I have no love of RBT (came and went long after my time in grad school), but did it have ANY impact at all on the Fed's failure to maintain aggregate demand 2008-2020?
CDC admits mistakes: "This raises the question of why we insisted in so many crazy precautions for these same young children for so long, in ways that I strongly believe did serious damage to their development and well-being."
The same question for why the roll out of the vaccines (delayed for "risk theater" reasons) were "promoted' by hyping their safety rant then their net-of-risk benefits to people big vaccinated and those the vaccinated did not infect.
"For now, however, we’re tackling climate change with carrots, not sticks, with subsidies, not taxes. And that’s OK."
No, it's not "OK" it jut better than nothing, but so is a ham sandwich.
But what is really NOT "OK" is Krugman wasting his time and influence reassuring NYT readers that their opinions are "OK" rather than trying to push for what he very well know we should be doing, taxing net CO2 emissions
I have followed up with another message to Fresh Air. I don't have a lot of faith that they take over the transom suggestions very seriously, but electrons are cheap.
Burke mentions Jefferson's 'contradictions': I'm wondering if you ever worked through ('reading' is a not-quite-adequate term) Gary Wills' "Inventing America" (1978), which took a Hutcheson-not-Locke view in an attempt to find a non-contradictory (though not blameless) Jefferson. Yes, Wills attempts to parse Jefferson out of the dominant Scottish-Enlightenment influences "of his time," but when I picked up the book last winter (after ~45 years), it seemed eerily contemporary; Hutcheson's moral and social theories (if not Jefferson's) provided an interesting take, not just on racism, but on the seemingly-irreducible cultural-regional divisions in the US that you have so often called out. (Not wanting to suggest the book is any kind of 'answer' - just curious if you have a view on it.)
In response to the EU looking at solar power a question arises. If they use microwave radiation to beam the power to earth what happens when it is cloudy? The water vapor in the cloud will heat up, the overall energy of the weather system will increase and, I suspect, bad things will come to those on the ground. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Academics need to be talking more about the CDC's mea culpa. The headline story is "CDC admits mistakes" is burying the more important story that its mistakes stem from a culture that has changed from its creation as a functional response agency to its current cultural form as yet another academic department. While its purpose is to put science to practice it has become yet another chaser of journal rankings. Public universities, especially the Land Grant ones, need to be paying attention to this. Who are you serving and how?
I'm not sure THAT is CDC's problem. How does being "academic" lead them not to provide, as best they could, policy makers with the information they needed to use cost benefit analysis to craft response strategies?
Don't shoot the messenger. It's not my take, it's theirs. "Dr. Walensky laid out her basic conclusion from the review in candid terms: The C.D.C. must refocus itself on public health needs, respond much faster to emergencies and outbreaks of disease, and provide information in a way that ordinary people and state and local health authorities can understand and put to use....The C.D.C. has been criticized for years as being too academic and insular. The coronavirus pandemic brought those failings into public view, with even some of the agency’s staunchest defenders criticizing its response as inept."
I'm not shooting the messenger about the fact the CDC needs reform but why. "Academic" and "insular" do not seem to me to be the problem. Was it insularity that led CDC to emphasize the risks of vaccines over their benefits? Was it being "academic" that led to schools being closed rather than well ventilated possibly with test to stay for teachers and students?
OK, I'll bite. You think the answer to your questions is a rhetorical "no." I think the answer to both of your questions is absolutely "yes." When a public health agency has "one job" but lets their academic discussions spill into talk shows, tweets, call-in programs and their communication mimics more that of an academic department head or university president trying to explain why the faculty are saying a bunch of different things and causing confusion rather than do the one job they are supposed to do. And, yes, if you have a culture that chases academic papers and is rewarded for that, you will eventually lose touch with the job that Congress has given you. That happened. From my perspective, Wallensky's argument plays out all across academia and the fact the public has lost respect for the CDC messing up its messaging is no different than the lack of respect the public has for much of research in public higher ed. Not all of the reasons have to be the same, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
The CDC let its "academic" discussion spill out in public? This seems to me the opposite. There was zero transparency about why recommendation X was cost effective for situation Y at time T and place P. Recommendation did not at all seem to follow the science about how the virus spread, how case loads should affect behavior and policy. Why did we never get any contingent predictions, if policies x1 are followed spread will be S1, but if x2 is followed we will get x2 and then update the model that gave them those predictions if they did not turn out. THAT would be academic.
Yes, nice of you to throw me a bone. My knee jerk is to use "academic" pejoratively. As Groucho might observe, I chafe belonging to a club that I know should not have me for a member.
Historians -- I have long thought that what historians write about is more a reflection of the current culture than an understanding of the past. Its al driven by the questions in which they are interested.
I'm still annoyed at the cult of "longtermism". How is it supposed to survive a critique by induction? Why will it not be forever jam tomorrow?
I have no love of RBT (came and went long after my time in grad school), but did it have ANY impact at all on the Fed's failure to maintain aggregate demand 2008-2020?
CDC admits mistakes: "This raises the question of why we insisted in so many crazy precautions for these same young children for so long, in ways that I strongly believe did serious damage to their development and well-being."
The same question for why the roll out of the vaccines (delayed for "risk theater" reasons) were "promoted' by hyping their safety rant then their net-of-risk benefits to people big vaccinated and those the vaccinated did not infect.
