Assorted links


Why google rather than linking it directly?

Frequently, non-subscribers can circumvent paywalls by going through Google News. It's not clear why you can do this, but it's very useful.

works for the FT too.

4. Cochrane doesn't offer a criticism of Keynesianism, he offers a caricature of Keynesianism: "But the policy world has abandoned the notion that we can solve our problems with blowout borrowing, wasted spending, inflation, default and high taxes". Does it matter? Not in the world he inhabits. Cochrane has become known outside his world not for his contribution to economics but because he's decided to be a provocateur, more in the mold of his nemesis Paul Krugman than Milton Friedman. Strip both of them naked, grease them up, and put them in the ring,

I agree it is a rather strange article. He ignores the massive monetary policy that was in place. I do not see the words QE, Fed, or monetary in the text.

False equilivance. You may disagree with Krugman but at least he tries to work with the models and facts. "default and high taxes" aren't even Keynesian policies. The second would actually be counter-productive if you're fighting a demand driven recession. The first is usually not analyzed from a Keynesian perspective because no major economy has seriously considered default. If it is, though, I suspect it would be viewed as counter-productive too since a massive default would have a negative wealth effect.

#6: Czecho has always leaned towards Russia, voluntarily when it was not under Russia's thumb. A glance at the map will tell one why.

In Central Europe, Czechs are known for being fairly nihilistic and lifeless. Historically, they haven't shown much interest in defending their country or anything else for that matter. They are strinklingly different from their nothern neighbors the Poles and even the Slovaks.

Well on the plus side it does mean Warsaw was bombed absolutely flat while Prague remains one of the prettiest cities in Europe. To the enormous benefit of the Czech tourist industry.

But anyone who fails to resist anyone invading their country since, well, the Battle of White Mountain perhaps are pretty pathetic. Give me the Poles and their insane nationalism any day of the week.

Well... to be fair to Czechs...

There were plenty of Czechs in the British, Soviet and French army in WWII.

If you look at the 09/1938 strategic map, western parts of Czechoslovakia were indefensible.

Czechs troops were important in the Austrian army of the 18th and 19th century, including the wars with Prussia, Napoleon and Prussia again. In that period, the Hapsburg empire was perceived by the Czech population to be "their country", and some of the rulers (Marie Therese, Joseph, Ferdinand V.) were quite genuinely popular.

I blame the bohemian lifestyle.

Huh? "Always"? Bull...

We haven't even had direct contact with the Russians until the First World War. (Except for a few military campaigns which brought Russian troops onto Czech territory for a transient period of time, such as the Austerlitz campaign in 1804).

The Orthodox culture of Russia is very alien to the Central European region.

4) Don't tell people about that trick - you'll ruin it for everyone.

Disappointed by John Cochrane ranting in the popular media like this. He can't simultaneously call out Krugman for pandering to ideology, all the while doing a much worse job of it himself.

I read the article and there's barely a single fact or piece of precise reasoning. He's just stating his prejudices, quoting prejudices, and knocking down strawmen. Disappointing for someone who writes about the need for "facts and models" over rants in newspapers.

Edit: "quoting politicians"

Exactly right. Cochrane could have just written, "I really don't like Krugman," but I guess he had to propvide a lengthier version to get paid.

I may have missed it, but Krugman's name does not appear in the article.

It might as well have.

Krugman has been a sharp critic of Cochrane, among others, and much of this column sems inteneded to respond.

Don't be fooled, "Krugman envy" underlies a lot of what's going on here. Quite a few academic economists are in the mindset of "I write just as good and all I get for it is a blog with a few thousand followers while he gets a Nobel, tenure at Princeton and a spot in the NYT every week so I'm going to pounce on that S.O.B. every chance I get." What's ironic IMO is that many of these people will dismiss concerns over inequality and 'the 1%' as foolish 'class warfare' without realizing how much they themselves are subject to the same dynamics.

As far as I can tell, Krugman's work that was cited for the Nobel prize was done between 1979 and 1991. That was 23-35 years ago. His main role now is in reassuring his admirers that they don't have to think about economics any more because he has all the answers and those wing nuts are either evil or stupid.

