Top Thinkers on the Global Economy: Your Daily Briefing

-

daniel mandel twn.jpgMy New America Foundation colleague Daniel Mandel spends the wee hours of the morning every work day assembling an often amazing, comprehensive roster of some of the best articles on the American economy.
I have his permission to forward this daily email to those who would like to have it. I will assemble a listserv and blind copy to those interested in it.
If you would like to receive this daily email, send me a private note at “steve@thewashingtonnote.com” or “clemons@newamerica.net” and just say Subcribe/Econ List. I will then send it out to those who are interested after he sends to me.
Here was Daniel Mandel’s email today of the “Top Thinkers on the Global Economy”:

30 January 2009
GDP Declines 3.8% in Q4
Calculated Risk, 30 January 2009
A proposal to prevent wholesale financial failure
Lasse Pedersen and Nouriel Roubini, Financial Times, 29 January 2009
Bank regulation, such as the Basel accord, ignores systemic risk since it analyses the risk of each bank in isolation, write Lasse Pedersen and Nouriel Roubini.
Deflation is the wrong enemy
Samuel Brittan, Financial Times, 29 January 2009
A sustained period of falling prices has sometimes been associated with falling output, but not always, writes Samuel Brittan.
Why this hysteria about sterling is misplaced
George Magnus, Financial Times, 29 January 2009
Sterling may decline further, mercifully. But it is hysterical to imagine that a debt default and currency crisis are likely, writes George Magnus.
Health Care Now
Paul Krugman, New York Times, 30 January 2009
Why has the Obama administration been silent about one of the key promises during the campaign — the promise of guaranteed health care for all Americans?
Cleaner and Faster
David Brooks, New York Times, 30 January 2009
The Democrats have created a stimulus package that is a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord. By trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well.
Social Security on the First Date
Ramesh Ponnuru, New York Times, 30 January 2009
Real cooperation between Democrats and Republicans on Social Security could pave the way for bipartisan bliss.
Time to put middle class front and center
Joe Biden, USA Today, 30 January 2009
For years, we had a White House that failed to put the middle class front and center in its economic policies. President Obama has made it clear that is going to change. And it’s why he has asked me to lead a task force on the middle class.
The GOP’s Unanimous Vote on the Stimulus Bill
Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, 30 January 2009
Republicans should beware the fate of those who fail to recognize a new political era.
Democratic Stealth Care
Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
With the nation preoccupied by the financial crisis, Democrats have been quietly qorking nationalize health care.
Sovereign Debt Risk Looms Large This Year
Ulrich Volz, Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
The U.S. shouldn’t consume all the available lending.
‘Think Long’ to Solve the Crisis
George P. Shultz, Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
It’s the only way to sustain lasting benefits from the stimulus.
Loan Modification Can Stop the Foreclosure Crisis
John Conyers Jr., Wall Street Journal, 30 January 2009
Change bankruptcy law to keep people in their homes.
A free pass for the indispensable man
Jonah Goldberg, Chicago Tribune, 29 January 2009
Obama and pretty much the entire Democratic Party insist that they speak for the little guy. But it appears they fight for the big guys.
Old ways cloud the dawn of a new bipartisan era
Editorial, USA Today, 30 January 2009
House stimulus vote shows parties aren’t serious about collaboration.
Opposing view: GOP has a better plan
John Boehner, USA Today, 30 January 2009
Democrats’ bill, crafted without us, is unworthy of bipartisan support.
Opposing view: History repeats itself
Steny Hoyer, USA Today, 30 January 2009
Once again, Republicans choose confrontation over cooperation.
Just how much is $350 billion?
Brad Setser: Follow the Money, 30 January 2009
Any Lessons for the Stimulus from World War II?
Brad DeLong, 29 January 2009
Paul Krugman pounds his head against the wall.
Fed Watch: More Will they or Won’t They or When Will They
Mark Thoma: Economist’s View, 30 January 2009
Blanchard roundtable
Free Exchange, 30 January 2009
Noted economists reply to this week’s Economics Focus column by Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s chief economist.

