Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee -- once the chief economic adviser to candidate Barack Obama -- may be less of a shoo-in to chair Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisers than his admirers once imagined.
The Obama transition team is interviewing to find a woman, perhaps a minority woman, to fill the CEA chair -- a Senate-confirmed position. Informed sources suggest the candidates on the CEA list now include Princeton University economics and public affairs professor Cecilia Elena Rouse, whose specialty is labor economics. The hunt for a woman, explained several sources close to the transition deliberations, is aimed at broadening the white-male cast of the White House team assembled to date (the current tally of announced picks is 3 women, 9 men).
Goolsbee, a respected University of Chicago professor, remains in contention for other administration posts, the sources added.
I take nothing away from Professor Rouse. But she's a labor economist with a heavy, heavy specialty in returns to education. Goolsbee, by contrast, focuses on taxation and capital formation. Right now, I'd say the latter is our bigger concern.
More to the point, the worst financial crisis in seventy years is really not the time to see if you can brighten up the CEA offices with a nice, decorative matched set of X chromosomes. Goolsbee has been advising Obama since the beginning; presumably, this is some sort of testimony to the esteem in which Obama holds his competence. Throwing him overboard now makes this look like less of a "plus factor" and more like Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters. Given the stakes, that's more than a little irresponsible.
Needless to say, given that Obama's sterling choice of highest-caliber economic advisors was one of my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.
Elect a Democrat, get a Democrat. We aren't even past Thanksgving yet, let alone the Innaugural Ball; a bit early for buyer's remorse, don't ya think? He has a four-year License to Preside, and I fully expect him to use it.
But, at least your reasoning is based on policy concerns. I cringe to think of the Facebook hangover when the teeming hordes of the 18-29 demographic find out their charismatic neomessiah doesn't quite walk on water.
Sorry, but you seemed to forget that the Dems believe race and sex and such identities matter. Vote for them and you get identity politics at every level. it never fails. if he really had cared about listening to the sterling economic advisers, he'd have said more than nothing about the current fiasco and bailouts we've had.
my only hope is that everyone else who voted for him is having the same buyer's remorse and so he will be forced to make almost no changes because he really has no support.
"Sorry, but you seemed to forget that the Dems believe race and sex and such identities matter. Vote for them and you get identity politics at every level."
I voted for McCain*, but let's be fair: race and gender matter among Republicans too. President Bush appointed cabinet members with eye toward diversity as well, and I doubt McCain would have picked Palin as his VP candidate if she weren't a woman.
*In the general. I voted for Romney in the primary, and still think he was the best-qualified of any of the candidates in either primary.
I agree 100%.
My take.
It would be a shame.
There is a strong chance that after working with Goolsbee for over a year Obama simply does not consider him suitable for the task of CEA boss. Obama may think that Gooslbee would be a poor manager, or lacks political skills, or simply rubbed someone powerful the wrong way.
Diversity would be a very useful fig leaf for the real reason that Obama's shafting Goolsbee - whatever that is.
Megan: Obama's campaign was always more about optics than substance. Hilary was the strongest on policy, and that's part of the reason the White House is filling with Clintonistas.
Are you really only just realizing that "Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters"? That was his whole campaign! "Yes we can" sung by the upstanding fellows who also brought "Lady lumps" to our lexicon.
my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.
Other than abstaining ever so briefly from mocking his supporters before subsequently not voting for him and attacking many of the things he's done in the last three weeks, how did you "support" Obama?
You sound concerned.
It's funny that I read this blog post after I read David Brooks new column.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html
Of course, Brooks is far from being a libertarian. So he is likely much less concerned with Obama's economic team than Mcardle.
It seems like you're making a big deal out of something that doesn't necessarily have a great chance of happening. First, consider how much we really know about what's going on as far as the transition goes. How much has been leaked from the campaign itself? Second, consider that there are other positions that Goolsbee, should he not be the CEA head, could fill. Being the Sec. of the Treasury is probably a step up, to say the least. Third, consider that there are two other spots on the CEA. It's also quite possible that she's up for one of those spots (although I'm not sure if they are picked by the president or by the head of the CEA and when it usually happens).
What else has Obama disappointed you with so far?
I don't think he's getting thrown overboard. Isn't he one of the top contenders for Commerce? Now with Pritzker out of running, he's got a wide field to go with.
I'm not disappointed or surprised by Obama.
I am disappointed by your surprise.
Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters.
I'm struggling to imagine what during the past year could possibly have given you the opposite impression.
But to be fair to the man, I'd like to challenge you to name a politician with national name recognition who is demonstrably willing to sacrifice pretty pictures in exchange for competence.
I've followed Goolsbee's work since 1996 and even though I was disappointed that he was working with Obama, I admire his clear thinking and the fact that he would attempt to bring reason into politics. Tyler, you must not know anything about Goolsbee to leave the comment you did. If anything, Obama might be afraid that at some point Goolsbee would have to reveal that the Emperor has no clothes.
