Here is his non-excerptable attempt, via Brad DeLong. Still I am not convinced. Using the Law of the Excluded Middle, yes you can get me to agree that the stimulus package is unlikely to do direct economic harm. I still see the stimulus plan in terms of larger symbolic battles. We pass too many policies just to show politicians are "doing something," just because it is an election year, just because voters think government should solve every problem, and just because politicians know that voters don’t understand any real economics. This fits all those categories. On the substance, I would add that for the U.S. "not going bankrupt" is a matter of degree. Compared to Brad or Arnold Kling, I’m still a fiscal optimist. But I’ve spent too much time reading papers on the intransitivity of indifference relations: "Just another grain of sugar in your coffee, dear. It won’t change the taste even a tiny bit…"
Do you think most politicians understand economics?
Brad,
It often seems impossible to be too cynical. I certainly push the limit if there is one.
I fail to understand how we know that those purchasing US debt securities to fund the transfer would have been any less likely to provide demand stimulus compared to the recipients. Given that those advocating the transfer payments also suggest the US consumer is ‘strapped’ and ‘hurting’, isn’t it more likely that the recipients will ‘save’ the money they receive. In this case are we not worsening the impact of some credit based shock?
wait, what?
It seems like the argument for “intransitivity of indifference” is based on the idea of rational ignorance. The preferences are not actually intransitive, but the individual is too ignorant to observe the actual (miniscule) difference (and rationally so since doing so would come only at a great cost). Is this correct?
The “intransitivity of indifference relations” has been extensively studied in philosophy under the name “the paradox of the heap” (N grains of sand are not a heap, and adding a grain to something that is not a heap does not produce a heap. By induction, therefore,we can add any number of grains and never get a heap.) One analysis I recall was to say that induction cannot be used with vague predicates like “heap” (and then you get to work on some funky logics that can be used with such predicates.)
“Gripe about the imaginary effects of the stimulus package all you want, but if you agree — as you must — that a world 80 years from now with 5 billion people is preferable to one with 5 people, then wholehearted support for the stimulus package follows.”
And when I can take the pebble from your hand, I’ll be ready to leave the monastery.
一家翻译公å¸|秀专业深圳翻译|深圳翻译公å¸|æä¾›åŒå£°ä¼ 译
Comments on this entry are closed.