Asymmetrical Information

More like “more whining because my guy lost” from Daniel Drezner.

Thorley,

Drezner was as on the fence as Jane was during the recent campaign, he just made the decision to go with the other guy. Now it seems that he has made a well thought out and reasoned argument based on The Wall Street Journal article (at least I am assuming that is what you're linking to Jane, as your link doesn't seem to be working), hardly a paragon of liberal media bias. Normally I find you intelligent and thoughtful yourself and not quite so dismissive, what's your problem? I think Drezner and the Journal are making a valid point. Is there something you don't find valid about it? Please share with the group. Thanks.

Kate

Kate,
DD is quoting Greenspan in what I think is an approving manner. This disqualifies anything DD has to say. Remember that Greenspan was recently quoted as spanking the American consumer for not saving more - when he had driven the savings percent down to 1. I think it is a sign of intelligence to spend instead of save when the cost of living is higher than savings. But you may have a different idea of Greenspan's abilities - and DD's.

Someone tell Jane the post is broken, darnit.

Jack,

While I agree with you that Greenspan has certainly made numerous mistakes (in my opinion keeping interest rates as low as they are is a mistake, for example) I do not discount EVERYTHING the man says. If I discounted everything someone said just because they occationally made a mistake or a stupid comment I would no longer have any friends, co-workers and would live alone, in a cave, eating nuts a berries.

(Andrew Sullivan - hysteria) + international finance + Carmen Electra-blogging = Daniel Drezner

It was pretty obvious through his whole period of 'angst' over who to support that Drezner was stacking the deck against GWB. He demanded the administration show something that verged on clairvoyance regarding Iraq and marked tactical political decisions against Bush while at the same time giving Kerry brownie points for mouthing the right words regardless of his previous positions.

Given that GWB will never run for office again, contemporaneous comparisons with previous unsuccessful Presidents, that appear in the media, have very little import. History will evaluate George Bush by what happens in the Persian Gulf over the next ten to twenty years. I don't know the answer to this, and neither does anybody else. George Bush could one day be viewed as unfavorably as some of the worst of the pre-Civil War Presidents, or he could one day be viewed as favorably as some of the best Cold War Presidents. Without the benefit of seeing how events play out, all the yammering is just that, yammering.

Yammering is what bloggers do, and I'll take Drezner's yammering over most other yammering. Too many bloggers toe the party line and are unbearably boring and useless.

If one defines yammering as pointless opinionating without empirical foundation, then all blogging is not yammering, although surely much of it is. I have no opinion of Drezner in general. I merely observed that Bush will never run again, that history will judge him pretty exclusively on how events play out in the Persian Gulf over the next 10 or 20 years, and that nobody knows, or even can make a well-informed guess, of how events will play out in the Persian Gulf over the next 10 or 20 years. Thus, opinions regarding how Bush will be compared to other Presidents are largely pointless yammering at this time.

I think Drezner's comment was less about Bush himself or his legacy than on the current economic conditions.

But whether or not a blog post has empirical foundation or not, it's not likely to change anything regardless of whether the president will ever run again. That you mention it seems to indicate you you're judging it by the possible result it might have, and in that respect, all blogging is yammering.

I usually avoid entering economic debates, because I'm so ignorant of the field (my husband tries to educate me but so far he hasn't managed to "moisten" what is to me a mighty dry subject). But I must wonder, if we take DD's blog entry as "If there's a dollar crisis in our future, it's a result of the Bush administration's policies and actions," whether we can also say, "The fact that the world economy didn't collapse in a quivering heap after the trifecta of the Internet bubble, 9/11 (and the accompanying near-collapse of the travel industry), and the wave of corporate accounting scandals led by Enron is the result of the Bush administration's policies and actions." Furthermore, is that the longest sentence ever, or what?

If my "wonder" marks me as naive, well, I had it coming. But from a political perspective, I think it's a worthwhile question to ask.

The point, fling, is that economic news is largely only important, vis-a-vis a Presidency, as it pertains to electability, since the effect of a President's policies on the economy are hugely overrated. Thus, a President who is never running again has little reason to be concerned with how economic news compares to that which took place during a predecessor's time in office.