Sorry, but you seemed to forget that the Dems believe race and sex and such identities matter. Vote for them and you get identity politics at every level. it never fails
The Republicans in California seem to think "identities matter," too. That's why 82% of them voted to strip homosexuals of the right to marry people of the same gender.
You see, when Democrats are inclusive of more groups, Republicans whine about "identity politics," but when they are bigots they are more likely than anyone else to play identity politics in reverse.
It wasn't just Republicans in California hating homosexuals, either. Throughout the deep South, white Republicans voted against Obama because they hate black people. Republicans specialize in this sort of thing, and have honed it to a fine art.
As for your complaints about Obama's CEA appointment, Miss McArdle, why on earth would you expect anyone in the new administration to pay the slightest bit of attention to the rantings of a singularly unqualified "economics writer" such as yourself? You don't know the first thing about the subject you purport to cover.
Goolsbee has been advising Obama since the beginning
No, not exactly. Goolsbee was on Obama's official list of advisors for the duration of his campaign.
It's an important distinction which, for some reason, you never got, even when people tried to point it out to you. Policy positions during the campaign are driven entirely by political considerations; non-political advisors are superfluous to the campaign policy process. The sole purpose of non-political advisors during campaign season is to be on a list of advisors, so the candidate can point out to the media what good advisors he has.
Remember when Obama was talking down NAFTA? Sure, that was just for political reasons. But so was Goolsbee's being one of Obama's advisors. Having Goolsbee on that list spoke entirely to Obama's political acumen; it never said a single word about what his administration's economic policy would be like. It was tremendously naïve to ever imagine otherwise.
Hopefully, at least, you won't make this mistake in future elections, now that the lesson has been pounded in.
Are you being serious or are you just being dramatic? Because if you think the CEA matters this much, then you've bought hook, line, and sinker into the Obama-mania.
It's a political institution. Politics comes first. Besides, that's really as it should be.
Sorry to pile on with the "I told you so" comments, but... sheesh.
He had respected thinkers on his campaign advice team to compensate for the fact that there wasn't much reason to respect him as a thinker. It was ALWAYS a show!
Now the liberals finally have the empty Great Communicator which they always accused Reagan of being. Time will tell how well that works out for them... and us.
For now, all we can do is, as an infamous Republican once said, "lie back and try to enjoy it."
Since your reason for endorsing Obama amounted to "I like his advisers", and McCain is just so immature, I think you are being pretty consistent. I found your endorsement of Obama to be intriguing because it was the most tepid and confusing I'd ever seen. That made you more "on the fence" than any blogger I'd seen so I felt like your coverage of the campaign was quite balanced for a blogger.
Now that the campaign is over there is a good chance that Obama will be at least somewhat like Obama as President rather than like a member of the Chicago School of Economics or something. And since Obama as Obama was never really interesting for you, from what I recall, I hope you can shed any support for him without too much pain. I think many of us know you supported his advisers and opposed McCain/Palin so we'll eaccept that you never much cared for Obama's own politics.
You mean that maybe Obama really hasn't changed from the way he's been for the entirety of his adult life? Amazing.
I knew he was going to make me mad. I just didn't realize he'd make me mad this soon, and this way.
My dislike for McCain is slightly different from described--I think he's actively bad for the strains of conservatism I support, with absolutely no respect for spontaneous or emergent order.
It's pretty unimportant compared to the appointment, should it happen, of La Clinton.
I'm holding my regret until we see the full plan. Getting bits and pieces through the media grapevine is nice, but the only sure thing is that it's bits and pieces -- we don't know the full story yet.
Maybe the story isn't accurate. Maybe Goolsbee was offered the slot and asked for something else, for any of any number of reasons. Maybe Obama has a special czar-like task in mind for him. Hard to say right now. But -- while I completely agree with you that the competence of Obama's economic advisers was a big selling point for his candidacy -- I believe that waiting to panic until there's something definite to panic about is the right way to go, here and elsewhere.
Yes, because the economic genius that is John McCain would be delivering us from our economic nightmare, right?
You have a binary choice on election day, and I assure you, unless you wanted Treasury Secretary Mitt Romney, you're still better off with Obama. You guys could, you know, wait and see how his team actually does on the economy. Amazing to see so many people with such strong opinions about this woman already, considering I'll bet you dollars to goddamn donuts three quarters of you had never heard of her before Megan posted this. Assuming someone can't do a job because of their gender is as stupid as assuming they can.
Or, contrariwise, the upcoming adjustments to the economy are all about labor. Not a bad supposition. Also, the argument that looking for a woman/minority to fill the position is somehow detrimental to the country is just so much bigotry. The arguments against selecting for a secondary characteristic would have merit if one thought that there was only one discernable Top Man. I happen to think that's ridiculous, that there are dozens of equally-well qualified people for each spot. To think that those dozens of people would all be white guys is, I repeat, bigotry.
Two things for Megan:
1) I'm not sure there are any relative-competence issues, on the face of it, between a Princeton professor and a Chicago professor.
