How to Dodge a Difficult Question, and Links

http://econ.ucsd.edu/%7Evramey/research/IdentifyingGovt.pdf

Shocking only to Paul Krugman, increased government spending decreases private consumption. The multiplier seems to be between 0.6 and 1.1 in the short to medium run  - so if the government spends an additional X, the private spector will decrease spending by somewhere between 0.6X and 1.1X. I'd be interested to see if this is larger in the long - run because of the need to pile taxes on to pay down the spending.

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511794170939688.html

Return of the inflation tax that everyone thinks is unjust...

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517961189341646.html

No-cost provisions that would lower healthcare costs

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517303668357682.html

How to create new jobs and promote innovation. Love this article. Two of the four key points:

-Welcome immigrants seeking scientific training at our universities...grant permanent residency and work status (perhaps even automatic citizenship) to immigrants when they get their degrees in mathematics, engineering or the sciences from qualified universities. If an automatic green card is not politically feasible, then let's expand and rename the current "entrepreneur's" visa, which is limited to immigrants who bring at least $1 million to this country. Let's drop the $1 million capital requirement and award a renewable "job creator's" visa to immigrants who have founded a company here and demonstrated they have at least one employee.

 

-Unleash America's academic entrepreneurs. Currently, a university professor with an idea may commercialize it only by using his university's technology licensing office. This is an inefficient, monopolistic arrangement. University inventors should be able to use the licensing office of any other university or licensing agents not affiliated with universities, as long as they honor their royalty-sharing agreements with their universities. This would lead to much more rapid commercialization of government-funded research at universities.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?ref=opinion

Brooks on independents

 

 

How to Dodge a Difficult Question

Econ blogger Steve Waldman, who recently participated in a meeting with Treasury Department officials, takes note of the technique employed by officials to dodge difficult questions:

In response to a several difficult questions, one official enthused that what the interlocutor had brought up was an important concern, something he really cared about, but then quickly went on to assert that, in his judgment, it was unlikely to be the pivotal or most challenging problem. I thought this a very effective trick to sweep an issue aside, a kind of jujitsu by which the official would render very sharp comments harmless by moving with rather than fighting against the questioner. After this move, the only possible disagreement is a judgment call about which of many problems is most pressing, and whose judgment would be better than that of a senior official immersed daily in the practicalities of policy?

Clever. Agree that it's an important question, but not the most important question. Then turn to the more important question. Perhaps even present the "more important" question back to the audience for their oh-so-valued feedback.

He then goes on to note how the Treasury officials employed the oldest trick in the book: flattery.

Twice Treasury officials commented on how uncommon a group we were, how we asked particularly pointed questions or were unusually bright. To borrow a cliché, I'll bet they say that to all the groups. One official made use of an expletive early in his discussion, which had the effect of making us feel like insiders, like this was not the sort of canned, guarded conversation one might see on CNN. The same official was quick to address us by first name when responding to questions. That wasn't hard, since our names were in front of us, written on placards in large letters. But it was still effective. Being addressed so familiarly makes you feel important, like you are someone powerful people deem worth their while to know. Obviously, the reality distortion field wears off when you leave, once you think it over. But these guys are pretty good at what they do.

Flattery, false bonding, etc: Even if you know it's happening, it doesn't mean it's not effective.