Let me know by email if you would like to receive this resource on a daily basis.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

36 comments on “Top Thinkers on the Global Economy: Your Daily Briefing

  1. Aluminum Casting says:

    someone comes along and offers something that may be of value to others, and some come and shit on it.it says more about the person then what is being offered

    Reply

  2. dış cephe says:

    I think poor Mr. Mandel has come in for some harsh criticism here only because the list is misleadingly titled.

    Reply

  3. mantolama says:

    There are qualified economists offering informed and challenging views every day on the US and global economy. It is also certainly important to keep track of what the punditry are saying about government policy, because their words influence public opinion. But to call what the latter are saying some of the “top thinking” on the US economy is a bit of a low blow to professional economics, who have spent years developing expertise in an area these pundits cover much more superficially.

    Reply

  4. söve says:

    Its a shame you aren’t offering a more substantial response, outlining for us the logic employed in your choice of “top thinkers”, and your own feelings about the individual advocations of each “thinker” listed.

    Reply

  5. Patrick Cronin says:

    Steve,
    Just a couple of post-Davos thoughts. First, let us be humble: after all, some of the top business leaders and pundits of last year are no longer in view. Audrey and I participated in one excellent workshop at Davos that was hosted by Moises Naim on the subject of his recent article about whether economics was a bankrupt discipline in light of the global financial crisis. Most (one Nobel prize winner was a notable exception) sloughed off the criticsm of economics, which they insisted was alive and well and even the ‘queen of the social sciences.’ Yet it should have been obvious that many of the ‘top economists’ have been wearing blinders: ignoring the human element, history, and culture, among other things. Perhaps we are all subject to our own bounded rationality.
    Secondly, just a glum word about the global financial crisis: there is not yet an end in sight and America is being sharply discounted. The world appears teetering on the brink of (near-)depression and protectionism, on the one hand, or a new economic order much more led by China and other emerging economies, on the other hand. I was surprised to see the degree to which President Obama’s election has not quelled criticism of the United States: the main difference is that rather than aiming vitriol at the President, critics now take pot shots at America’s diminished position because of its unsustainable economic model. There is some steep–and I think excessive–discounting going on around the world about the United States.
    Patrick
    Thank you for this service.

    Reply

  6. Econ junkie says:

    Eh, Mr. Mandel won’t make it mroe than 2 months here. I’d say he could more over to PJTV, but oh wait, they’re off the “air.” This is gonna be fun to watch.

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Daniel……..
    You are to be commended. A pitiful few of the Washington folk that are pilloried here in the TWN comment section take the time to respond, even in the shallow and terse manner that you just offered.
    Its a shame you aren’t offering a more substantial response, outlining for us the logic employed in your choice of “top thinkers”, and your own feelings about the individual advocations of each “thinker” listed.
    But on a more personal note, I sincerely hope you recognize and understand where the cynicism exhibited here is rooted. I mean, you think-tankers, and the shining stars in our country’s leadership, have not exactly turned in a stellar performance these last coupla decades, have you?
    I express the hope that you understand the cynicism because it is my belief that some of you are so effin’ out of touch with reality that I honestly believe you DON’T understand the cynicism, and actually believe you are doing a bang-up job with your policy advocations, analyses, and projected navigations of our country’s course.
    And fear not, Mandel, I can assure you that Goldberg wins hands down the “who is most hated” trophy between the two of you. But you’re young. There’s yet time for you to rise to the top. I mean hey, isn’t being loathed a badge of honor in Washington? It must be, because it seems 99.9% of you strive to achieve it.

    Reply

  8. Daniel Mandel says:

    I can’t tell who you guys hate more–me or Jonah Goldberg.
    I’ve read your comments. Some of them are helpful, some
    misguided. I may even listen to some of you–that is, only if you
    sign up to get my briefing.