2) If Obama takes the job title seriously--chair of the council etc. etc.--then collegiality and the ability to effectively convey the views of a group, even when they don't coincide with your own, is an essential attribute of the chair. I don't know either proto-candidate, but it's conceivable that one has better skills in this regard than the other, which might trump marginal or imagined differences in the quality of their personal advice.
16 days and already buyer's remorse? Cheer up little buckaroo we got a long haul ahead of us.
Actions are what matter. Ignoring the leaks, what's actually been announced seems reasonable enough.
Look, the guy's a Democrat and he's going the govern from the left of center. The question is how far left.
So far, Lieberman is keeping his chairmanship and Dingle lost his. Not that I'm a huge Lieberman fan, but I think both of these decisions are symbolic and important. IMO, this is going as well as can be expected.
And black Democrats voted against McCain because they hate white people.
Do you see how generalization is foolish?
Obama's philosophies as evidenced by his voting record and career path are hardly "mainstream", which is neither a criticism nor praise. What IS "mainstream" about him is that he is a consummate political mover-and-shaker.
If Obama intends to govern in ways that are consistent with his past policy inclinations, he needs people around him who will (a) be in step with him intellectually and philosophically, and (b) help him hold the support of those who voted for him so that he has more than one term (which will be hugely challenging). That may very well be what we are seeing here. He would not be the first President who starts running for his second term 4 years early.
Nothing against the man, but anyone aspiring to the Presidency, or in the Presidency has, as job #1 in the first term, getting a second term. While (s)he may want to do the right thing for the country, however s(he) interprets that, "image" is paramount for a person like Obama. He is the "image" President, you know, more than any other before him.
Rouse would be a brilliant pick. For now, attention's focused on financial markets. That's fine, but the financial crisis will be over soon. What's coming next is inflation and disruptions in employment.
In the real economy, mismatches between skills supplied and demanded are a real problem. Exhibit 1: what's going on in the auto industry with outsized wages and benefits for a unionized low skilled workforce. The domestic industry can't continue with its current mismatch between labor costs and labor skills. What can the govt do to assist? Bankruptcy lawyers and labor economists might be just the types to develop workable policies.
In the next decade, the changing demands for labor, benefits, and retirement are going to be big issues. A labor economist would be a real plus in dealing with the looming economic challenges.
Adam
I would argue that Goolsbee has served his purpose and has no further use. I gotta hand it to the Obama campaign- they played this one brilliantly.
This is the highest form of idiocy. For someone to base a judgment on anonymous sources talking about a supposed motivation for looking at a highly competent candidate (Rouse)... Wow. This is either an ignorant failure to critically analyze news reports or someone's own racist and sexist bias makes them more likely to believe these reports.
OK, fair enough. You can withdraw my earlier complaint.
thomasblair:
Thank you for calling out Magic Dog's ridiculous remark about "white Republicans in the deep south" voting against Obama because of racial hatred.
Half of the past 8 years I have lived in the deep South, and also in a major Northern metro area, going back and forth seasonally which my "post retirement" business/occupation allows me to do ... politically I am fiercely independent and hard core moderate. In both locations, my surroundings and interactions have been "diverse" (age, race, sexual orientation) because I prefer it that way.
Because I am outgoing and social by nature, I know hundreds of people reasonably well, between the two locations. I go out of my way to have conversations with even those I only know casually, or maybe not at all. You know, like at bus stops, in dog parks, at stores and bars, in cabs, through my business, and the like. I took a lot of psychology, some sociology, and had training in marketing research (though I chose to go into Human Resources and Labor Relations).
So Magic Dog, if I differ with you, it is not by virtue of some "ivory tower" impressions. It's from the "street level". Obama was adored by most who would call themselves "liberals" (black and white) and not by those who also distrusted the lily-white John Kerry four years ago and the lily-white Al Gore in 2000. They just see the world differently, in terms of what is good for us as a society.
The most prevalent theme of all in my conversations, North and South, was some satisfaction that an African-American was able to achieve a run for the presidency, whether or not one bought into his political philosophies. For some it meant "vindication" and for others it meant "now can we stop with this 'poor me' mantra?"
I'm "up in years" now --- was a young adult during the early years of the civil rights activism. In many ways I am fearful about my country's future. But at the same time I feel fortunate to have been around for huge shifts in racial attitudes. And my grandchildren, all old enough to vote now, don't think much about race quite frankly, which is a good thing, other than some trepidation the gang/drug/shootings element that still plagues some areas in most cities.
It's the extreme people now, Black and White, that still hold on to "hate" as part of their portfolio for getting through life. Most of us, by far, have gotten beyond that, thankfully. If Magic Dog cannot see that, he or she may need to get out more and interact with real people instead of living with a stereotype-ridden mindset.
If Goolsbee's response to a substantive question about Obama's policy by McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin at an economic roundtable during the campaign - "Are you a Muslim?" - is any indication of (a) the man's general character or (b) his typical response to substantive, respectful questions about the merits of specific policy proposals, I find it rather difficult to mourn his apparent exclusion from President Obama's economic team. I don't know about the GSB, Megan, but we would never have tolerated this type of anti-intellectual response of our superstars to legitimate questioning at the Law School.
