Jared Bernstein’s Glorious Diarrhea of Quashed Ideas

I rarely post solely to recommend you follow a blog or twitter feed. But I am here.

You see, Joe Biden’s economic advisor, Jared Bernstein, was recently liberated from the White House.

And, as part of that liberation process, it seems, he got himself a blog and twitter feed. His inaugural post explained he could do more and better on the outside, speaking truth.

Democrats lately seemed to be trapped in a position that amounts to: “sure, we have to cut and shrink—just not as much as the other guys want.”

There’s got to be a better way—a way to widen this terribly narrow debate.

Why couldn’t I do more to help from the inside?  One reason is that in order to move the ball forward, you need consensus, and in today’s politics, that is particularly elusive.  And that makes it especially hard to call out people and their arguments.  There’s a reason why Jon Stewart can speak truths that highly-placed elected officials cannot.  When you’re on the inside at a time like this, you’re constantly balancing the risk of losing the support of people you need to lead.

So, not meaning to be at all grandiose, I’m going to try to do my part to improve the debate from the outside, to make sense out of the arguments, to go for truth over truthiness, to elevate the facts of the case in a way that’s respectful to all sides of the case.  It’s also my hope that by dint of my recent experience at the White House, I can imbue this blog with a sense of political realism that’s sometimes missing in critical commentary.

And he’s got all the smarts of Paul Krugman with–excuse me, the Shrill One–better voice.

But what’s more fascinating to me is the way his blog reads like the exploding diarrhea of common sense ideas that were quashed within the Obama White House:

Social Security Benefits: They’re Important!

The Correct Diagnosis

Family Budget Not Equal to Government Budget

This Just In: Wars Are Expensive

What’s Going Down with Real Wages?

Along with this line from a post on the auto bailout I heartily endorse:

You’d be hard-pressed to find a policy intervention that did as much good yet engendered so much disdain.

Partly I want to say “duh!”

Partly I want to cheer that someone with an economist badge is finally putting these ideas into circulation.

And partly I’m fascinated by the seeming free association going on at the moment, with every reaction a seeming opportunity to expound on something–it seems–that has been gnawing on Bernstein for the last two years.

Finally, there’s the recognition that the entire time the White House was shunning truth-tellers like Krugman and Joe Stiglitz, there was apparently someone on the inside speaking many of the same obvious truths.

And with that recognition, the evidence that Bernstein’s truth-telling didn’t do anymore good from the inside than Krugman and Stiglitz did on the outside.

image_print
  1. PhilPerspective says:

    Finally, there’s the recognition that the entire time the White House was shunning truth-tellers like Krugman and Paul Stiglitz, …

    It’s Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz!! ;-)

    • emptywheel says:

      Thanks. That was one of those genuine brain farts where you say to yourself Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz and write … something else.

  2. lurkinlil says:

    This guy proves that those in power really do know that what they are doing/not doing is unhelpful to we, the peeps. It’s time to do some deep cleaning in those federal offices. They ain’t stupid, just plain mean and greedy. Thanks for pointing this guy out.

    And, also, too, thanks for all that you and many of the others here read, analyze, and report. I wish I had more coins to support you all, but my job went to China without me in 2003, and I haven’t worked since.

      • Mauimom says:

        In addition to financial support, you can help by making more and more people aware of the excellent work done by Marcy [and others] here @ FDL.

        Send your friends links to FDL articles with a “thought you might be interested in this” or similar message. Then, somewhere down the line it may be appropriate for you to ask those friends and neighbors for their support via membership.

        Gaining FDL members is a process, not an “event.” Some folks are completely unaware of FDL; educate them. As they become aware, bring them along with frequent contacts, leading ultimately to a “please support FDL by becoming a member.”

        But before folks can become members, they need to learn the value of the site. Tell them.

      • orionATL says:

        also:

        if you do NOT wish to provide your email address or telephone number when you contribute,

        you can call the number listed at the bottom left of the “pledge page” (1-202-506-xxxx) and provide your credit card number to ryan cook.

        this may be an important consideration for some potential contributors.

  3. bobschacht says:

    This points again to the short-sighted Obama battle tactic: You let your opponents define and choose the battlefield, and then you try to fight them on it. Even when they move the goal posts.

    For example, for the most part, the administration seems to have bought the Republican line that “We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.” Now, its true that the administration talks every now and then about allowing tax cuts for the rich to expire, but they don’t seem to push that very hard. Obama could be on the air, every day, talking about the revenue problem, and hammering the Republicans, for example, for blocking legislation to stop subsidies to gas companies.

    Obama should be on the air every day, fighting to frame the issues in a more responsible way.

