to a fixed set of conclusions years ago and now just “works the data” to fit those conclusions.
I saw another interesting take on the interview at this link. It also addresses the reference to economist Barro that Kudlow threw in. Anyhow, I have to congratulate Bruce Bartlett for doing well in such a hostile interview. Also, I think that his blog entry is very good reading.
Mark Buell:
Of course Kudblow “won” - it’s his show, he doesn’t need to bother with pesky things like “facts” or “jobs.” I don’t know what you’d call the collection of words his show televises, but it sure wasn’t a debate. Simultaneous yelling, perhaps.
Bruce, keep the faith.. all they can do is call you names - you’re correct on all counts.
How is this even a discussion? Kudlow has one idea, one prescription for economic health.. and it’s a complete disaster.