or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
November 08, 2008
Keep On Screaming About Larry Summers
The deal appears not yet done to make Larry Summer Secretary of the Treasury. So if you haven't already, go sign this OpenLeft petition opposing him, for delivery to Obama's transition director John Podesta. Lots of people screaming outside may strengthen the people who apparently oppose him inside:
Barack Obama has been close to naming Larry Summers as the next Secretary of the Treasury, but the appointment is being held up by opposition to the brilliant but controversial economist...The discrepancy here suggests that behind the scenes, there is a powerful argument going on as to who is best for this job. Summers is brash and blunt, and he has quite a few detractors.
Meanwhile, Dean Baker describes Summers' contribution to our current catastrophe, and asks:
Given this record of failure, the question is how can Larry Summers still be considered for the top economic position in the Obama administration? This would be like appointing the arsonist who burned down the city as the new fire commissioner. We like to tell our children that success is rewarded and that failure is punished. But if Larry Summers ends up as Treasury secretary, what are we supposed to tell the children?
Finally, here's another reason to dislike Larry Summers. This one is only for connoisseurs.
In 2000, when Summers was Treasury Secretary, he made a very specific claim: that from 1980-2000, developing countries had "moved to the market and seen rapid growth in income."
The problem is this simply wasn't true. The countries that had most "moved to the market" had had far worse income growth from 1980-2000 compared to 1960-1980. Soon afterward Summers was asked about this at a think tank event, and he used all his brilliance to tap dance around for five minutes without answering the question.
The relevant excerpt is below, and the entire transcript of the exchange is here.
Q: My question has two parts. First of all, I want to--in the New York Times you were quoted as saying, "When history books are written 200 years from now, the last two decades of the 20th century, I am convinced that the end of the Cold War will be the second story. The first story will be about the appearance of emerging markets and about the fact that developing countries, where more than 3 billion live, have moved to the market and seen rapid growth in income."First, were you quoted correctly? And if so, what exactly did you mean by this?
According to the World Bank, Latin America grew between 1960 and '80--it grew 73 percent before the Washington Consensus. After 1980, during the period that you say it saw rapid growth, it was 5.6 percent.
Moreover, in Africa, per capita income grew at 34.3 percent from '60 to '80. Since '80, per capita income in Africa has fallen by 23 percent.
Some emerging markets, such as China and South Korea, have grown rapidly over the past 20 years, but then they did this in the previous 20 years as well and in the case have largely disregarded the Washington Consensus. Could you reconcile these statistics?
Sec. Summers: Thank you for your question. I was quoted correctly, and we'll only know 200 years from know whether I was exactly right in what I said about the history books 200 years from now.
But I think it's important for us all to recognize as we think about the global development effort, and as we think about the events of the past few days, that with all of the problems, with all of the disappointments, with all of the things that can be improved--and I'll say something about them in a moment, and I am choosing my words carefully now--the last two decades have seen more progress in improving the human condition globally than any two-decade period in human history. That that is there in the most concrete manifestations of the things that are most important to people: the fraction of their children who die before the age of five, the fraction of their children who learn to read, the fraction of children who lose their mother due to dread disease, the fraction of young girls around the world who are forced into child prostitution. The societies have been transformed in ways that people thought almost inconceivable two decades ago.
This room was, in the late 1970s, the site of more than one discussion of the--what was seen by many of those who participated--as the near-certainty of mass famine throughout Asia and the developing world during the 1990s. That did not happen. That progress is a reflection of many, many things; surely, the most important is the success of the countries themselves in pursuing economic policies that liberated the economic energy of their people and allowed growth to take place, but it is also a success of the movements towards greater global integration that have taken place during this period and it is a success of the global institutions that have been a part of all of that.
Does growth in developing countries need to be more equitable, more human-centered, more focused on health and education? Absolutely, it does. Do the institutions need to be much more transparent and accountable? Absolutely, they do. Do their programs need to be more sensitive to the people who live in villages and involve greater degrees of popular participation? Absolutely.
But let us all remember that there has been no substantial success in raising people's incomes and living standards without contact and resources from the rest of the world and that that is something that requires revenues from exports or foreign investment, or international foreign assistance, and that, if we are going to have progress, we have to find a way to have those things and to make it work for people. I hope I have addressed the concerns that were reflected in your question.
—Jonathan Schwarz
Posted at November 8, 2008 12:18 PMScreaming about Larry Summers is, at best, therapy for the screamers. Obama is a centrist and believes in the "wisdom" of expertise, no matter how thin, and in the benefits of experience, no matter how unsuccessful or harmful.
He's an insider and will appoint fellow insiders. What we will get is the Washington version of musical chairs, not change.
Can somebody who was around for Volcker tell me if Volcker would actually be any better than Summers, since he seems to be the inevitable alternative short of another Government Sachs guy like Rubin?
Cuz all I know is Greider's complaints about his jacking up interest rates and inducing the 1980 recession to kill inflation, and Volcker's report on the Oil For Food "scandal", which was, I thought, surprisingly honest, in so far as it basically said everything I'd been saying and confirmed my own biases, which is of course the golden standard for objective truth.
Posted by: buermann at November 8, 2008 02:22 PM...the last two decades have seen more progress in improving the human condition globally than any two-decade period in human history. That that is there in the most concrete manifestations of the things that are most important to people: the fraction of their children who die before the age of five, the fraction of their children who learn to read, the fraction of children who lose their mother due to dread disease, the fraction of young girls around the world who are forced into child prostitution.