Jamie makes a good point. The frequency which those with an economics background attribute the sun's rising to the rooster crowing, without empirical basis, is somewhat amusing. That this is done by smart people from all parts of the political spectrum merely provides more amusement.

As far as I understand it, a lot of the dollar crisis has to do with the perceived unsustainability of our current account deficit, of which our federal deficit plays a significant role. And that does have a good deal to do with Bush, who, like LBJ, chose to fight a war without paying for it.

On the other hand, most of the economic problems in Carter's time had to do with the inflationary mess LBJ created -- by fighting a war without paying for it. And if anybody should get credit for cleaning that mess up, it's Paul Volcker (and Jane has said as much herself), whom Carter appointed.

As for whether Bush needs to worry, of course not. Drezner never suggested that. We all know Bush's place in history is already sealed by whatever happens in Iraq, which is pretty much out of his control now. The only people who need to worry about the economy are the Republicans, who, controlling all three branches of government, will not be able to blame anybody else if things go sour.

And I'm speaking as a Republican (albeit one who wrote-in a vote for Tyler Cowen).

While it may be true that presidents are not the sole determinants of the economy, they do have more impact than you or I because they have a big say in 40% of the spending. Presidents do not control foreign exchange, however. The current US economy is more open than that of the 1970s. There are more significant actors in the world economy than there were in the 1970s. Drezner was not comparing Bush to Carter, he noted that the WSJ was doing that. BTW, even though the WSJ has a very conservative editorial page, it is much more objective in its news writing than any other part of the MSM. If you want 'fair and balanced' read the WSJ. Otherwise, depending on your bias, the NYT or WaPo or Fox, will tell you what you want to hear. FWIW, I look at Jane and Daniel before I look at Glenn. They are much more thorough in their opinionating.

Just how is the current US economy comparable to the Carter years? What I remember of that period:

1) Stratospheric inflation, whether oil was going up or going down. (Now, except where it's driven by the rising price of oil, inflation is virtually 0. Funny, I thought the Iraq war was all about stealing their oil...)

2) Sky-high interest rates - which often still weren't enough to keep up with inflation. (So there's one similarity: interest - inflation

3) Appalling levels of unemployment. The best job offer I got, by far, was from the Air Force. (Now, my main employment problem is too much work; the credentials I've acquired since 1978 help, but they aren't the whole story. All I have to judge how other people are doing are the unemployment stats, which I think are much closer to the all-time lows than to the Carter years. YMMV.)

Of course, I'm not an economist, and I don't know how to evaluate the stuff about the balance of trade and the dollar that Drezner cites. From the point of a worker or a consumer, it doesn't look much like the Carter years. Maybe our hosts could explain the technical side of this?

Well, Fling, Drezner specifically identified "the Administration" as having casuse for concern with being compared to the Carter Administration. I simply note that the concerns of a President in his second term are somewhat different than one who will be seeking a second term. In fact, I suspect that much of Bush's economic policies were driven by a desire to ensure a second term. That these policies might hurt Republicans down the road is certainly a possibility, although, again, the degree to which a President controls the state of the economy is hugely overrated.

LBJ's policies were certainly misguided, but if the world's oil reserves were solely located in Australia, the economic problems of the 1970s would likely have been far less pronounced. Having said that, if interest rates and unemployment go to 12%, the Republicans will have hell to pay, no matter to what degree Bush's policies are responsible.

Off topic - Someone get Drezner a dictionary. "Upmost" isn't a word, and if it was a word, it wouldn't mean "utmost".

Will Allen: Drezner specifically identified "the Administration" as having casuse for concern with being compared to the Carter Administration.

It's common practice not to put quotes around words unless they were used verbatim in the piece that you were citing:

I don't want to reprint the entire article, but one troubling comparison in the piece is a section that compares the current moment with "the last dollar crisis, in the late 1970s." On the whole, it's a mixed bag, but what should worry Republicans is that the comparison is being made at all. A good political rule of thumb for any administration is to do one's upmost to prevent the press from being able to make a valid economic comparisons to the Carter era.

markm: From the point of a worker or a consumer, it doesn't look much like the Carter years. Maybe our hosts could explain the technical side of this?