    Bob in AZ

    • workingclass says:

      The Republicans are NOT Obama’s opponents Bob. Try interpreting politics from the point of view that the parties are not adversaries but partners, both working for the same Oligarchy. You don’t have to accept this view. Just try it on for a while and see if things start to make sense.

    • Surtt says:

      This points again to the short-sighted Obama battle tactic: You let your opponents define and choose the battlefield, and then you try to fight them negotiate a surrender on it. Even when they move the goal posts.

  4. selise says:

    with respect to jared bernstein, his education, his good intentions and his service…. and recognizing that i’m a nobody….

    i think his post, the correct diagnosis, on the deficit is dead wrong. he misses entirely the fallacy of composition (key concept for macroecon) with regards to gov surplus and defict spending and the important effects they have on the other sectors (especially private sector) balance (net saving). truth telling economists like galbraith and wray have been talking and writing about this stuff for years. here are some examples (not trying to diary whore, i only wrote the 10 words of the title — and three of them are “the”): USG deficits: The Economics, the Politics, the Banksters and You.

    we’re so far out of the game, we’re not even in the parking lot.

    • orionATL says:

      with regard to the way economists view the

      “federal debt is similar to family debt” claptrap

      we have been routinely hearing for months from right-wing politician/propagandists and ignorant/pandering journalists, you can’t do better than to read selise’s excellent, informative diary cited at #6 above.

      the key concept is “the fallacy of composition”. selise cites randell wray fine explanation of that key concept, but you can find the concept defined lots of other places as well.

      another key concept debunking family-nation financial equivalence is

      the national accounts identities.

      if you understand these, then you understand that when private spending retracts, gov’t spending must increase – or else!

      precisely the opposite of what our president and his loyal opposition are fighting for.

      here “or else” stands for continued high unemployment and low utilization of capacity or failure to increase capacity.

      go read selise and the economists she cites.

      • selise says:

        orionATL, many many thanks for helping get the word out… that there is information and understanding available that we desperately need if we’re to have a chance to be semi-informed citizens, let alone effective political and policy advocates.

  5. bobschacht says:

    Also on the economic front is Matt Taibbi’s piece in Rolling Stone,
    A New Wall Street Investigation: Is the Hammer Finally Coming Down? Here’s how his article ends:

    Schneiderman’s investigation throws a monkey wrench into all of this. The banks cannot enter into a settlement with 49 states. They need all 50 at the table. But if Schneiderman breaks ranks and goes off on an end-run investigation that plunges right into the rotten core of the fraud era, then the whole pipe dream of an easy settlement vanishes in an instant. This is particularly true since Schneiderman is the most important AG, being from the state of New York, where most of the crime was probably committed.

    The amount of money investors lost in this fraud scheme is probably gigantic. The ill-gotten money the banks made off that same fraud is probably similarly huge. And the damage to society, in the form of mass foreclosures and other losses, is incalculable. If the banks end up being found liable for all of these offenses, they could face truly crippling fines and penalties. This goes far beyond the question of whether one bank like Goldman defrauded a client or two or lied to investigators. This probe could be asking whether the banks’ entire revenue model during the crisis years was based on fraud.

    Everything I’ve heard so far indicates that Schneiderman’s investigation is not a publicity stunt and is an in-earnest attempt to get to the bottom of things. Which is cool. As Terrell Owens would say, Getcha Popcorn Ready!

    Now I am afraid for Schneiderman. I hope he has protected himself from gambits of the kind that neutralized Elliot Spitzer when he was about to make a similar big move. And I am also praying for his protection. He’s taking on the most powerful MOTU’s in the country, maybe the world.

    I’m also hoping that Obama does NOT send Timothy “The Fixer” Geithner to Schneiderman with “Let’s make a deal.”

    Bob in AZ

    • emptywheel says:

      I think Taibbi overestimates the degree to which this’ll stave of a settlement. It wasn’t going to happen anyway–not a real one–given that a bunch of Republicans are already refusing to do even a bogus settlement.

      That said, it’s good someone is finally doing a real investigation. And yes, I do hope he stays away from prostitutes.

    • JTMinIA says:

      >”Now I am afraid for Schneiderman.”

      Most of all, he needs to keep someone he trusts with him whenever he’s in a hotel.

    • BeachPopulist says:

      I share your concerns. But I also suspect (indeed, believe) that this IS all just a publicity stunt. Spitzer talked loud but always settled for fines and never even tried to send any biggies to jail.

  6. Ruth Calvo says:

    Really good to have Jared B. on the outside, and hopefully giving a better view of what is needed to push the WH and the wingnuts into a working program. that is something that so far just hasn’t happened, and is desperately needed. The right wing learned that by allowing any public interests into legislative form, they show how much we need those bills/programs. And the right is absolutely committed to killing any kind of compromise that allows the least glimmer of real advantage to that interest. Hopefully, Bernstein can get somewhere by not being part and parcel of the WH they’re adamant against letting gain One Single Point.

  7. MrChip says:

    Don’t see it as short sighted battle tactic, I see it as Obama’s administration acting exactly like a republican one would. Seems both parties work for the same team now and against the working class…Not some strategic “mistake”. They know what they are doing.

    • mattcarmody says:

      I’m willing to read what he has to say and consider it, but anyone who isn’t talking about fundamental structural reform starting with repealing the tax cuts for the rich and attacking the tax code to make it truly a progressive instrument for fair collection and distribution of revenues, isn’t saying anything I want to hear.

  8. Knut says:

    Here’s my take on the problem and it is perhaps an overly generous one. The policy apparatus at the White House has been dominated by political operatives ever since Clinton’s election. These are people who got where they are because they are good (or at least people and they themselves think they are good) at parsing out the political consequences of any particular policy. In this respect they are very much like day traders in the market: they are momentum traders, their time horizons are exceptionally short, and when I say short, I don’t mean the shortness of the election cycle, which is already too brief for good planning, but the shortness of the news cycle. I think this came about because of the fragility of Clinton’s victory in 1992 (he only got in because Ross Perot drained away Republican votes in key states), which led him to dump his natural supporters in the NAFTA decision.

    In any event, what passes for policy discussion essentially turns on what passes in the nightly news. A lot of these people come out of Public Relations. They don’t have the faintest notion of the economics or sociology of public policy. The foreign policy establishment is a little (but not much) better because the constraints are foreign countries rather than the news.

    I am brought back to a remark reported to me some years ago by a colleague of Christie Romer. When the issue of high unemployment was raised at a cabinet meeting early in 2009 someone (unamed, but almost surely one of the political advisors like Rahm) piped up to say it was a ‘political problem,’ and Christie Romer responded, ‘no, it’s a substantive problem.’

    To me that sums it all up. At an unemployment rate of, say, 10 percent, 90 percent of the work force is still working. Who does anything for 10 percent? That is the political operatives way of thinking. It sucks.

    • justbetty says:

      Knut, I think that’s an excellent analysis and statement of the problem. Where, oh where, can we find a solution?

      • JamesJoyce says:

        There is no more substance coming from the conventional controlled corporate media outlets. Their news is garbage, days late and dollars short, investigating. “Black boxes!” Jefferson and Madison had the answer. It is called putting “corporations,” not in competition with “rights designed for people.” Instead the “corporation,” obliterates the rights of individuals using the color of law. The same law used to enslave people and disenfranchise individuals of life and liberty. The SJC has now protected and aided the corporate interest in Citizens United by usurping due process and equal protection, the same way Taney protected the slave owners, and “fucked” the slaves in Dred Scott! Money is not “speech” and people are not “property” The SJC, like Congress is compromised in its function by the power of money. Checks and balances have been eviscerated not for the benefit of the governed, but for the benefit of the corporate aristocrats Jefferson and Madison warned would threaten life and liberty, in their lust for endless profit. The power of money and compromised values. The American way?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      These are people who got where they are because they are good (or at least people and they themselves think they are good) at parsing out the political consequences of any particular policy. In this respect they are very much like day traders in the market: they are momentum traders, their time horizons are exceptionally short, and when I say short, I don’t mean the shortness of the election cycle, which is already too brief for good planning, but the shortness of the news cycle. I think this came about because of the fragility of Clinton’s victory in 1992 (he only got in because Ross Perot drained away Republican votes in key states), which led him to dump his natural supporters in the NAFTA decision.

      In any event, what passes for policy discussion essentially turns on what passes in the nightly news. A lot of these people come out of Public Relations. They don’t have the faintest notion of the economics or sociology of public policy. The foreign policy establishment is a little (but not much) better because the constraints are foreign countries rather than the news.

      Wow, what a gem of clear thinking.

      As for Bernstein, I’ve put his blog on my ‘to do’s’ this week.
      I saw him on Ratigan’s program Tuesday, and immediately checked because I have tremendous sympathy for anyone who realizes that the information environment has to change if we are to have any meaningful policy movement.