Megan,
Image over substance was the entire campaign. I don't see how anyone could have missed that.
You should've known better.
Rob Lyman: "But to be fair to the man, I'd like to challenge you to name a politician with national name recognition who is demonstrably willing to sacrifice pretty pictures in exchange for competence."
Bush? I don't think Cheney was chosen for his looks, identity politics or popular appeal.
On the Deep South it depends. My guess would be that white Democrats in the Deep South who voted for McCain would be the ones more likely motivated by racism. Even then I wouldn't say that has to have been the motivation for a majority of them.
And what do you think the "Deep South" is? Traditionally it's not West Virginia, which was part of the Union in the Civil War and went for Michael Dukakis in 1988. In WV 22% said "race was a factor" and 62% of those went for McCain.
I think this is a bit of an overreaction; it's not like Rouse is some Joe the Plumber off the street. She has an Econ PhD from Harvard and is a Princeton professor. And given the state of our nation's schools, it's not ridiculous to have an economist whose specialty is labor and education. Long-term, the quality of this country's workers is what will determine our economy.
"unless you wanted Treasury Secretary Mitt Romney"
Romney actually would be a good choice. I wouldn't be surprised if even Obama were considering him, though right now Obama probably has aides begging Paul Volcker to take the job. I don't think Geithner has the stature for the job, and you never know when Summers might start thinking aloud about differences in the distribution of math ability among men and women.
She has an Econ PhD from Harvard and is a Princeton professor.
But she's a woman, Anonymous! How could she really be qualified?? This is a disaster!
But then again, we should have seen it coming with Obama. Now if John "I don't know anything about the economy" McCain had pulled this crap, that would be different.
Anyway, I can't stand pontificators who don't know what they're talking about. Can the armchair pundits stay home and leave the discourse to qualified experts like Megan McArdle?
This post is a nice example of the downside of both blogs and 24 hour news shows, which have to get revved up into some great worry or outrage over hints of rumors so they've got something to say every day.
Sooner or later, we'll know who was chosen for each of the positions, and we can make some kind of informed judgement. If Obama seems to be choosing diversity over competence, or cronies over experts, or whatever, then we can see and discuss that once it's actually happened. But it's kind of silly to get worked up about it based on a change in the leaked hints of rumors, right?
Megan,
Firstly, there is no real substantive indication that Obama which make the choice to which you have such a negative reaction.
Secondly, are you even in a position to personally provide an authoritative viewpoint on the capabilities of the various contenders, not only as academics but also as leaders?
your post and emotional response is nasty, negative and not a little juvenile.
Lorran
my regret is mounting faster than ever
You shouldn't have regrets about this. You made, in your own opinion, the best choice you could given the information available at the time. At least you made a decision, which is more than some people can say. Whether or not Obama was in retrospect the best choice among the given options shouldn't really matter to your conscience at this point.
I love how megan is getting creamed from both sides on this one.
I love how megan is getting creamed from both sides on this one.
It probably means she's really right, right?
Isn't that the proper conclusion to draw when everyone thinks you're wrong?
Richard,
I think you aren't identifying exactly why Goolsbee asked that rhetorical question. It was purely sarcastic, in response to the general habit of the McCain camp of classifying everything the Obama campaign as "socialism" or "re-distributionist."
Yancey Ward,
Are you implying some bait and switch from the Obama camp? If so, I don't see why. Almost all, if not all, of his other advisers seem to be exactly like Goolsbee.
Hopefully you have learned a lesson about supporting major party candidates: there is a risk your pick will win, and then you will be miserable about every mistake that happens.
If only you had supported Bob Barr, you could now say to yourself smugly: "What a disaster. My dude would have done much better."
This is only 50-80% meant humorously.
Can someone die of schadenfreude?
I thought that Obama tossed Goolsbee under the bus months ago when he tried to reassure our trade partners that Obama probably didn’t mean it when he proposed “revisiting” our trade agreements.
I also find it fascinating that this post is dramatized with the "I regret my support" angle - in what fashion did this blogger "support" Obama. She didn't vote for him. She didn't donate to him. As far as we know, she didn't volunteer for him. She did often tepidly write that she hoped Obama would win because she didn't like McCain - but almost always qualified that she was sure she wouldn't like his political decision-making. She often highlighted negative stories about Obama (admittedly while again qualifying them with, "well McCain might be worse" sort of statements).
So rather than try to draw attention to what's a dubious point based on dubious speculative reporting, what purpose does it serve her to take the pose of the disillusioned supporter, with the added intimation that she saw nothing in return for her barely tangible efforts.
@Barbar
Isn't that the proper conclusion to draw when everyone thinks you're wrong?
No. See "Flat Earther".
@Bahrad
I also find it fascinating that this post is dramatized with the "I regret my support" angle - in what fashion did this blogger "support" Obama. She didn't vote for him. She didn't donate to him. As far as we know, she didn't volunteer for him. She did often tepidly write that she hoped Obama would win because she didn't like McCain - but almost always qualified that she was sure she wouldn't like his political decision-making. She often highlighted negative stories about Obama (admittedly while again qualifying them with, "well McCain might be worse" sort of statements).