    Reply

  9. Dan Kervick says:

    I think poor Mr. Mandel has come in for some harsh criticism here only because the list is misleadingly titled. The title, “Top Thinkers on the Global Economy” does not quite convey the apparent purpose of the compendium. Mandel’s list seems to be a combination of some actual op tthinking on the economy from qualified people, and some political reactions to economic policy from the punditry of the right and left.
    There are qualified economists offering informed and challenging views every day on the US and global economy. It is also certainly important to keep track of what the punditry are saying about government policy, because their words influence public opinion. But to call what the latter are saying some of the “top thinking” on the US economy is a bit of a low blow to professional economics, who have spent years developing expertise in an area these pundits cover much more superficially.
    This list of articles looks like a daily briefing for politicians, who have to keep track both of what the experts are saying, and how the issues are playing in the broader public sphere. Something like “Daily US Economic Policy Briefing” would have been less misleading.

    Reply

  10. pauline says:

    “questioning the role timothy geithner has been given especially in light of his behaviour. . .”
    BTW, I heard Pat Buchanan this past week say Geithner had to be okayed as Treasury Sec because he’s the only one who understands TARP and the Bailout inner workings.
    Pardon my gagging, but what does it mean for this country if the Treasury Sec doesn’t know/follow the IRS Code and Regulations?
    One of GW’s empty promises in ’04 was to simply the IRS Code so Americans could save billions each year filing their taxes. Yea, right.
    “Money doesn’t talk, it swears. . .”

    Reply

  11. ... says:

    asdf – i read the goldberg article and found it a worthwhile read… questioning the role timothy geithner has been given especially in light of his behaviour makes a lot of sense.. i’m surprised they have decided on him for secretary treasury, especially in light of his actions… you are being silly and miss the point of this post…

    Reply

  12. asdf says:

    You gotta be kidding me…
    Jonah Goldberg on the same list as Paul Krugman, as a “top thinker” of the global economy.
    Paying knee-jerk attention to a clown like Goldberg is a fool’s errand, and repeating the worst mistakes of the media and the beltway crowd. Elevating failed thinking and ideology in the name of “bipartisanship”.
    Your list might be more “amazing” and “comprehensive” if it stops rewarding failures and pseudo-intellectuals like Goldberg

    Reply

  13. JD says:

    Forget politics for the time being. Can you pass my phone number along to Daniel Mandel? Hot!

    Reply

  14. pauline says:

    January 28, 2009
    Astonishing Incongruities
    Is It Time to Bail Out of the US?
    By Paul Craig Roberts
    California State Controller John Chiang announced on January 26 that California’s bills exceed its tax revenues and credit line and that the state is going to print its own money known as IOUs. The template is already designed.
    Instead of receiving their state tax refunds in dollars, California residents will receive IOUs. Student aid and payments to disabled and needy will also come in the form of IOUs. California is negotiating with banks to get them to accept the IOUs as deposits.
    California is often identified as the world’s eighth largest economy, and it is broke.
    A person might think that California’s plight would introduce some realism into Washington, DC, but it has not. President Obama is taking steps to intensify the war in Afghanistan and, perhaps, to expand it to Pakistan.
    Obama has retained the Republican warmongers in the Pentagon, and the US continues to illegally bomb Pakistan and to murder its civilians. At the World Economic Forum at Davos this week, Pakistan’s prime minister, Y. R. Gilani, said that the American attacks on Pakistan are counterproductive and done without Pakistan’s permission. In an interview with CNN, Gilani said: “I want to put on record that we do not have any agreement between the government of the United States and the government of Pakistan.”
    How long before Washington will be printing money?
    On January 28 Obama announced his $825 billion bailout plan. This comes on top of President Bush’s $700 billion bailout of just a few months ago.
    Obama says his plan will be more transparent than Bush’s and will do more good for the economy.
    As large as the bailouts are–a total of $1.5 trillion in four months–the amount is small in relation to the reported size of troubled assets that are in the tens of trillions of dollars. How do we know that by June there won’t be another bailout, say $950 billion?
    Where will the money come from?
    Obama’s bailout plan, added to the FY 2009 budget deficit he has inherited from Bush, opens a gaping expenditure hole of about $3 trillion.
    Who is going to purchase $3 trillion of US Treasury bonds?
    Not the US consumer. The consumer is out of work and out of money. Private sector credit market debt is 174% of GDP. The personal savings rate is 2 percent. Ten percent of households are in foreclosure or arrears. Household debt-service ratio is at an all-time high. Household net worth has declined at a record rate. Housing inventories are at record highs.
    Not America’s foreign creditors. At best, the Chinese, Japanese, and Saudis can recycle their trade surpluses with the US into Treasury bonds, but the combined surplus does not approach the size of the US budget deficit.
    Perhaps another drop in the stock market will drive Americans’ remaining wealth into “safe” US Treasury bonds.
    If not, there’s only the printing press.
    The printing press would turn a deflationary depression into an inflationary depression.
    Unemployment combined with rising prices would be a killer.
    Inflation would kill the dollar as well, leaving the US unable to pay for its imports.
    All the Obama regime sees is a “credit problem.” But the crisis goes far beyond banks’ bad investments. The United States is busted. Many of the state governments are busted. Homeowners are busted. Consumers are busted. Jobs are busted. Companies are busted.
    And Obama thinks he has the money to fight wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    Except for the superrich and those banksters and CEOs who stole wealth from investors and shareholders, Americans have suffered enormous losses in wealth and income.
    The stock market decline has destroyed about 45% of their IRAs, 401Ks, and other equity investments. On top of this comes the decline in home prices, lost jobs and health care, lost customers. The realized gains in mutual funds and investment partnerships, on which Americans paid taxes, have been wiped out.
    The government should give those taxes back.
    Americans who have seen their retirement savings devastated by complicity of government regulators and lawmakers with financial gangsters should not have to pay any income tax when they draw on their pensions.
    The financial damage inflicted on Americans by their own government is as great as would be expected from foreign conquest. While Washington “protected” us from terrorists by fighting pointless wars abroad, the US economy collapsed.
    How can President Obama even think about fighting wars half way around the world while California cannot pay its bills, while Americans are being turned out of their homes, while, as Business Week reports, retirees will work throughout their retirement (which assumes that there will be jobs), while careers are being destroyed and stores and factories shuttered.
    Americans are facing tremendous unemployment and hardship. Obama doesn’t have another dollar to spend on Bush’s wars.
    Taxpayers are busted. They cannot stand another day of being milked by the military-security complex. The US government is paying private mercenaries more by the day than the monthly checks it is providing to Social Security retirees.
    This is insanity.
    The banksters robbed us twice. First it was our home and stock values. Then the government rewarded the banksters for their misdeeds by bailing out the banksters, not their victims, and putting the cost on the taxpayers’ books.
    The government has also robbed the taxpayers of $3 trillion dollars to fight its wars. About $600 billion are out of pocket costs, and the rest is on the taxpayers’ books.
    When foreign creditors look at the debt piled on the taxpayers’ books, they don’t see a good credit risk.
    Washington is so accustomed to ripping off the taxpayers for the benefit of special interests that the practice is now in the DNA. While bailouts are being piled upon bailouts, wars are being piled upon wars.
    Before Obama gets in any deeper, he must ask his economic team where the money is coming from. When he finds out, he needs to tell the rest of us.
    ***************************
    Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
    source:
    http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090128_incongruities.htm

    Reply

  15. Paul Norheim says:

    Well said, rich,
    and I agree: it`s partly the “Top Thinkers” in the title, and “best
    articles” in the main text that upsets some people.
    If I were asked to recommend some books or articles to read,
    related to American foreign policy during the last, say, 20 years,
    I would certainly recommend something from Fukoyama,
    Huntington, and Brzezinski. Whether I agree or disagree with
    their analysis or not (and I often disagree) is actually completely
    irrelevant, if the task is to mention texts that have influenced
    the political and intellectual debate and mindset related to the
    topic.
    POA often suggests that people should monitor the AIPAC
    website, and has also suggested that I should check out the
    propaganda from right wing radio and TV hosts like Hannity,
    Limbaugh etc. Simply because you can`t understand a certain
    segment of the American people and how their mindset is
    manipulated without seeing how these people operate.
    These are just a couple of examples. The misleading title aside
    – it looks as if certain people only want to read material that
    confirms their own convictions and enhances their own
    ideological purity. And then they seem to think that those who
    suggest reading some articles must agree with the message in
    those articles (I.e. to agree with Brooks AND Krugman). This is
    stupid.
    The great thing about Steve is that he doesn`t suffer from
    tunnel vision, like some of his angriest critics.