"Why did Democratic presidents embrace an economic credo that annihilated their own public philosophy and its appeal to the electorate?"
They didn't
"For now, however, we’re tackling climate change with carrots, not sticks, with subsidies, not taxes. And that’s OK."
No, it's not "OK" it jut better than nothing, but so is a ham sandwich.
But what is really NOT "OK" is Krugman wasting his time and influence reassuring NYT readers that their opinions are "OK" rather than trying to push for what he very well know we should be doing, taxing net CO2 emissions
I don't like the company of the Big Ideas but of course am happy that it will help disseminate your book.
Your agent probably already knows this, but here is what NPR's webpage says about suggesting books for review https://help.npr.org/contact/s/contact?request=Recommend-a-book-for-review
I have followed up with another message to Fresh Air. I don't have a lot of faith that they take over the transom suggestions very seriously, but electrons are cheap.
I thought that Dave Karpf's substack on "longtermism" was really good.
And here are Andy Gill & Jon King expressing a sentiment similar to Brecht's:
What I'd like to hear:
Tales of people's history
Not the styles of strategic combat
The movements of events we hear about
They weren't the ones to get it in the neck
Fighting it out for some other's causes
They're invisible!
They didn't exist!
History's bunk, I've got no past!
In the future, we'll invent more junk!
Brad:
Burke mentions Jefferson's 'contradictions': I'm wondering if you ever worked through ('reading' is a not-quite-adequate term) Gary Wills' "Inventing America" (1978), which took a Hutcheson-not-Locke view in an attempt to find a non-contradictory (though not blameless) Jefferson. Yes, Wills attempts to parse Jefferson out of the dominant Scottish-Enlightenment influences "of his time," but when I picked up the book last winter (after ~45 years), it seemed eerily contemporary; Hutcheson's moral and social theories (if not Jefferson's) provided an interesting take, not just on racism, but on the seemingly-irreducible cultural-regional divisions in the US that you have so often called out. (Not wanting to suggest the book is any kind of 'answer' - just curious if you have a view on it.)
It has been a long, long time since I read _Inventing America_. I will add it to the pile...
In response to the EU looking at solar power a question arises. If they use microwave radiation to beam the power to earth what happens when it is cloudy? The water vapor in the cloud will heat up, the overall energy of the weather system will increase and, I suspect, bad things will come to those on the ground. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Academics need to be talking more about the CDC's mea culpa. The headline story is "CDC admits mistakes" is burying the more important story that its mistakes stem from a culture that has changed from its creation as a functional response agency to its current cultural form as yet another academic department. While its purpose is to put science to practice it has become yet another chaser of journal rankings. Public universities, especially the Land Grant ones, need to be paying attention to this. Who are you serving and how?
I'm not sure THAT is CDC's problem. How does being "academic" lead them not to provide, as best they could, policy makers with the information they needed to use cost benefit analysis to craft response strategies?
Don't shoot the messenger. It's not my take, it's theirs. "Dr. Walensky laid out her basic conclusion from the review in candid terms: The C.D.C. must refocus itself on public health needs, respond much faster to emergencies and outbreaks of disease, and provide information in a way that ordinary people and state and local health authorities can understand and put to use....The C.D.C. has been criticized for years as being too academic and insular. The coronavirus pandemic brought those failings into public view, with even some of the agency’s staunchest defenders criticizing its response as inept."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/us/politics/cdc-rochelle-walensky-covid.html?searchResultPosition=3
I'm not shooting the messenger about the fact the CDC needs reform but why. "Academic" and "insular" do not seem to me to be the problem. Was it insularity that led CDC to emphasize the risks of vaccines over their benefits? Was it being "academic" that led to schools being closed rather than well ventilated possibly with test to stay for teachers and students?
OK, I'll bite. You think the answer to your questions is a rhetorical "no." I think the answer to both of your questions is absolutely "yes." When a public health agency has "one job" but lets their academic discussions spill into talk shows, tweets, call-in programs and their communication mimics more that of an academic department head or university president trying to explain why the faculty are saying a bunch of different things and causing confusion rather than do the one job they are supposed to do. And, yes, if you have a culture that chases academic papers and is rewarded for that, you will eventually lose touch with the job that Congress has given you. That happened. From my perspective, Wallensky's argument plays out all across academia and the fact the public has lost respect for the CDC messing up its messaging is no different than the lack of respect the public has for much of research in public higher ed. Not all of the reasons have to be the same, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
The CDC let its "academic" discussion spill out in public? This seems to me the opposite. There was zero transparency about why recommendation X was cost effective for situation Y at time T and place P. Recommendation did not at all seem to follow the science about how the virus spread, how case loads should affect behavior and policy. Why did we never get any contingent predictions, if policies x1 are followed spread will be S1, but if x2 is followed we will get x2 and then update the model that gave them those predictions if they did not turn out. THAT would be academic.
But maybe we are just talking nomenclature.
Yes, nice of you to throw me a bone. My knee jerk is to use "academic" pejoratively. As Groucho might observe, I chafe belonging to a club that I know should not have me for a member.
Historians -- I have long thought that what historians write about is more a reflection of the current culture than an understanding of the past. Its al driven by the questions in which they are interested.