As I linked to previously, the term is called "concern-trolling". Megan's "support" was and continues to be a classic example.
I'm sorry, it seems like those of you who have written something to the effect of "look at those wingnuts saying that she's unqualified just because she's a woman" are incapable of reading. Megan (nor any of the commenters, unless I've seriously missed something) never makes the claim that this woman is unqualified because she's female. But, it _is_ very odd that the reason to appoint her, supposedly, is that she is a woman of color, rather than because Obama admires her academic work. I think that is the disconcerting part, not that she is supposedly unqualified. You are trying to divert the issue, and you know it.
Goolsbee's focus on taxation sounds like he would be a better candidate for OMB director. How many tax specialists do we need? Bringing in someone focused on returns to education makes a great deal of sense if one of Obama's goals is to reform our education system and our social safety net.
Your regrets are mounting based on his cabinet choices which haven't even been formalized? Specifically which names that have been leaked so far are not very highly respected?
I predict this will be a trend in the econ blogosphere. In order to show that their political sensibilities are much more finely tuned than our own, bloggers will be quick to issue a vote of no confidence in Obama.
Oh, and if you find Megan so despicable because she supported/didn't support Obama, is a secret/an actual/not a supporter of John McCain, she is a liberal/conservative/socialist/fascist/communist/Nazi/Republican/Libertarian/Democrat/Green, she eats/has eaten/will eat/never ate babies, she is a French/German/Danish/Serbian/Russian/North Korean/Iranian/Israeli/Palestinian sympathizer. etc. there is a simple solution to your problem. You can stop reading her blog and gracing us with your ornery presence in this comments section.
To Peter -- She's not a concern troll. This is HER blog, not anyone else's forum. She's not part of any group, except The Atlantic, and as far as I know, she rarely comments on things in the magazine, much less showing concern for what has been written.
It's pretty unimportant compared to the appointment, should it happen, of La Clinton.
The truly bizarre thing is, I'm rooting for her to be SecState. Me! Of all people! But I can't think of anybody plausible I'd like better, and I think she might even be good at the job.
matt--
If this story Megan posts is true (a big if, granted), then she was chosen not because she's an education expert, but because she's a woman of color. That's what's at issue here. The article, as far as I could tell, did not say that she was being considered for her education expertise because Obama thinks it's important. The point seems to be that she's female and non-white. It's an issue of motivation and how one will govern.
Furthermore, while the VP is an inherently partisan position, CEA director seems to be more policy-focused. So, while the choice of Palin by McCain was abominable, identity politics for that post is not as strange as it is for the post at the CEA.
I really wonder if a focus on capital accumulation is the right approach any more. So much of this debacle is the result of thinking of changes in abstract valuation as the creation of wealth, when what really matters are production and innovation.
Perhaps Goolsbee is too Wall Street for the kind of economic reorganization we're going to need to do over the next couple of decades.
The overuse of anonymous sources really needs to stop in "journalism." Being outraged about something that may or may not be true with a complete lack of context is a waste of everyone's time.
I had no idea the chair of the CEA was the most pressing political post in an administration. I mostly associate this post with the person who abruptly needed to spend more time with his family when Bush fired him for saying something true.
No worries, Tinkerbells. Now that we can see the rust and decay of the Obama presidency for what it will be, we find ourselves in an excellent position to reassert our neoliberal certitudes. After being duped by an empty shell of a gay-marrying Islamic messiah, we can look forward to ideologically correct leadership by someone of substance, like Sarah Palin.
@winterspeak
did you think McCain's campaign was about competence?
Just another Rorschach test, providing everyone a convenient excuse to trot out the boilerplate arguments about Obama. "He's an empty suit who plays identity politics!" "No, he's a deep thinker with good judgment!" At this point, I can't wait for his Presidency to start, just to be rid of this endless speculation.
What do you mean by: "spontaneous or emergent order?"
Megan
If the first two-plus weeks of this transition do not give you some confidence in Obama's abilities, then, you're right to second guess your decision to support him on your blog.
But one thing I've learned from reading your blog over the course of the campaign is that your political antennae are not that sharp. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you tell us how the Palin choice would thrill your mother and thus the rest of the electorate?
And didn't you also tell us how McCain's move to suspend his campaign was brilliant and that was why the criticism was so strong?
I don't disagree that Obama shouldn't be his advisers based on gender or skin color. (And remember this hasn't happened yet.) But taking all his moves so far in total, he clearly hasn't let this be the rule.
Reading these comments, reading all the contradictions and reading everyone lose their shit over some (at this point) unsubstantiated rumors leaves me with one thought: I can't wait to see most of you dumb bastards get wiped out during this economic downturn. It's just desserts for a whole horde of ignorant, selfish dumbasses who were so were so sure they had this economy thing down pat. I'd love to go through the comments archive from about 18-months ago and read all of you idiots so assuredly promoting the same policies which got us here.
