election demographics

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Wed Nov 8 14:01:03 PST 2000



>Compared to almost all of them, our friend
>DeLong is a positive Bolshevik. No real
>liberal got a position with influence over
>economic policy, or if he/she did, they morphed
>into un-liberals.
>

That's not fair to Alan Blinder and Laura Tyson. Come to think of it, it's not fair to Joe Stiglitz or Bob Reich either.

[mbs] Blinder told *me* his influence was marginal. "I go in with better arguments and I lose." Quote unquote. I conclude sadly that the brilliant and liberal CEA was not among those w/influence. Once Laura migrated to the NEC she seemed to be less of an economist, though from what I could see she was never much of a keynesian to begin with. Too bad we never got into converting industry into labor- managed firms.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alan and Laura concluded that the Federal Reserve held most of the cards, and that a long high-investment expansion was impossible without using major deficit reduction and Greenspan's fear of an exploding federal debt to induce a relative lowering of interest rates. They didn't morph into un-liberals, they struck the best bargain they could with an Overwhelming Force down on the Mall.
>>>>>>>>>>>

[mbs] Better liberals would not be so easily overwhelmed. I remember not one stink, nor a discouraging word. If Stiglitz had raised one-tenth the hell he did later, after the WB, that would be a different story. Feldstein pissed off the Reagan WH. What's the problem?


>>>>>>>>>>
Joe and Bob did get marginalized by Bob Rubin, perhaps the most skillful bureaucratic politician I have ever seen. But they tried... Brad DeLong
>>>>>>>>>>>

Sounds an awful lot like, "In other words, No real liberal got a position with influence over economic policy . . . " Cousins, almost.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list