    Reply

  16. rich says:

    Mandel’s working hard and should be commended. So sign me up.
    But there’s still a lot of ‘sifting and winnowing’ that I’ll have to do within Mandel’s list–as well as outside of it.
    The stark disjuncture between “Top [Economic] Thinkers” headline and a few political operatives on the list is what set off your critics upthread, Steve. Brooks and Goldberg among others regularly misname available facts and re-frame the public debate in less-than-honest terms. They are not–by definition–‘top economic thinkers’. That’s not what they do. (But you know that.)
    Mandel’s list is a comprehensive list of articles from pundits, politicians, economists, PR pros and memeshapers, some of which is hard news, some spin. The post could use a better headline: It is not a weekly anthology of Most Brilliant Economic Thinkers.
    Folks like Stiglitz, Krugman, Galbraith, and Kuttner are truth-squadding the wave of disinformation actively propogated by some who made Mandel’s list. (Consider reactionary economists and be reminded the battle for perception & power is also fought within the field of economics.)
    Steve obviously uses Mandel’s email within a different framework. Monitoring the rhetorical thrust and parry as major interest groups frame attacks and spin issues, and operatives like Brooks catapult the RNC’s propaganda, is a requirement for shifting your own set of policies forward. Navigating that landscape of competing factions means knowing where everybody’s going so you can counter it.
    The critics upthread are looking for effective policies by accurate, brilliant thinkers. They too see the whole battlefield; but want some recognition of who’s got the right factual ammunition. People are really hungry for some recognition of the very nasty game being played by Republican operatives like David Brooks—and this is particularly critical right now, at this point in history.
    One example: over the past week or so, the media has willingly flooded our national debate with the notion that Prznt. Obama’s stimulus package would not even be spent within 18 months (end 2010), supposedly delaying any stimulative impact! –even though Republicans have done exactly zero for months (make that years) to stimulate the economy.
    They cite a CBO study—one that it turns out doesn’t even exist. Yet David Brooks continues to opine that there is no stimulus, just pork, in the package. Even though the CBO analysis referred to was preliminary, and ONLY analyzed ~$280 billion, not the whole package – and was subsequently adjusted so more of that portion could be spent in 2010 – we still had major journalists and pundits hitting the erroneous theme over and over again, days later, that the whole package was deeply flawed and based on a partisan agenda.
    The debunking ricocheted around the interwebs seven days ago, from HuffPo to Political Animal (Benen) to Yglesias to digby. The Republican lie had an inexplicable persistence: Halperin and Brooks and Stephanopolopolous just couldn’t wrap their head around a few simple facts–and kept repeating the claim and spreading the meme.
    So your readers, Steve, are just hungry for some truth. And some Realism. The cites follow below —
    Benen (Political Animal):
    “It appears that the preliminary, incomplete numbers put together by the CBO were distributed to a small handful of lawmakers in both parties earlier in the week. Someone (Republican congressional offices) then passed the misleading data onto the AP, which predictably ran with the incomplete numbers, telling the public that it “will take years before an infrastructure spending program proposed by President-elect Barack Obama will boost the economy.”
    Other major media outlets quickly followed, and voila, Republicans had a talking point: “Boehner and other Republican aides roamed the Capitol press galleries, flogging the CBO numbers.”
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016586.php
    _____
    Huffpo:
    “Funny thing is, there is no such report.
    “We did not issue any report, any analysis or any study,” a CBO aide told the Huffington Post.
    Rather, the nonpartisan CBO ran a small portion of an earlier version of the stimulus plan through a computer program that uses a standard formula to determine a score — how quickly money will be spent. The score only dealt with the part of the stimulus headed for the Appropriations Committee and left out the parts bound for the Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce Committee.
    Because it dealt with just a part of the stimulus, it estimated the spending rate for only about $300 billion of the $825 billion plan. Significant changes have been made to the part of the bill the CBO looked at.”
    _____
    Yglesias:
    “…the CBO didn’t score large swathes of the stimulus.”
    “OMB Director Peter Orszag ma[de] these points:
    “The Congressional Budget Office recently released an analysis of a component of the economic recovery proposal; that analysis, however, did not assess the overall package. Our analysis indicates that at least 75 percent of overall package (including its tax component and the other spending provisions that were not analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office) will be spent over the next year and a half.”
    _____
    Steve, I know you’re aware of all this. But you can see why people do not want to hear Boehner or Brooks referred to as “Top Thinkers on the Global Economy.”
    They’re agenda-driven partisans who have no interest in stimulating the economy, and to the extent they understand it, aren’t in the business of jump-starting a recovery that includes the rest of us.