No, it doesn't look like them now. The concern is that the current-account deficit will cause a collapse in the dollar, leading to sharp increase in interest rates, which could burst the housing bubble. A lot of "coulds" in there, but that's economics for you. It's still a social science. No, I'm not an economist, but neither is Jane.

The biggest and most immediate thing the admistration can do to help prevent this is to reduce domestic borrowing by lowering government borrowing. This doesn't look like it's in the cards, especially if the Bush administration intends to cover Social Security transition costs via borrowing.

Yes, Fling, Drezner was giving a rule of thumb, for "any Administration", not "the Administration", in regards to economic comparisons, which appear in the press, to the Carter Administration. My entire point is that an Administration in it's second term has rather less concern for economic comparisons which appear in the press. I concur with Drezner that Republicans should have concern that the economic conditions that existed in the Carter years do not repeat in the next few years.

Pedantically yours.....

And "any administration" includes those in their second term because it still impacts their parties, both in the midterm elections and well beyond their term.

And I'm being pedantic because you said "specifically identified."

Fling,
LBJ was NOT responsible for Carter's problems. Have a look at what Nixon did (Bretton Woods, devaluation). And realize that Carter was listening to the same group that spawned Greenspan.

Kate,
If you associate Greenspan with "numerous errors" why then do you listen (believe) anything he has to say? Even a blind dog can find a bone from time to time.

Yes, fling, I said that Drezner specifically identified "the Administration", when he instead gave a rule of thumb to "any Administration" regarding concerns of press comparisons, while failing to note that 2nd term Presidencies have rather less reason to be concerned about press comparisons than 1st term Presidencies.

jack: LBJ was NOT responsible for Carter's problems. Have a look at what Nixon did

Nixon's actions were in reaction to trying to fix the inflationary mess that LBJ created (yes, with the help of an oil shock). He may have exacerbated inflation, but he didn't start it.

Will Allen: I said that Drezner specifically identified "the Administration", when he instead gave a rule of thumb to "any Administration" regarding concerns of press comparisons, while failing to note that 2nd term Presidencies have rather less reason to be concerned about press comparisons than 1st term Presidencies.

Sheesh, who's being pedantic now? "Failing to note" indeed.

Well, you said, "Drezner specifically identified 'the Administration' as having casuse [sic] for concern with being compared to the Carter Administration," while failing to note that he never said "the administration" anywhere in the post, and he never said that "the administration" or "any administration" had cause for concern, but that Republicans should worry about the comparison.

To answer your question, Fling, it is still you who is being pedantic. If one says the following....

" A good political rule of thumb for any administration is to do one's upmost to prevent the press from being able to make a valid economic comparisons to the Carter era."

....it is logically inescapable that one is saying any Administration should have concern about comparisons that appear in the press, for one does do one's "utmost" (assuming typo) regarding anything unless there is cause for concern, and extreme concern at that. My point, once again, is that a 2nd term Administration has rather less reason to do one's utmost to avoid comparisons that may appear in the press regarding economic conditions that existed in the Carter Administration, particularly since, as you noted, the connection between current economic conditions and the President's policies at that same time is somewhat tenuous, to say the least.

Will Allen: the connection between current economic conditions and the President's policies at that same time is somewhat tenuous, to say the least.

Sure, but most people don't know that, and even history is not a fair judge, as Carter's example shows us, and presumably, history is the only thing a typical 2nd-term president is concerned about (well, that, and the midterm elections).

And, of course, rules of thumb are, by definition, quick and dirty, and not intended to be strictly adhered to in every situation. So Drezner isn't even saying "any Administration should have concern about comparisons that appear in the press." If, for example, an administration doesn't care about what happens to its political party, then it won't bother to use that rule of thumb.

But that should worry Republicans even more.

Another good rule of thumb is to not cut taxes and increase spending at the same time, as it tends to result in large deficits and inflationary pressures. But of course, if an administration doesn't care about such things, they can ignore this rule of thumb as well.

