I haven't gotten to attend many panels this year, because I've been on too many. But of the ones I have gone to, the Austan Goolsbee Q&A is by far the liveliest. People who attend Aspen are very successful, and the questions he's being asked hit close to home for them: marginal income tax rates, taxation of worldwide corporate profits, H1B visas for foreign graduate students educated in America.
The questions for Goolsbee are much more hostile than they were last year. I don't know whether to attribute this to the economy, or the fact that the disadvantages of Obama's policies are now apparent. All policies sound better when they're in white paper, and Obama's rhetorical deftness made it particularly easy to make his proposals sound like all things to all people. Now deficits have to be paid for, climate change bills turn out to lack teeth for anyone except the Chinese, health care gets scored by the CBO rather than optimistic campaign members.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
And to think, all of this in less than six months. Just imagine how much more fun the next 3.5 years will be...
We hired Chauncey - why are we surprised?
Obama, the most gifted orator (and politician) since Reagan is a cipher? Don't you mean his predecessor?
And, Megan, can you think of a better representative than Goolsbee? I can't imagine how Douglas Holz-Eakin would handle something like this. Would love to review a transcript.
Obama may be a gifted orator (with the telepromptor, of course), but he never really says anything substantive. Give me a plain spoken president anytime over a flim-flam man.
Yes, we should hate all politicians who use notes for their speeches.
ThatPirateGuy,
He has nominees? Can you point me to them?
Did you not read the litany in Megan's post? This is the path that Chauncey is taking us down. It appears as if he knows more about "getting those ring tone things" than he does economics.
Where's your proof otherwise? Where is showing even a scintilla of anything beyond bad ideology?
And if by "gifted" you mean "able to ram through mash-up legislation even though he has a huge majority in both the house and senate," then, yes, I agree. I'm betting that he could catch 2 or maybe even 3 fish if they were in a barrel, too.
"Chauncey" ....are you serious?
Yes in the sense that what Obama says is always taken to mean whatever the listener wants to hear.
The real question is whether he means anything at all when he says things.
And as alluded to in Megan's post, suddenly those wise utterances actually have some application; 'change' means 'borrow trillions from the Chinese'. Etc.
Derek
Seems apt. Any reason why you think it's not?
I will say here, again, and for the record: this is the emptiest suit we've had in the Oval Office since JFK. He is all show and no go.
Putin, Merckel, Sarkozy, and the vast majority of his "peers" - including Ach-mini-jad and "Dear Leader" already see right through him.
BTW, do you think he'll ever name any lieutenants at Treasury? Not that we need them during a recession, or anything.
Brillian leadership in action, for sure.
Do you think republicans will ever stop delaying all of his nominees?
ThatPirateGuy,
He has nominees? Can you point me to them?
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/06/113_47556.html
Here is one they delayed for months. His name is Harold Koh. The good news is he is finally in.
Yes, it isn't for the position you named. But he isn't the only nominee the republicans have slow walked. I am sure your google-fu is strong enough to find more. Maybe Obama would be faster in naming nominees if he could count on them getting up and down votes in a reasonable time frame.
ThatPirateGuy,
So you have no evidence of ANY Treasury nominees being held up? You now blame POTENTIAL delays - awesome. Also, I would think if he knew they would be slow walked, he would want them nominated sooner rather than later.
It's not like there is a recession going on...
I really wished Obama was interested in being President, rather then simply being elected...
When the President's party controls both houses solidly, I think you lose the privelege of blaming the opposition party for every failure or delay. He has the tools in place to find more than credible nominees. Especially considering that he started to run for POTUS almost 2.5 years ago.
It's the burden of having such a strong majority in government.
Get real.
Don't you have that backwards? The bills/agreements I've seen discussed have looser standards for the Chinese than for the West.
I think the reference is to the ideas floating about where imports would have carbon usage charge tacked on. It seems almost every major industry inside the US has some amendment to allow business as usual.
Derek
I always try to keep in mind the difference between rhetoric and practice, ideology and reality, when my professor colleagues argue about how best to run society based on the theories of a bunch of other academic types throughout history. Ideas are great in the cloister and the ivory tower -- "to each according to his needs!" -- but not so great when they actually have to be put into practice.
Unfortunately, academics rarely have to pay the price for the unintended consequences of their utopian ideas; those are usually borne by the much less-fortunate. Rachel Carson never got malaria; Karl Marx never had to stand in a bread line.
(Shit, even Marx's "work" had to be funded by the value created by Engels's wealthy capitalist family. Like my colleagues who argue that capitalism "doesn't work" while drinking imported Chilean wine that they bought from a publicly traded supermarket chain using American dollars provided by federal research grants drawn from the revenues of income taxes on capitalist labor.)
Can I venture a guess that you're a libertarian? Isn't that essentially the most simplistic, denying of reality and embracing of principal ideology that there is?
Has enlightened self interest never produced an unintended consequence? Isn't the whole freaking world one giant, unintended consequence? In short, do you have a god damn point or do you just not like the idea of anyone ever telling you what to do?
Yes, capitalism has brought America some beautiful Chilean wine. How are the Chileans doing?