Enjoy selling apples for a living losers. I certainly won't be giving any of my (very safe) money to charity to support you. In fact, I'll be looking forward to hiring most of your children to do my yard work.
The whole blogosphere must be seriously bored and have a major election hangover. Can we all stop commenting on Obama's "choices" until they are actually made? It's not like it's going to be all that long. Something else must be happening in the world.
(Extremely well-sourced picks like Holder, Clinton, and Napolitano get a pass here, but this rumor Megan is posting about does not even come close.)
You voted for Obama? People get what they deserve. Another Clinton. Empty head, no brains. A school teacher. An attorney who never practiced. He knows so much about the world. God help us.....
You voted for Obama? People get what they deserve. Another Clinton. Empty head, no brains. A school teacher. An attorney who never practiced. He knows so much about the world. God help us.....
The other option was a man with absolutely NO knowledge about the economy (his main mentor being one of the chief architects of this current disaster) and the single biggest vacuous twit ever nominated for high office: Sarah Palin.
I didn't vote for either candidate, but the idiocy of Republicans on this board (granted, much of the criticism here is from Republicans) is stunning. It's one of the biggest reasons I'm going to laugh my ass off at your misery.
Correction: I meant to say: Granted much of the criticism here is from non-Republicans.
This is HER blog, not anyone else's forum.
---
Open comments constitute the basic requirement of a forum, I think.
I forget the term you and your cohort Drezner used in your endorsement video, something like bombastic and scurrilous, which was to apply to McCain with regard to explaining the causes of the current crisis. Au contraire it was Obama. Obama has put together a skilled intelligent team so far but. In stock trading, most recently discusssed by Bainbridge in re: Cuban, there is the 'pump and dump' where someone is involved with a stock, touts it and dumps it to the subsequent buyers. Enjoy your Goolsbee notices. Re: the commenter above about 'the financial crisis will soon be over,' I guess Wall Street didn't get the memo yesterday.
If true, this is a bloody embarassment:
If.
Most citizens of the U.S. would believe that having a labor economist is extremely relavant to creating an economic policy that supports a strong middle class. We've had an over abundance of economic advisors whose expertise is in the financial markets. What we haven't had is people who are informed or even concerned as to how economic policy plays out for the vast majority of american citizens and taxpayers. The financial markets are here to support real economic activity, not to substitute for it.
I don't know why people here are talking about image over substance. Obama's website was filled with substance, page after page of policy proposals. You may not agree with his proposals but to say there wasn't substance there for all to see is nonsense. He also ran what was arguably the most well organized campaign in political history, which speaks somehing about his ability to execute.
The Democrats ought to be more concerned about their reputation as stewards of the economy than as promoters of gender diversity. Everyone knows they count the women. Not everyone knows they can deal with a deep recession or tame entitlement costs.
Here's my favorite Austan Goolsbee effort. It's from 2007 and it shows tremendous prescience, foresight, and prudence:
New York Times
March 29, 2007
Economic Scene
‘Irresponsible’ Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded
By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE
“We are sitting on a time bomb,” the mortgage analyst said — a huge increase in unconventional home loans like balloon mortgages taken out by consumers who cannot qualify for regular mortgages. The high payments, he continued, “are just beginning to come due and a lot of people who were betting interest rates would come down by now risk losing their homes because they can’t pay the debt.”
He would have given great testimony at the current Senate hearings on subprime mortgage lending. The only problem is, he said it in 1981 — when soon after several of the alternative mortgage products like those with adjustable rates and balloons first became popular.
... Almost every new form of mortgage lending — from adjustable-rate mortgages to home equity lines of credit to no-money-down mortgages — has tended to expand the pool of people who qualify but has also been greeted by a large number of people saying that it harms consumers and will fool people into thinking they can afford homes that they cannot.
Congress is contemplating a serious tightening of regulations to make the new forms of lending more difficult. New research from some of the leading housing economists in the country, however, examines the long history of mortgage market innovations and suggests that regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much.
...
And this study shows that measured this way, the mortgage market has become more perfect, not more irresponsible. People tend to make good decisions about their own economic prospects. ...
The traditional causes of foreclosure, even before there was subprime lending, were job loss, divorce and major medical expenses. And the national foreclosure data seem to suggest that these issues remain paramount. The latest numbers show that foreclosures have been concentrated not in places where real estate bubbles have supposedly been popping, but rather in places whose economies have stagnated — the hurricane-torn communities on the Gulf of Mexico and the industrial Midwest states like Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, where the domestic auto industry has suffered. These do not automatically point to subprime lending as the leading cause of foreclosure problems.
Also, the historical evidence suggests that cracking down on new mortgages may hit exactly the wrong people. As Professor Rosen explains, “The main thing that innovations in the mortgage market have done over the past 30 years is to let in the excluded: the young, the discriminated against, the people without a lot of money in the bank to use for a down payment.” It has allowed them access to mortgages whereas lenders would have once just turned them away.
