I finally finished Sylvia Nasar's Grand Pursuit. I won't do a full book review, but instead give some thoughts.
Basically, the idea of the book was a good one - mini biographies of all of the great economists / economic thinkers. Unfortunately, the execution was imperfect - the structure just didn't work. I think the author's goal was a flowing book, showing the arc of economic thinking. In this way, the book was mostly chronological, so you jump back and forth between individuals. But the chronology wasn't consistent and sometimes would move forward then go back in order to stay with one person before moving to another.
I think I would have preferred a more traditional approach of a full bio of each person in individual chapters. Sure, this might have been more boring, but I think more useful. With individual chapters, it would have been easier to follow the arc of the person and retain more about them.
Also, the book gave more biographical detail than was necessary. It is hard to pinpoint exactly, but there are descriptions that could have been done in a couple paragraphs that took many pages instead. And in doing this, I think she spent a little less time on their theories.
The book covered Keynes and Freeman, Hayek and Schumpeter, Marx and Engels, Marshall, Fisher, and Samuelson, and my favorite, Amartya Sen. But it also included Beatrice and Sydney Webb and Joan Robinson, two that I didn't find necessary.
Though I found the book too long on biography and too short on theory, I will reference it in the future, if only to then do more research on the individuals.
Friday, August 17, 2012
On Paul Ryan
So Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan as his running mate. I will discuss two aspects of this: what this means for the race, and what I think of the person of Paul Ryan.
First, I don't share the same glee that many Democrats do - though it doesn't make me nervous either. Instead, I feel this does nothing great and nothing bad for the election. Although I do think Ryan is extreme, I think that is hard to show to the average voter. Ryan seems reasonable enough, and the things he says, though disingenusous, also seem reasonable. He says he is for equality of opportunity. He wants to preserve Medicare while Obama will let it die. He wants to balance the budget.
Of course, any smart person can look at his actual plans and see something very different - that he is actually for large tax cuts for the rich, can't possibly balance the budget, and wants to save Medicare by making seniors pay more. But reaching and convincing large numbers of voters of this is difficult. It is much more difficult than showing them that Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, for some examples, are extreme and dangerous (which is why none of them were likely VP picks).
Having said all of that, I still think Democrats should try to convince voters that Ryan is extreme, because he is. But I don't think it will be easy and I don't think it will make the election. It might help turnout among informed liberals, but won't make much difference among independents.
On the flip side, I don't think it does a lot for Romney on the electoral college front. I generally trust / believe Nate Silver, who says that there were better picks from an electoral college perspective. But Ryan will help Romney with conservatives, help he needs, just like John McCain needed help. And like I said, I don't think it will hurt him much with independents.
Now, what do I think of Paul Ryan as a politician? I think he is more brave and more policy focused than many others, but less so than the press gives him credit for. And though he does propose policy, he is very often political and very often disingenuous.
Take his most recent budget for example. He says he can balance the budget and cut taxes (popular) without being specific at all about where the cuts (unpopular) will come from and he makes it sound like the cuts will be easy and painless instead of acknowledging honestly how large the cuts will have to be in order to meet his targets.
Mitt Romney's plan, which Ryan has now signed onto, is even worse on this front and specifically so on tax breaks. It proposes cutting taxes while also cutting deductions, in theory leaving the overall share of taxes across incomes the same. However, it doesn't say which deductions will be cut. Nor does the math add up.
So overall, Ryan isn't adding much substance or honesty to Romney. They both are making budget claims that are extreme, vague, and hard to believe.
On the political side, he is willing to give a speech accusing Obama of believing in equality of outcome, which is completely untrue. A man as smart and unpolitical as the press thinks he is would not say such a thing.
To conclude, Romney added someone to the ticket that will help him turnout conservatives and might also help turnout some liberals, but otherwise doesn't change much. And it is a person that I find far less wonkish and honest than many in the press - someone with an extreme and unpopular vision who is vague on all the unpopular parts of his plans.
First, I don't share the same glee that many Democrats do - though it doesn't make me nervous either. Instead, I feel this does nothing great and nothing bad for the election. Although I do think Ryan is extreme, I think that is hard to show to the average voter. Ryan seems reasonable enough, and the things he says, though disingenusous, also seem reasonable. He says he is for equality of opportunity. He wants to preserve Medicare while Obama will let it die. He wants to balance the budget.
Of course, any smart person can look at his actual plans and see something very different - that he is actually for large tax cuts for the rich, can't possibly balance the budget, and wants to save Medicare by making seniors pay more. But reaching and convincing large numbers of voters of this is difficult. It is much more difficult than showing them that Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, for some examples, are extreme and dangerous (which is why none of them were likely VP picks).
Having said all of that, I still think Democrats should try to convince voters that Ryan is extreme, because he is. But I don't think it will be easy and I don't think it will make the election. It might help turnout among informed liberals, but won't make much difference among independents.
On the flip side, I don't think it does a lot for Romney on the electoral college front. I generally trust / believe Nate Silver, who says that there were better picks from an electoral college perspective. But Ryan will help Romney with conservatives, help he needs, just like John McCain needed help. And like I said, I don't think it will hurt him much with independents.
Now, what do I think of Paul Ryan as a politician? I think he is more brave and more policy focused than many others, but less so than the press gives him credit for. And though he does propose policy, he is very often political and very often disingenuous.
Take his most recent budget for example. He says he can balance the budget and cut taxes (popular) without being specific at all about where the cuts (unpopular) will come from and he makes it sound like the cuts will be easy and painless instead of acknowledging honestly how large the cuts will have to be in order to meet his targets.
Mitt Romney's plan, which Ryan has now signed onto, is even worse on this front and specifically so on tax breaks. It proposes cutting taxes while also cutting deductions, in theory leaving the overall share of taxes across incomes the same. However, it doesn't say which deductions will be cut. Nor does the math add up.
So overall, Ryan isn't adding much substance or honesty to Romney. They both are making budget claims that are extreme, vague, and hard to believe.
On the political side, he is willing to give a speech accusing Obama of believing in equality of outcome, which is completely untrue. A man as smart and unpolitical as the press thinks he is would not say such a thing.
To conclude, Romney added someone to the ticket that will help him turnout conservatives and might also help turnout some liberals, but otherwise doesn't change much. And it is a person that I find far less wonkish and honest than many in the press - someone with an extreme and unpopular vision who is vague on all the unpopular parts of his plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)