Well, I'm not an Chile expert but Wikipedia seems to think that Chile is doing pretty darn well from freeing up their economic system and engaging in free trade. So once again we find that like democracy being the worst form of government except everything else, so is the free market.
Sound economic policies, maintained consistently since the 1980s, have contributed to steady growth and reduced poverty rates by over half.[7][63] The 1973-90 military government sold many state-owned companies, and the three democratic governments since 1990 have continued privatization, though at a slower pace. The government's role in the economy is mostly limited to regulation, although the state continues to operate copper giant CODELCO and a few other enterprises (there is one state-run bank). Chile is strongly committed to free trade and has welcomed large amounts of foreign investment. Chile has signed free trade agreements (FTAs) with a whole network of countries, including an FTA with the United States, which was signed in 2003 and implemented in January 2004.[64] Over the last several years, Chile has signed FTAs with the European Union, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei, China, and Japan. It reached a partial trade agreement with India in 2005 and began negotiations for a full-fledged FTA with India in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chile_GDP.jpg
So once again we find that like democracy being the worst form of government except everything else, so is the free market.
Ah that explains why all those socialist Europeans are flocking en masse to Chile.
Oh and TLDR
Actually, it's not that long. You got ADD or something?
I am replying to nutella below:
Not necessarily, however, they might well be drinking Chilean wine right where they are. If the EU allows it. And it is probably cheaper and tastier.
Chileans are doing pretty well, actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile
The last is sort of amusing: despite having the highest GDP and low poverty levels, there's still a complaint that some people did better than others.
Why, it's almost like an incentive to excel produces better outcomes for everyone.
Wow, Nutella, chill out. There's a big difference between head-in-the-clouds utopian anarcho-libertarians and the more conventional anti-utopian, Madisonian limited government types.
Anti-utopianism is BASED on the idea that the "whole freaking world is one giant, unintended consequence." Whereas Rousseau (to name one utopian darling of post-1960s leftism) argued that all political calculations should be made according to the "General Will" -- defined, of course, not by popular vote, but by Smart People Who Know Better Than You -- Madison argued that there was NO SUCH THING as a "General Will." Instead, people are always going to disagree and come into conflict. Therefore, the best path to prosperity is to provide a system in which people are free to disagree, compete, and conflict with each other peacefully. In the utopian vision, any dissent and competition is viewed as inherently disharmonious and cannot be allowed. This is why our anti-utopian Madisonian constitution is turning 233 years old this week, whereas French democracy (inspired by Rousseau) has had five different Republics and three elected despotisms since 1789.
Before you criticize something, it's useful to understand it. Addressing people as they are -- warts, self-interest, greed, and all -- is hardly "denying reality." Nor is it denying reality to gauge the success of a policy based on its actual real-life consequences rather than its good intentions (historically, respect for "greedy" private property leads to general obesity, "fair" collectivized agriculture leads to general starvation; one may be more "moral," but which is better in reality?).
One of the POINTS of the philosophies of Bernard de Mandeville, Edmund Burke, James Madison, and Hayek (for example) was to bring political philosophy back into line with the ugly reality of human nature. One of Burke's main criticisms of the French philosophes is that, in their zeal to make society rational from the cozy confines of the Parisian salons, they forgot that actual human beings aren't really all that rational. Whereas Marx described a future system that had never existed anywhere before based on an entirely unrealistic view of human nature, Adam Smith did not invent "capitalism" or even give it a name; he simply described what happens organically throughout history whenever two or more people with different skills deal with one another.
How is Chile doing? Pretty good, as it turns out. "One of South America's most stable and prosperous nations." I wonder if part of the reason is because they're able to sell something they have a comparative advantage in making (wine) to people in other places?
Final question: do YOU like it when people tell you what to do? Or do you imagine yourself as one of the people who should be doing the telling?
No you
You know, if it wasn't for the fact that sockpuppeting got banned a while back, I'd assume that was someone else posting under your name.
Sounds like you work in academia--like I do. In those alternate reality conversations, I just nod and smile and sweetly say, "You know, the etymological meaning of 'utopia' is 'nowhere'."
The students nod and smile at the nuttiness of their professors but bear what they have to in order to get the grade and move on to achieve their goals. They are much more realistic and grounded in reality. They would not accept rule by such nutbag overlords for an instant. A lot of them hunt, and have guns, so that ain't happening any time soon. LOL
Megan:
do you know if the transcript of this will be made available?
as an aside:
I have read several anecdotes that describe Obama's rhetorical gift as one where no matter which side of an issue you are one, when Obama is done talking, everyong walks out of the room beleiving that he had just advocated their point of view.
I think a better description of Obama's rhetorical gift came from a businessman (banking, or maybe a lawyer for Chrysler's creditors) who voted for Obama last fall, and after dealing with him, called him "the most dangerous smooth-talker in the world."
Would this "businessman" prefer Hoover or FDR? I know which one I'd rather have. And would he have complained if the bondholders of the banks had to take a serious haircut?
Lets see. One had a 4 year disaster, the other had a 12 year disaster characterized by a depression only alleviated by world war.
Is there a 'none of the above' box?