Doesn't mean these aren't good rules of thumb, and these rules don't mean an administration should be concerned with anything the press says.

Fling, I don't have time to reply in detail, but Carter is judged more harshly, at least in part, because he got his clock cleaned in '84. Bush doesn't have to worry about that. I gotta go, but your description of inflation as a fiscal phenomenem is somewhat contentious as well.

And again, this is pedantic nitpicking, because neither point says anything about how history misjudges a president's economic policies (of course history also misjudges other things), nor exactly how Drezner was suggesting that the Bush administration should worry. Nor the original point that all of this is pointless yammering, as yammering is all that bloggers (and commenters) do, especially when both sides engage in pedantic nitpicking.

I mean, as far as I can tell, Drezner and Jane Galt have almost identical political beliefs, and are both intelligent and articulate, and both engage in their own fair share of yammering. So you have to be pretty picky about something to like one and dislike the other.

"No, it doesn't look like them now. The concern is that the current-account deficit will cause a collapse in the dollar, leading to sharp increase in interest rates, which could burst the housing bubble. A lot of "coulds" in there, but that's economics for you. It's still a social science. No, I'm not an economist, but neither is Jane."

Thanks for clarifying that. So actually they're not comparing Bush to Carter, but to one of Carter's predecessors. (I won't get into an LBJ vs. Nixon discussion - they were both sociopaths who wanted to meddle with everything, and meddled badly.)

And now I see the real concern: suppose the Hilarybeast gets elected in 2008, then the economy tanks, and she gets blamed for it, like Carter got blamed for not being able to fix 12 years of f*ckups by his predecessors? Oh, the horrors. Why, she could get clobbered so hard in 2012 that the Dems would go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs.

No, they're not even comparing Bush to anybody. They're making a comparison between eras, and Drezner's being snarky about noting that it happens to be the Carter era, which is a comparison that generally ought to be avoided (but again, he makes no comment on whether or not Bush himself should care).

The concern is that nobody knows when the dollar bubble might burst, and I seriously doubt the Republicans are going to try to play hot-potato and give up power in the hopes that it'll blow up right afterwards.

Fling, please read what I wrote, instead of commenting on what you wish that I wrote. I do not dislike Drezner. I haven't read enough of him to have an opinion. I merely contested the notion that a 2nd term administration has to show great concern about stories in the press comparing it to the Carter Administration.

Ironic that this is itself a comment on what you wish Drezner wrote.

As far as I can tell, either you dislike Drezner and want to condemn him for something he didn't say, or you don't want to admit you didn't read his post before your first comment, and are now going through contortions to try and make it fit what he said (as if anybody could possibly care about any of our yammering on comments).

Fling, for the final time, Drezner wrote that any Administration, which the Bush Administration is a subset of, should do it's utmost (in other words, to have great concern) to avoid having comparisons regarding economic conditions that existed in the Carter era appear in the press. I contest this, for reasons pertaining to the importance of economic press to a 2nd term President, and due to the very tenuous effect a President's policies have on economic conditions, especially in the short term. How have I misrepresented Drezner, except in a pedantic sense, by mistakenly substituting the word "any" for "the", or by drawing the logical conclusion that if one is to do one's utmost to avoid something, they have great concern for that something?

On the other hand, you write that I have expressed dislike for Drezner, in contradiction to my clear statement of having no opinion of him. You must be employing a different English language than I. Whatever.

Will Allen: How have I misrepresented Drezner

In this case, by leaving out Drezner's qualifier, "a good rule of thumb." And if you look up "rule of thumb" at dictionary.com, you get, " A useful principle having wide application but not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation." And since I specifically mentioned this earlier, this can't be a simple oversight on your part, but an intentional and deliberate misrepresentation of what Drezner said.

As I also mentioned earlier, I can see only two reasons why you would go to such lengths. 1) You dislike Drezner, despite your protestations to the contrary. Or 2) You hurriedly wrote, "Drezner specifically identified 'the Administration' as having casuse [sic] for concern with being compared to the Carter Administration," and thus recalled incorrectly where "what should worry" was located in his original post (and this would explain your typo).