The Center for Responsible Lending estimated that in 2005, a majority of home loans to African-Americans and 40 percent of home loans to Hispanics were subprime loans. The existence and spread of subprime lending helps explain the drastic growth of homeownership for these same groups. Since 1995, for example, the number of African-American households has risen by about 20 percent, but the number of African-American homeowners has risen almost twice that rate, by about 35 percent. For Hispanics, the number of households is up about 45 percent and the number of homeowning households is up by almost 70 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29scene.html?pagewanted=print
@David
And didn't you also tell us how McCain's move to suspend his campaign was brilliant and that was why the criticism was so strong?
Yes, she called it "politically brilliant" and went on to say that "Democrats who are mad are mad because it is politically brilliant, not because it is dumb. There is, as far as I can see, no actual harm in postponing campaigning, or the debates" contra every non-dead-ender in McCain's own campaign.
@Gene2
Believe what you will. David's reference is yet another example.
wow, you guys need to chill the fuck out.
obama is in the process of assembling the most impressive team in the past fifty years. look at the positions filled so far.
when he actually, you know, announces his economic team on Monday, then feel free to start yapping. in the meantime please kindly shut the fuck up.
the ignorance in this comment thread could power the whole Dark Ages.
Gosh, a liberal Democrat is more interested in diversity than competence? Next thing you know, there'll be gambling going at Rick's.
And can anyone here comment on Professor Rouse's competence?
Ha ha ha. Why should you have to? She's a woman, she's black, her specialty is labor economics for Christ's sake -- is that even real economics?
What a RIDICULOUS selection she would be! It's just so absurd! Where did she get her PhD, Harvard? Where is she a professor now, Princeton? I've never even HEARD of professors from these places!
And an anonymous source says Obama is interested in hiring a woman for this post? Why, I KNEW IT! Finally, definitive proof of all my preconceived notions!
It's all hearsay, to this point. I do feel bad for Goolsbee if he gets bumped, but this is politics. Hurting people's feelings isn't really a big deal. And Obama has to model diversity from the top down in his illuminati administration or he'll be discredited for that too. Racism and its leftist counter-effort will be on permanent display for the next four years.
Needless to say, given that Obama's sterling choice of highest-caliber economic advisors was one of my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.
Snicker. I guess that mean's you're one of the rubes.
What part of "he's a Democrat" do you not understand? He doesn't believe in democracy, he doesn't believe in the rule of law, he doesn't believe he has an sort of duty to let the voters know what his administration would be like (so that they can make a reasonable decision), he doesn't believe in competence. He believes in power, getting his own way, and a racial / ethnic and sexual spoils system. He favors making people dependent upon the government rather than capable of running and living their own lives (so a strong economy is a negative).
In short, he's opposed to everything that should be of importance to anyone who calls herself a libertarian. As you could have figured out if you were paying the slightest attention to politics any time in the last 10 years.
I'm glad you're starting to pull your head out of your ass, but have to ask: what took you so long?
He doesn't believe in democracy, he doesn't believe in the rule of law, he doesn't believe he has an sort of duty to let the voters know what his administration would be like (so that they can make a reasonable decision), he doesn't believe in competence. He believes in power, getting his own way, and a racial / ethnic and sexual spoils system. He favors making people dependent upon the government rather than capable of running and living their own lives (so a strong economy is a negative).
Wow, I see you're quite familiar with Barack Obama.
Of course a President of Harvard Law Review and Con Law Prof at UChicago doesn't believe in the rule of law and doesn't believe in competence. He wrote two books and had an extensive issues section on his campaign website, so he obviously doesn't care about democracy and letting voters know where he stands. I'm curious how you figured it out, though, since he was so diabolical about hiding his true nature.
And as anyone paying attention to politics the last ten years, the Democrats have repeatedly insisted that in a time of war, the President is above the rule of law. Over and over and over again. This guy from BERKELEY wrote these memos about it. And does anyone care? No. Instead the Republicans get removed from power. It's absurd.
Barbar,
Barack Obama thinks that Supreme Court justices should rule based upon their (left wing) feelings, rather than strictly on the letter of the law. No, niether he, nor anyone who claims to believe in a "Living Constitution" believes in the rule of law.
You can favor competence, or you can support "affirmative action." The two are mutually exclusive. Obama and the Democrats favor "affirmative action."
Obama wrote two books about growing up. he's written zero books about policy or the law, and refused to reveal any papers that he has written on anything of significance. He ran on "Hope and Change", rather than on specific policies, or on telling people what he was actually hoping to do, or what he was going to change, other than which Party had the power.
He's had one executive position in his life: he was chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Education program. So, if you know so much about Obama, tell us what he did there. Tell us how he got the job, and what he accomplished. Point us to where it is on his web site that he gives all the details about that position.
The Democrats haven't spent the last 7+ years being bothered by Bush "trying to be above the law." Bush did a far better job of following the law than Clinton ever did (where was the Congressional vote about Bosnia? About invading Haiti?). What the Democrats were objecting to was that Bush was actually acting in the best interests of the US, and that they cannot abide.