Is that true?
Posted by: cemmcs at November 8, 2008 03:19 PMJust regarding infant mortality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=dmssa&part=A143&rendertype=table&id=A148
"Declines in infant mortality rates in Sub-Saharan Africa started to slow down considerably in the 1990s. These slow declines have meant that Sub-Saharan Africa has lagged more and more behind other regions and hence the mortality gap has widened."
Posted by: Alaya at November 8, 2008 04:58 PMAppointing the arsonist who burned down the city as the new fire commissioner makes more sense then appointing someone responsible enough for our current financial situation to the Secretary of the Treasury. For the arsonist to e successful it would require intimate knowledge of weakness of the cities fire protection systems so that they can be exploited. This person would know what to fix. In contrast the people who are responsible for our current mess made it by accident because of ignorance not an in depth knowledge of how to cripple our financial institutions. A more apt analogy would be replacing the fire commissioner with the city engineer who decided that the city didn't need a hydrant system because the sprinklers could handle most fires.
I'm also not convinced that the Secretary of Treasury will be the most important economic position in the country over the entirety of the next four years. Other people like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Board, or the Secretary of Commerce, two name two out of dozens of possible positions, may be the most important economic position over the next four years. The Secretary of the Treasury may be important for the next few months but after that it could keep or it could very well loose its importance depending of the specifics of what happens. Listening, watching, and reading most of the media I observe seams to assume that the Secretary of the Treasury will be the most important poison in President Obama's cabinet over his entire administration.
Posted by: Benjamin A. Schwab at November 8, 2008 05:33 PMThe last two decades have seen more progress in improving the human condition globally than any two-decade period in human history.
Of course this is true and Summers is absolutely correct. It's happened in India and China (about 2.5 billion people) plus a few other countries.
It's fair to point out that Africa hasn't done nearly as well. And it's fair to argue that the success of India and China wasn't due to "Washington Consensus" policies. But to deny the basic fact that there's been a tremendous and unprecedented improvement in the living standards of half the world's population is at best delusional.
@Ragout: Your tone is pretty harsh considering that no one here has denied it, only asked the question.
Since it is a basic and apparently obvious fact to you, can you suggest some good sources of data that back the claim?
Posted by: Nell at November 8, 2008 09:47 PMNo one here has denied it
And as I'm typing my response, the author of the original post jumps in to repeat his delusional claim. He denies that "the last two decades have seen more progress in improving the human condition globally than any two-decade period in human history." I've provided a link to a data source that supports Summer's claim. I don't suppose I can hope for anything similar from Jonathan Schwarz?
the author of the original post jumps in to repeat his delusional claim
Uh huh. How can Scott Ritter repeat his delusional claim that the IAEA didn't confirm in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program?
Anyway, it's nice of you to come visit from 2003, Ragout. You may be surprised to find how much things have changed around here in the past five years.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at November 9, 2008 01:52 AMSaddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program?
I'd defend myself, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Your link doesn't quote me as saying anything about Iraq. I am flattered that you still remember my comments from 2003.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I'm sure you don't.
Yes, when criticizing a reporter who accused some Israeli soldiers of wantonly killing some Palestinian stone-throwers, I pointed out that the very same reporter had quoted a Palestinian man -- Nezzar Rayan -- who encouraged his children to become martyrs. How is this relevant?
Yes, when criticizing a reporter who accused some Soviet soldiers of wantonly killing some Afghan stone-throwers, I pointed out that the very same reporter had quoted an Afghan man who encouraged his children to become martyrs. How is this relevant?
Just curious about the moral universe you live in, comrade.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at November 9, 2008 08:33 AMJust curious about the moral universe you live in, comrade.
I place a high value on figuring out how to extend the spectacular successes of India and China to other poor countries. You, however, seem to enjoy lying about people who cite well-documented facts that run counter to your ideology. But I'm glad that you're so easy to bait into intemperate remarks. You're pretty funny when you're sputtering nonsense.
I place a high value on figuring out how to extend the spectacular successes of India and China to other poor countries
Of course you do. I'm sure you sit every day in your office at the IMF, wondering why it's precisely the areas over which you and the US Treasury department have the least power that have made the most human progress. Will this perplexing mystery ever be solved?
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at November 9, 2008 12:41 PMObama doesn't care what you think about his advisors. Why can't people understand that? What are you going to do if he displeases you by appointing Summers? Nothing. If you were cowardly enough to vote for him this time you'll vote for him next time. He doesn't pick these people by accident. He didn't support the bailout because he thought it was politically helpful. He did it because his paymasters demand that money. He does what his creators tell him.
Posted by: Marcus at November 9, 2008 02:30 PMThe time for signing petitions and making phone calls to La Nan is long since past. There's only two things your political masters want - money and votes. Only pwoggies and freepers give these things away without first making a demand.
Posted by: AlanSmithee at November 10, 2008 02:05 PMAlanSmithee: Ended up with a Blackman for prez, a DEFINATE PROGRESSIVE WIN. What'd YOU guys get? (hey! EVEN the repugs TRIED to get a WOMAN in the WH, so good luck to U and URs on that kind of pwogwessiveness NEXT time)
Posted by: Mike Meyer at November 10, 2008 05:10 PM
