- Senator Sanders’s Proposed Policies and Economic Growth by Christina Romer and David Romer
- An Open Letter from Past CEA Chairs to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman
- FOMC: Conspiracists to the left of them, conspiracists to the right
- Pantheism and homotopy theory, Part 2
- Doing my homework: Heidegger, Latour on things
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- November 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
Dear Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman,
We are former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims. We have applied the same rigor to proposals by Democrats, and worked to ensure that forecasts of the effects of proposed economic policies, from investment in infrastructure, to education and training, to health care reforms, are grounded in economic evidence. Largely as a result of efforts like these, the Democratic party has rightfully earned a reputation for responsibly estimating the effects of economic policies.
We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme…
View original post 179 more words
Paul Krugman worries that the reason why the Fed hiked by a quarter point in December 2015, and won’t immediately reverse course, is that their judgement has been impaired by talking to too many who work in banking, which industry suffers from very low interest rates.
As Paul noted in one of his earlier blogs, there are those on the right of the Fed who think that rates are so low, and quantitative easing was undertaken, as part of a liberal conspiracy to help Obama; or, to impoverish those who live off savings.
If I was on the FOMC, I’d probably feel comfortable that there were conspiracists accusing me of having been corrupted by interest groups on opposing sides.
Addressing PK’s most recent charge, his worry seems pretty unlikely to me. The FOMC had no problem dropping interest rates like a stone – from 5.5%, to 0.25% – when the…
View original post 307 more words
Every mathematician should probably read Vladimir Voevodsky’s article in the Summer 2014 IAS Letter. Only time will tell whether it will be remembered as a historic document of the highest importance; in the meantime, it can be read as an unusually lucid and frank account of what the subtitle calls a Personal Mission to Develop Computer Proof Verification to Avoid Mathematical Mistakes. Voevodsky tells a few stories about subtle mistakes in important papers, including his own, that left him uneasy. I’ll skip ahead to the happy ending.
I now do my mathematics with a proof assistant. I have a lot of wishes in terms of getting this proof assistant to work better, but at least I don’t have to go home and worry about having made a mistake in my work. I know that if I did something, I did it, and I don’t have to come back to…
View original post 938 more words
Heidegger The Thing, quotes:
All distances in time and space are shrinking. […] Man […] now receives instant information […] of events which he formerly learned about only years later, if at all.
Yet the frantic abolition of all distances brings no nearness; for the nearness does not consist in shortness of distance. […] Short distance is not in itself nearness. Nor is great distance remoteness.
What is this uniformity in which everything is neither far nor near — is, as it were, without distance?
Everything gets lumped together into uniform distancelessness. How? Is not this merging of everything into the distanceless more unearthy than everything bursting apart?
Near to us are what we usually call things. The jug is a thing. What is a jug? We say: a vessel […] As a jug, the vessel is something self-sustained […] self-supporting, or independent.
An independent, self-supporting thing may become…
View original post 119 more words
I’ve been very delinquent about posting radio shows to the archive—sorry. Here’s a batch. There’s a break in the middle for KPFA fundraising (three weeks) and my racing to finish my book on Hillary Clinton (one week).
Speaking of KPFA fundraising, this Behind the News would not exist were it not for that excellent radio station. Please contribute (and mention BtN if you do).
September 10, 2015 Megan Marcelin, author of this and this, puts the post-Katrina gentrification of New Orleans into historical and theoretical perspective • Josh Bivens, co-author of this, on the gap between productivity and pay
August 27, 2015 DH on…
View original post 48 more words