Greg Q,
Are you a real person or someone who is trying to make Megan's comment page denizens appear to be even more ignorant than usual?
I don't think you've added anything here but attacks on Democrats that aren't even wrong they are so stupid.
"Barack Obama thinks that Supreme Court justices should rule based upon their (left wing) feelings, rather than strictly on the letter of the law. No, niether he, nor anyone who claims to believe in a "Living Constitution" believes in the rule of law." Huh? This statement is nonsense in the literal sense of the term.
Plus, I think from looking at the rest of your statements you fail the basic test of support of democracy, which is the belief in a loyal opposition. I don't think you believe Democrats are loyal to the United States.
Plus, as for nominating competent people, Tim Geithner.
Then, just go to Obama's website. It is filled with policy proposals a large number of topics. That you don't know these proposals exist is a testament to your personal ignorance.
Gee, I wonder how Geithner fits this meme. Too bad he isn't gay or disabled or something. That would give you guys a chance to really dig into your deep economic insights.
Megan,
I had to return to say one more thing.
The title is awesome :)
Keep it up!
Megan, I agree about Rouse not being right for the job. She has no business in that role. Stiglitz or Diamond might be a good choice, considering they wrote the book on banking crises, not to mention being good monetary and financial economists. Goolsbee isn't bad (I think he was one of Mankiw's students), but it's common for day-to-day campaign workers that were heavily involved in the *political* side of things not be appointed to high ranking *policy* positions, especially those requiring Senate confirmation. There's too much baggage developed there. Holtz-Ekin probably wouldn't have gotten that position either.
To the commenter thinking Democrats are the only ones concerned about diversity, that's quite an ignorant statement. In fact, the rationalization says that Dems would rather pick a woman/minority because they are a woman/minority, not because they are qualified for the job. Both Republicans and Democrats should pick people because they can lead the country - not because they are from a certain background or some other variable that they had no control of. Gov't should be a meritocracy, not a haven of affirmative action.
I think the sticking point is that Goolsbee represents yet another "tell a foreign government one thing, tell the rubes another" embarrassment - and he doesn't need more of those just right now.
The Republicans in California seem to think "identities matter," too. That's why 82% of them voted to strip homosexuals of the right to marry people of the same gender.
What figure does when get when one multiplies the zero repulicans that live in California by .82?
"I knew he was going to make me mad. I just didn't realize he'd make me mad this soon, and this way."
I did.
I mean, really, Megan, you had to be willfully blind to think otherwise. It was wishful thinking all the way. Classic "when smart people make foolish choices."
It sure doesn't take much to flabbergast you, Megan. You should probably work on that.
Let's see how this plays out before getting all hysterical. "All plays out" includes seeing the full team and how labor is divided among them.
Looks like it's going to be Summers heading the Council of Economic Advisers.
Hey, Austan, as long as you are under the bus, could you please check the brakes? Thanks.
Umm, shinky? California has the most Republicans in the nation. More Californians voted for John McCain than any other state in the country, including Texas.
Relax Megan, Austan will get the job, I'll get you a $20 certificate at your favourite big & tall if I'm wrong.
"Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters"
Why would have ever have expected anything else. Remember Clinton's desperate search for a femaie attorney general?
"More Californians voted for John McCain than any other state in the country, including Texas." Jordan B
To my surprise that's true, the difference is about 200,000.
However I did know California has a good deal of Republicans. There are 18 Republican Congressman representing California. Some of them, like Ed Royce and Wally Herger, are pretty strongly conservative even on social issues.
Vermont would be the state with the least McCain voters. The most thoroughly Democratic state is, unsurprisingly, Massachusetts. The Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, State Senate, State House, US Senators, and US Congressional delegate is all Democratic. Maryland is also highly Democratic at all levels with only one Republican Congressman. New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island also have few Republicans at any level.
Among states to go for McCain Arkansas is pretty strongly Democratic. They have one Republican in the US Congress, otherwise the balance of power in the state appears to be almost totally Democratic. West Virginia is also strongly Democratic at most levels. Texas, Utah, and Wyoming have the most Republican dominance in their governance.
Correction the Massachusetts State Senate and State House do have Republicans, but they have a supermajority of Democrats.
The news is now in that Christina Romer will head the CEA. I was acquainted with her while I was in grad school at UCLA: there was an umbrella group for people throughout the UC system who did work in economic history. I heard her give seminars at UCLA on a couple of occasions. She is extremely bright and certainly fits the label of "high-caliber economic advisor," so I hope your concerns are assuaged, Megan.
With the results out this morning, I hope that the decision was made on competency basis not political reasons, not at this time of economic recession. I believe Goolsbee would have bought new ideas to the system.
romer is brilliant. goolsbee would be great though he is antithesis of obama. direct and speaks his mind. reminds me of krugman, not sure he'd be comfortable in d.c. though he would be an utterly refreshing addition.
Isn't Goolsbee a deficit reduction promoter? That would hardly gel with all the printing of new money that will be going on.