But if it was 2), I don't see why you wouldn't merely have said so after I quoted Drezner in full. Which is why I'm inclined to go with 1).

I guess a possible 3rd explanation is that I somehow pissed you off. But I don't see what I could've said at that point, unless you were somehow offended by "all blogging is yammering" remark, which would be odd, given that, of the two of us, I'm the one who has a blog.

fling, this really is astounding. I'll restate it once again, to cover all your pedantic bases. I disagree with Drezner's rule of thumb. Drezner claims it is a good rule of thumb that "any administration", which the Bush Aministration is a subset of, to do it's upmost to avoid press comparisons with those economic conditions of the Carter Administration. I don't think it is a very good rule of thumb for "any Administration".

In fact,it is you have more greatly misrepresented Drezner's meaning, by asserting that he only said Republicans should have concern, and not the Bush Administration. Clearly, by advising that any administration should adopt the rule of thumb to do it's utmost to avoid such such press comparisons, and referencing a press report which compares some conditions under Bush, vs. conditions under Carter, Drezner is suggesting that Bush Administration should do it's utmost to avoid such comparisons, or, in other words it should be concerned.

Now, to engage in some fling-style mind-reading, why do you dislike Drezner so much?

Will Allen: I disagree with Drezner's rule of thumb.

I won't argue whether or not it's a good rule of thumb. I'm just arguing over whether Drezner says Bush should be concerned about the comparison (I'm a geek, and we are proud to be pedantic nitpickers). In regards to the Carter era comparison, there's a huge difference between what Drezner actually said:

...what should worry Republicans is that the comparison is being made at all. A good political rule of thumb for any administration is to do one's upmost [sic] to prevent the press from being able to make a valid economic comparisons to the Carter era.

and what you seem to think he said, which is either:

...what should worry Republicans is that the comparison is being made at all. The Bush administration should do its upmost [sic] to prevent the press from being able to make a valid economic comparisons to the Carter era.

or, much more simply:

...what should worry the Bush administration is that the comparison is being made at all.

The first implies that Republicans ought to be concerned that the Bush administration appears to be ignoring this rule of thumb (after all, paying for his Social Security reform via borrowing will likely exacerbate the current account deficit situation). Presumably, Republicans should worry because they will bear the brunt of the repercussions if the Bush administration's policies result in an economic crisis (and I won't argue that it's a very big if, as I said as much earlier).

Drezner isn't stupid enough to forget that Bush will never face election again, which is what you seem to be implying. Besides, he could have said what you think he said in much less time than it took to say what he did say. Instead, he took the time to put in the "a good political rule of thumb" qualifier to indicate that the rule is not universally applicable.

If you disagree that it's a good rule of thumb, that's fine, but that's not what you've been arguing the whole time, as this whole thing started with, "Well, Fling, Drezner specifically identified 'the Administration' as having casuse [sic] for concern with being compared to the Carter Administration." Ironically, the rest of that comment shows that you agree with what Drezner actually said.

And then you wrote this comment which deliberately misrepresented Drezner by omitting his "rule of thumb" qualifier altogether. Odd behavior for someone purporting to be arguing over whether it's a good rule of thumb.

Sorry, Fling, you are wrong. No entity "should do it's utmost" to do anything, unless, in fact, it is cause for concern. One cannot logically conclude otherwise. The entity identified by Drezner is "any Administration". The Bush Administration is a subset of "any Administration". Thus, it is logically inescapable that Drezner has said that a good rule of thumb for the Bush Administration is to be concerned about such press reports. Why do you hate Drezner so, to be driven to misrepresent his words?

Will Allen: Drezner has said that a good rule of thumb for the Bush Administration is to be concerned about such press reports.

Now that, I totally agree with.

Of course, most administrations are concerned with what happens to their political party, but the rule of thumb won't apply if they aren't. Which is, after all, why he specifically said this should "worry Republicans."

Find out more about dog training information from http://www.dogtraining.mypetdogs.com

Comments are Closed.