    Reply

  17. ... says:

    lighten up folks… someone comes along and offers something that may be of value to others, and some come and shit on it.. it says more about the person then what is being offered..

    Reply

  18. arthurdecco says:

    “Guys, grow up…Daniel Mandel deserves a bit of respect for the hard work he does every single day on this list.” Steve Clemons
    From all reports, Cheney is a hard worker too. As someone else on this thread has already stated, your argument is specious.
    “So, bitch at me later on other posts — but leave him alone.” Steve Clemons
    What’s up with you, Mr. Clemons? Some of your posters rightly point out the vacuousness of this young man’s positive opinions of the media hacks we all know and loathe for their innate dishonesty and you pull a pout and stamp your well-shod feet in his defense?
    Who is it that needs to grow up?
    The fact that a person who holds these dangerous, (yes, dangerous!) opinions has been chosen to select the articles you enthusiastically recommend we read is not just troubling – it’s frightening. As if his obvious bias doesn’t seep into everything he touches. I freely admit to being a compilation of my prejudices and hard-won-over-a-lifetime-opinions. I suspect Daniel Mandel is equally a collection of his own. And his opinions aren’t nearly as benign as mine if he can claim that an intellectual gnat like Jonah Goldberg is a “Top Thinker on the Global Economy”.
    I have no interest in allowing another obvious ideologue-with-an-agenda to shovel his personally selected, slanted version of events and/or news into my mailbox just because he’s been strategically placed in a position to do so. I’m beyond caring what simpletons, right wing apologists and propagandists want me to think.
    I prefer the opinions and gentle guidance of sensible and honest, well-informed people who fight tirelessly to fill in the blanks with balance and integrity – not those who consider Jonah Goldberg a beacon of insight.
    Speaking as a reader of your blog who, on the whole, admires the work you do here: Get a grip, Mr. Clemons. You appear to be losing your objectivity and what I’ve always considered your highly developed sense of fair play. Not to mention your sense of humour.

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Mylroie? What rock is she hiding under these days?”
    Uhm, under Gates’ rock. And he’s under Obama’s rock.
    And, neither one of them seem to feel the need to hide. It seems they all find their surroundings quite comfortable.
    Sing us all a ditty about “change”, Barry boy.

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Get out now. Don’t visit this site. Let it become an echo chamber for idiots, and rightly fail”
    Well, isn’t that nice.
    Hemorrhoids botherin’ ya?
    I’m sure that all us “idiots” and “lackeys” here appreciate your advice, and will promptly flee the premises before Steve’s blog collapses under the wieght of his right wing leanings.
    Listen asshole, the fact that you call Steve’s blog participants “lackeys” simply tells me that you haven’t exposed yourself to this blog’s comment section long enough to build an informed opinion, so I can only assunme you have an ax to grind that you aren’t revealing.
    Like I said, my bet is hemorrhoids. I could be wrong, of course, and it could just be early onset impotence, but the arrogance of your post seems to nix that theory.
    If you can find me a blog where the host is as willing as Steve is to accept, tolerate, and engage criticism, than I’m all ears. But in the meantime, if I was you, I’d get some medication for those puppies, they are obviously causing you considerable discomfort.

    Reply

  21. Cee says:

    Mylroie? What rock is she hiding under these days?