      Whether Bernstein is a smart guy, a sincere guy, an authentic guy, I have no clue.
      But if he’s gutsy enough to try something a bit different out of despair at what’s become of the policy process, I definitely feel the pain…

  9. wendydavis says:

    Bernstein’s blog may tell some truths, but I listened online to him on Dylan Ratigan the other morning, and found him to be defending what the White House did with some, IMO, deceptive claims. Ratigan put up a screen shot from his blog saying that Bernstein left the White House not because of what was going on inside the WH, but that the discussion OUTSIDE on economics was so off-track. He comes on at 6:38, and the defense is at 9:21.

    http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/05/17/making-wall-street-pay/

    I wasn’t so impressed, I guess I’m saying. He had me yelling at my laptop.

  10. otchmoson says:

    In a pique, I suggested some solutions for those who continue to push the ‘family budget = government budget’ false equivalency in a diary here at the Lake.

    ‘We’re a Nation–Not a Family” at http://my.firedoglake.com/otchmoson/

    While increasing income (raising taxes) seem the route most ‘families’ would take, if ‘cutting’ becomes the optimal solution, let’s start at the top of the food chain instead of at the bottom.

    • orionATL says:

      thank you for making your diary available here.

      i enjoyed reading it very much.

      it has precisely the right feel and tone to it –

      of caring

      of smart thinking

      and also, to me at least,

      an unstated overarching message:

      ” i’ve F$€¥KIN’ had enough of self-serving insiders running my government.”

  11. orionATL says:

    now this is interesting.

    bernstein seems to fit in that group of knowledgeable and principaled insiders who give us outsiders – also known as citizens – a clear view inside of the workings of our intellectually and morally compromised executive branch of our federal government:

    col. lawrence wilkerson

    thomas tamm

    jeffrey sterling

    bradley manning

  12. BooRadley says:

    Thanks ew.

    I’m now following Jared on Twitter.

    Along with what little is left of the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers; Social Security and Medicare are “Last Stand Hill.” I’ll take all the help we can get.

  13. beowulf says:

    Lawrence Wilkinson is a good analogy since he was only an insider because Colin Powell brought him in to be his chief of state at State. Likewise, Bernstein was only in the White House because Joe Biden brought him in to be his economic adviser.

  14. zapkitty says:

    I figure it’s plain old election-year politics… “You can buff our lefty cred while saying that the pro-elites policies are not really Obama’s fault”

  15. Watson says:

    With respect, I agree that the auto bailout was good policy, but only in the context of our disastrous trickle-down orthodoxy.

    Those federal funds could have delivered jobs and stimulus without being a corporate welfare program to help GM try to catch up to Ford in selling pickup trucks.

    The bankster-induced crisis was an opportunity to move US industry toward green technology and the production of vehicles for mass transit.

  16. onitgoes says:

    I’m skeptical of Bernstein, as I’m skeptical of anyone who’s been on the “inside.” But thanks for the info, and let’s see what happens. Willing to be delighted by Bernstein. If he makes any kind of headway in assisting and/or protecting the rights of “we the people,” then great! We, the people, can certainly use *any* help in what appears to be a battle with the PTB.

    I agree that ObamaCo is not at all “working against” the so-called “Rebublicans,” who somehow are the repository of all evil and are just so “blocking” poor poor poor benighted Obamaco in their “efforts” on behalf of “we the people.”

    BAH! Not at all. ObamaCo & the so-called “Republicans” are on the SAME team, and THEY are collaboratively (and happily so) fighting together (happily) in the battle on the same side as the corporations/PTB against the “small people.” ObamaCo could a sh*t about “average citizens.” We don’t pay Obama the really big buck$$$; the corporations & the upper 1% do. It’s that simple.

    Let’s see what else Bernstein says & does. I’m open.

    • selise says:

      Let’s see what else Bernstein says & does. I’m open.

      that’s why i went to the link and started reading. hope it get’s better. :(

  17. roydavis says:

    Schneiderman needs to watch his back. There could be a call girl in his future. The PTB cannot tolerate such a loose cannon. He may not be seduced by money, but eye-popping tits and a couple of martinis can be very persuasive. Maybe a hotel maid will enter the picture?? Could Jared Bernstein suffer a similar fate? Oh, and a 12 year old types a Facebook entry about something, we don’t know what, and the FBI notices? How do they find out? Does anybody doubt that Total Information Awareness is alive and well?

  18. orionATL says:

    glad to be part of the effort.

    your essay was superb – so informative, such first-rate voices. i have remembered it from first reading.

    personally, i cannot believe that those pushing the right-wing’s deficit, taxes, govt-reduction voodoo

    as well as those many democrat leaders failing to publicly oppose it,

    don’t both know that it is just more voodoo economics.

    why have we gotten ourselves caught in this trap of ignorance?

    i wish i had an answer.