Derek
That's a false choice. Both Hoover and FDR pursued ill-thought out, interventionist policies that may well have worsened and lengthened the economic downtown in the United States.
Yep, that's the Big O for ya--talk smooth and keep your pimp hand strong.
http://www.boingboing.net/200812171355.jpg
Would it be too much to ask for some idea of what he actually SAID? Check out the recent aspen posts by your colleagues Cohn and Fallows to see how this is done.
Unfortunately, I had an interview, and only showed up for the Q&A, which was pretty narrow, and outside of Goolsbee's areas of expertise.
Grundles,
Wow, I haven't seen such a thorough ass kicking since I once saw someone try to argue parliamentary procedure with Barney Frank.
I would say neither. The mere fact that Obama is now President probably explains it. Occam's Razor - if rise in hostility and fall in popularity happens to every single President in the period after taking office, it doesn't make much sense to attribute it to the particular policies of Obama without trying a general principle first. Especially because the decline in popularity since Obama took office is actually slower than that of both Bushes, Clinton and Reagan.
Continuing my tradition of thread hijacking (I wonder how long will Megan put up with this?), I just wanted to point out one of the first good texts I've seen against cap-and-trade. I don't agree with some of the assumptions of the post, and the analysis has its problems, but at least it doesn't rely on AGW denial.
Yes, its a low standard. But when you've witnessed the Dark Ages level of discourse of members of Congress on this issue, you can't afford to be picky. I'd say the post provides a reasonable basis for a productive discussion on the costs and merits of Waxman-Markey. Any thoughts on this?
I was just going to respond to that slap by Megan. And there weren't disadvantages to Bush's policies? Did Bush's people ever show up at the Aspen Ideas Festival?
I've only been here two years, and last year there was no one from the Bush administration.
Nimed, you're simply rephrasing what I said. Campaign proposals are always more popular than actual policies, because campaign proposals can be gloriously vague about the downsides.
I don't care what anyone says, I think it's wonderful what Obama is doing for Chinese industry.
I hear "climate change" translates to "ca-ching" in Mandarin.
Later?
Obviously, all you people who dare question the wisdom of The One, are not aware of the ONE SINGLE product that is going to pull the entire world out of recession. I predict that virtually every single person in the world will buy this, starting the single quickest economic comeback ever. Streets will be paved with gold.
While not actually invented by our dear leader, it was certainly inspired by him.
I present CHIA OBAMA
http://www.amazon.com/Chia-Obama-Handmade-Decorative-Planter/dp/B001PKU298
People who attend Aspen are very successful, and the questions he's being asked hit close to home for them: marginal income tax rates, taxation of worldwide corporate profits, H1B visas for foreign graduate students educated in America.
So, in other words, not of much interest to 98% of the rest of the U.S. Sounds like more of the rich and snobby discussing how they messed up things for the rest of the world.
Absolutely. When corporate profits are taxed, your pension fund benefits greatly. And they probably will hire many more people.
Derek
I wonder if Megan heard the interview that Goolbee did with "The Money Honey" yesterday on CNBC. Goolsbee admitted that the US is a paradox. Corporate tax rates are indeed high here. As he admitted, it is misleading because there are so many loopholes and deductions that the actual rate they pay is one of the lowest. Basically the tax structure is FUBAR.
I had been wondering why we even had this post. In part it seemed self aggrandizement, which is unusual. It also lacked some insightful and neglected analysis that is part of most posts. Having reflected on it, I see this post as belonging in the string of 'don't chose the presidential candidate, choose the principal economic adviser' hypothesis of a U. Chicago teacher and as a disappointed test of that hypothesis.
For those who currently find Obama's speeches convincing...you will likely find yourself getting conned a lot by many different people over the course of your life. He is fairly good, though I have seen better. I guess it is part of growing up. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.
So the marks are starting to twig to the con? Too late, suckers. Too late.
I think what you saw was an example of a broader trend going on below the radar but occasionally evident, as in the relatively small haul of campaign contributions that the Democrats were able to rake in last month at their events in DC and the fact that the Republicans have been able to match their fundraising, more or less. Obama's budget message contained blatant attacks on everyone who made money in the past few years and offended anyone who read it after having supported his campaign. Democrats lost sight of the fact that much of the momentum that brought them to power came from the imperative to end the Republican insanity in Iraq and on cultural, religious and climate issues and that their donor base rejects economic populism as much as it does any other kind of populism. Few contributors back the Democratic Party to be made poorer and insulted for being successful. Once the Repubilcan insanity on those issues has been corrected, a lot of donors are likely going to bail on the Democratic Party if its economic agenda continues to tack to the left. The time has actually never been better for a third party to form, as long as it is fiscally conservative and culturally liberal.
"The questions for Goolsbee are much more hostile than they were last year. I don't know whether to attribute this to the economy, or the fact that the disadvantages of Obama's policies are now apparent. "
Or maybe it is because he has become nothing but a highly credentialed flak, sent out onto the Sunday shows to defend the indefensible?
Seriously, I had some respect for this guy, though I disagreed with him politically - I saw him a couple weeks ago spinning like a dredel on crystal meth. There's no way he believes the crap he has to peddle and it shows.