Sounds like a pretty easy job since quite a few of those wing nuts are so happy to do the job of making themselves look foolish for him.

Not an easy job. Every government is ignoring his advice.

And the results are so great.

#5 - But, will the Argentine government pay for orangutan sex reassignment surgery?

I just visited in LA and did a little walking. It was far from friendly, even in the "cool" and dense areas far from the vast wasteland (Echo Park). Sunset blvd is kinda walkable, but it's still ugly. Lots of dry brown patches, even in December, in between the buildings and with litter strewn across them to boot.

LA = not attractive.

Anyone who talks about LA as 'a' place doesn't understand that it's a tightly connected and overlapping patchwork quilt of distinct cities and communities, each with its own personality and style, covering a substantial number of square miles. Since all these connected communities and cities are in a semi-arid patch of land in a smoke and fog collecting basin, it's never been a region known for it's physical beauty the way much of the country is beautiful. Certainly if you enjoy greenery and groomed commercial spaces you'll find it ugly and uninviting. And if you are visiting and trying to see a lot of the sights, you end up spending a lot of time of freeways, which in LA are generally as ugly as anywhere. But behind the cliched images that people love to denigrate, there's a vibrancy that I sorely miss now that I'm living in a place with an abundance of moist greenery and open space, and where all the signs are written in English and advertise businesses that are mostly large chains.

The physical vastness of the LA area means it will never be walkable the way, say, New York City is walkable. But it has become pretty bike-able, and public transportation is much better than outsiders realize. As to what other large cities aside from NYC are really walkable, I'm hard pressed to think of many.


But your overall point is a good one. LA doesn't have many trees, so it's going to be a different experience compared to non-southwestern cities.

I wouldn't call LA a walkable city, but it does have a lot of locations where walking is highly rewarding. And perhaps even more importantly, it has lots of times when walking is highly rewarding. As in year-round good weather: as the NYT article describes, one can stroll through a neighborhood (LA has more interesting and historic architecture than one might expect), get a meal or a snack at an outdoor cafe -- try doing that in December in the midwest or northeast.

It's also one of the best cities for nearby mountain hiking. The mountains are relatively ugly and lacking in trees (treeline is about 5,000 feet in southern California, but it's a reverse treeline: below that altitude it's too hot and dry for most trees to grow so you have to go to 5,000 feet to find pine forests). But they are right there in the city; when I lived in Pasadena I was two miles from trails that take the hiker straight into mountains over 5,000 feet tall, with a wilderness area, the Pacific Crest Trail, etc. Even vaunted outdoor towns such as Seattle and Portland don't have mountains like that so close by.

6) Severing all ties with someone because they disagree with the organization on basically one issue--Russia/Putin--doesn't seem very...libertarian.

Well, if you read the article you would get the impression that it was not just one issue. However, in practice I agree with you. Most of the other things that Cato is supposedly mad at Klaus for are things he has espoused since the beginning for anyone paying attention. It seems a bit late for them to complain about them now.

Basically, Klaus has always been a free market conservative, not a libertarian in the American sense. Why did it take Cato so long to find this out? I suspect that Klaus's answer might be the most honest one. But on the other paw, I don't think Klaus would have ever became a member had he been a US politician. It was only because he was exotic that they let him in in the first place.

I did read it. I just didn't think the LGBT issues were that huge a deal at Cato. The Putin thing seems to offend a lot more folks. Could be wrong.

Klaus being president of a previously eastern bloc country certainly must have added a bit of gravitas to the operation, which benefited both sides.

6) "Asked about the rise of nationalism in Europe, according to one person at the confab, Klaus “got into the Ukraine business on his own,” concluding that the “Ukraine problem was brought about by the United States and European Union and that Putin was innocent. For many people in the room it came across as a novelty.”

After Victoria Nuland's admission that the US had thrown away US$5B in UKR since '91 & her signature 'Fuck the EU' throwaway remark
what's the controversy?

Is Charles Koch's skin that thin?

ps 'and should be' et tu, Tyler Cowen?

It's sad the neocons have such a hold on mainstream libertarianism. I give Klaus' opinion on his neighbor to the east much more weight than Cato's.

Comments for this post are closed