    Reply

  22. Econ junkie says:

    We have shark-jumpage, repeat we have shark-jumpage. Steve won’t address address Iraq, won’t address Laurie Mylroie, and shows up himself to (and admonishes his lackeys to) defend a wingnut-welfare candidate as an economics expert. Get out now, sane people, and spread the word that TWN is now back in the establishment Republican camp. An establishment, I might add, that is now a rump, regional, permanent minority party. Get out now. Don’t visit this site. Let it become an echo chamber for idiots, and rightly fail.

    Reply

  23. Jim says:

    Guys — grow up.
    A rather ironic admonition to use in defense of Jonah Goldberg.

    Reply

  24. Econ junkie says:

    Correction: “you’re claim” should read “your claim.”

    Reply

  25. Econ junkie says:

    Steve, you’re claim that early critics of this new Mandel guy are outnumbered, based on the fact that comments critical of his choices of authors to highlight are outnumbered by requests for his aggregation of their articles on the “global economy”, is simply specious. And, what’s up with the thin skin over this Mandel kid? Jesus H. Christ. If he wants to weigh in on the “global economy” he’d better get used to not having a shoulder to cry on everytime people disagree with him.

    Reply

  26. Ben Rosengart says:

    Jonah Goldberg is really a laughingstock. It’s not about
    ideological purity, it’s about being a serious person and writing
    things you can stand behind.
    I’d be interested if the list were maybe 1/3 as long. As it is, it’s
    too much to even skim on a daily basis.
    Thanks anyway.

    Reply

  27. pauline says:

    I like Paul Krugman’s “Health Care Now” article.
    “The Obama campaign speeches were full of promises for reform of national health care. And as Krugman writes, “The whole world is in recession. But the United States is the only wealthy country in which the economic catastrophe will also be a health care catastrophe — in which millions of people will lose their health insurance along with their jobs, and therefore lose access to essential care.”
    IMO, Krugman is in touch with today’s economic realities.
    If Barry’s done yelling at big bankers, how about
    if he starts revealing some concrete plans on national health care reform?
    Tens of millions need it NOW. . .a limp plan two years from now won’t do it.

    Reply

  28. Steve Clemons says:

    Guys — grow up. This is an aggregation of major articles out there — without bias. The articles are ones that cover the spectrum but which are important for those working on economic policy at the New America Foundation. I’ve had hundreds of people already ask for it….so your views are a distinct minority.
    I read Jonah Goldberg, David Brooks, and many others out there — whether I agree with them or not as it is important not to wall oneself off from the debate.
    You folks do what you want — but Daniel Mandel deserves a bit of respect for the hard work he does every single day on this list.
    So, bitch at me later on other posts — but leave him alone.
    Thanks, Steve Clemons

    Reply

  29. Steve Clemons says:

    Guys — grow up. This is an aggregation of major articles out there — without bias. The articles are ones that cover the spectrum but which are important for those working on economic policy at the New America Foundation. I’ve had hundreds of people already ask for it….so your views are a distinct minority.
    I read Jonah Goldberg, David Brooks, and many others out there — whether I agree with them or not as it is important not to wall oneself off from the debate.
    You folks do what you want — but Daniel Mandel deserves a bit of respect for the hard work he does every single day on this list.
    So, bitch at me later on other posts — but leave him alone.
    Thanks, Steve Clemons

    Reply

  30. Bill R. says:

    Top thinkers??? Come on, Steve. Boehner, Hoyer, Brooks, Goldberg, Ponnuru,.. These are political hacks, not top thinkers.

    Reply

  31. Sam Rodgers says:

    Did I really just read a post with the words “Top
    Thinkers on Global Economy” above the name of
    Jonah Goldberg?
    On this blog no less?

    Reply

  32. Econ junkie says:

    You’ve got to be kidding me Steve. Mandel includes Jonah Goldberg and David Brooks among his “Top Thinkers on the Global Economy.” How hard is it to find a few Econ blogs and Econ news aggregators, and then just forward their links as your own surmising on important economics stories? And Mandel’s choices don’t even show good judgment in that regard. Ridiculous stuff, and you hype him as guru enough to be worthy of having his recommendations become some sort of special e-mail offering from TWN?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *