Jobs Debate

He is most certainly biased in my opinion, but overall a great interview that covers some very interesting and important points.

That was great. I am likewise pleasantly surprised at the sympathetic host. I loved your comments after the real-estate lady.

Russ held up his end of the debate well. I can't say "our end", because "us" offends my sensibilities, but I'm glad that Russ held up his end.

Hey Russ, great speech at ALEC. I really enjoyed it.

Bivens has a simple vocabulary.

why are we not making real jobs rebuilding the infrastructure? That was the deal right? I mean bridges falling in and jobs needed and we are sill bailing out these thieves on Wall Street? You should address this Russ

Good interview. I thought it was interesting how many times Josh said "macro" as if it was some kind of encantation. His (I believe)implication that he had the science behind him and poor Rus was just left to pull things out of his ass.

As I'm listening to Josh Bivens promote spending, spending, spending....regardless of what we're spending the money on, I'm wondering what ever happened to the Robert Gordon view of spending within macroeconomics.

Specifically, Gordon promoted the idea of doing sort of a cost-benefit analysis on what you're spending the money on before you go into deficit spending. For example, the government wants to finance the purchase of a bomb that will have a useful life of 30 years...you could certainly argue the case that it would be logical to finance that purchase with a 25-year Treasury bill. It's akin to purchasing a house with a mortgage.

But if the government wants to expand transfer payments or expand social welfare spending, that's got a short-run useful life, and it would be foolish to finance that purchase with a 25-year Treasury bill. It's akin to purchasing your groceries with a credit card and making only the minimum payment on that credit card for years and years and years.

Are any leading authorities in macroeconomics, or even in Obama's advisory group, even talking this line? All I ever hear/read are comments like those of Bivens (and Krugman) that we need to keep spending and spending, regardless of what we're actually spending that money on.

Another point ...

As typical w/ these people, when you point out that the govt. expansion didn't work, the answer is always that it was never big enough.

Err, that should be "to not make it a debate of us vs. them."

Although I agree with your sentiment, I think you need to be very careful to make it a debate of us vs. them. The debate gets worse, goes downhill and becomes far less productive when a rational discussion becomes a war of good vs. evil. That is the current problem with Republicans (in my opinion). They have some good solutions to propose, but they resort to name calling and mud-slinging instead of actually coming out with intelligent, rational debate as to why more bailouts and government spending are not the answer.

Dr. Roberts, you did VERY well. is this Bivens guy the ghost of Keynes?! ;-)

Every other word is "spending."

And Bivens COMPLETELY ignores the moral and Constitutional problems with these govt. programs.

AND he refers to getting rid of the employment tax as "subsidizing" employers. In this warped view, letting people keep their own money is "subsidizing" them. Scary.

I was also disturbed by how Bivens referred to removing that tax as a subsidy.

I've listened for years to KUOW in Seattle (local NPR aff.) and I've never heard anything like the host of this podcast. KUOW is usually about ethnic critical theory pieces, Thom Hartman at Town Hall, whining, crying, etc... Nothing like a host letting someone like Roberts deride Keynesianism for long periods. So much fun.

Bivens' point that the cause of the recession was that $8 trillion dollars vanished caught got my attention. That $8 trillion didn't really vanish, it just never really existed. That's the problem with fiat money. It seems to me that we could say that $8 trillion dollars worth of confidence has vanished.

Also, I just finished reading Keynes Employment. Keynes, in a nutshell, is all about redistributing capital in order to create jobs. The idea being that, while private utilization of capital is all well and good, the politicians are here to help. Okay, maybe, but where's the capital that this new generation of Keynesians wants to redistribute? Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the $8 trillion was real and then lost, its still lost, and politicians printing money isn't going to bring it back.

Bottom line, the $8 trillion is sunk. From this point forward its all about confidence.

That's not true that it's ALL lost. Much of it was fake but we really did have true increases in productivity. Whatever portion of that 8 trillion that was real is now no longer found in middle class home owners equity, their savings account or their 401K. It's in the bonuses for Goldman Sachs CEO and in off shore accounts and in the top 0.05% wealthiest pockets. AND THAT is why the economy is now bad for everyone.

Keyens was right if wages aren't some how more fairly distributed you just need to take the money back from these elite jackasses and NOT feel like you need to apologize for taking what they basically stole in a high tech bank robbery.

Again we can choose to have a caste system society or we can more equally share in our prosperity. There's no reason in hell for the majority of citizens to choose the former except for being brainwashed into thinking liberty isn't proportional to dollars owned.

Russ IS very good. He's a class act! To here two people with strongly held beliefs debate in a civil fashion IS more of what we need. However, I strongly disagree that presidential policy has little influence on economy and the well being of our citizens. There's way to much supportive data that confirms POLICY MATTERS. And the results of given policies tend to be broadly predictable.

Yes, Goldman Sachs! David Blood, former CEO, is a close country club buddy of Al Gore. They are in business together, fleecing the public, while making money trading otherwise worthless carbon. Their enterprise should be called Blood and Gore Inc. Yes, they are all for "saving the planet".

You are awesome, muir. mmmmwwwwwwaaaaahhhhh

http://mises.org/daily/3886

How Muirgoo the preschooler thinks:

"if wages aren't some how more fairly distributed you just need to take the money back from these elite jackasses"

If it's not fair, then just take it away. See the envy? See the child-like fixation on fairness?

What a whiny punk!

Until you learn proper grammar and spelling I believe we should all stop talking to you.

I got the $8 trillion dollar figure from Bivens. I have no idea where he got it, but it wouldn't surprise me that "America" feels $8 trillion dollars poorer than it did at the beginning of the recession.

It was the government (your government) who gave those "elite jackasses" (your words) the money. I think if you search the archives you will see that nearly everyone here was against it. We wanted the failures to be allowed to fail.

Of course "policy matters". Policy, the acts of politicians, makes a huge difference. Hell, they take 40% plus of everything that we create. That's huge. That's why we want them to stop.

I am surprised that the elimination of the minimum wage wasn't proposed

Great broadcast! Thank you for asking Josh for the evidence of where fiscal policy worked. I appreciate your demeanor. I tend to trust people who say "be skeptical, even of me".

Josh came across as "I'm very smart, I can speak very fast, I know better than you, take my word for it, no need do your own thinking (i.e. a business consultant)." The kind of guy that has never asked, "could I be wrong?" Or, maybe never really cared if he was. His primary motivation isn't to get to the truth, it's to look like the smartest guy in the room.

Russ - I also appreciated your ability to ask the right question with the first caller, a small business owner, to illicit how policy uncertainty effected his hiring decisions. The host tried, but just couldn't ask it in an effective way. Then Josh acted as if the caller was off base and not thinking of it correctly. Josh came across as being out of touch.

Sadly most people are like Josh. I don't blame them for that since there are very few examples of people who are intellectually honest and who have great character, but it's nonetheless still very sad.

I agree. It is sad. I think society has rewarded that behavior. It shouldn't.

Great program. Far better then anything in the private for profit media. Maybe we should spend some stimulus money expanding the CPB.

Most of the public disagrees; most of public does not want this sort of programming. Any expansion of CPB would be for a very tiny minority of the population; it would simply help those who already have the inclination to listen to CPB.

I don't understand why you get upset when people label you a "socialist"... You seem to be proud of that fact...

I don't understand why you get upset when people label you a "socialist"... You seem to be proud of that fact...

Awesome Muir. Ted Turner is a big fan of Hugo Chavez I heard. When he leaves his golden toilet, he is sharing the throne with Hugo boy or flying Exit Glacier to visit his vacation home. I'm sure he has a huge bleeding heart.

No, he is not running Time Warner for profit.

Please make sure you post a copy of your payment receipt, to keep your credibility going. Seth is questioning your credibility

So, I take it that you made a direct donation when they solicited for it at the start of the program?

Heck yeah, I support CPB by supporting NPR and my local affiliate.

It's a great example of the government doing a better job then private enterprise. Although even THEY are allowing to much corporate creep into their funding. People who listen to NPR are decidedly more informed on the news and the world in general. Same goes for the BBC and other national public media.

I'm all for competitive markets but the idea that dollar driven enterprise is superior to public funding is just ideological bull crap.
We need both.

It's a great example of the government doing a better job then private enterprise.

According to your standards.

Perhaps you should be forced to support Fox, since we all have to dig into our pockets to support something that you like. It certainly doesn't meet my preferences, with the exception of the pieces that include Russ. I won't accept those pieces, however, as evidence that the nearly $500 million of government money used to support CPB annually (which represents over 90% of their income) as an example of government doing something better than private enterprise.

Wow that's not even $5 dollars per family. I pay way more to support/ subsidize tax free religious organizations that I'd rather not. I pay way more for juries and judges and a legal system that mostly spends my money on corporate cases. Democracy is unfortunately NOT al carte. Also most of the local programming is privately funded.

$5 is more than I spend on the for-profit radio programs that I consistently choose to listen to over NPR. Strange.

Since, $5/family isn't a big deal, you have no objection to the government sending that lowly amount to Fox?

Democracy is unfortunately NOT al carte.

That, to be blunt, is its greatest weakness. Capitalism is a positive sum game, whereas democracy is a zero sum game.

Well, you have my full support to start taxing churches. There should be no tax free organizations at all.

Nor, should NPR be government funded.

"Democracy is unfortunately NOT al carte."

"Unfortunately" is correct. And the fact that the system is not ala carte is evidence of exploitation.

"People who listen to NPR are decidedly more informed on the news and the world in general."

People who read books tend to be better informed. People who get involved with charities and/or their church tend to be better informed.

This issue isn't whether there is a market for information for better informed people, of course there is. The issue is, what is it that government funded institutions like NPR displace?

Well, NPR isn't much government funded any more; it competes in the open marketplace just like other media outlets. It also has plenty of commercials, they just don't call them commercials.

But it is still government funded. Yes, that funding has been scaled back. Such funding should be terminated all together.

Well, NPR has this mystique and brand it tries to sell sponsors*; it is fairly successful at it as well. A complete exit by the government probably wouldn't hurt that.

*We're serious. We're unbiased. We're very intelligent and you can drink coffee while listening to us.

Muirgeo,

Read Keynes. In his notes (summary), he points out the benefits of keeping capital in the hands of private enterprise, and the dangers of socialism. What he didn't seem to realize is that it is difficult to draw a hard line between "progress towards social justice", and full blown "socialism", but at least he recognizes the dangers of crossing the line.

I enjoyed this. I thought Russ came off very well, but I'm a tad biased.

Download is here:
http://download.publicradio.org/podcast/news/mi...