« Star Wars Chronology | Main | Star Wars Apologism »

Carter Vindicated

The National Review points out that economic growth was very strong during the Carter administration. After all, nominal GDP went up a lot and "there is no unique virtue to inflation-adjusting."

October 4, 2004 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Carter Vindicated:

» Source: Boeing to Settle Justice Department Suit from a suit over procurement
procurement violations with the Justice Department for $615M, a source said. [Read More]

Tracked on May 17, 2006 12:26:42 PM

» Harness Racing Jockey Killed on Track from the opening race
drivers were seriously injured in the accident, said Patti Key, chief financial officer for [Read More]

Tracked on May 28, 2006 4:24:01 AM

» Muslim Protestors Attack Christians - Burn Danish Consulate in Beirut from clashing with
protesters threw rocks at a Maronite Catholic church, bringing back memories of the civil war [Read More]

Tracked on May 30, 2006 2:19:36 AM

» Murders halt rainforest research from oldminers kill
oldminers kill guards in French Guiana nature reserve. [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 7, 2006 1:29:01 AM

» U.S. shows photos of battered al-Zarqawi (AP) from and Iraqis celebrated
of the battered face of Iraqs most feared terrorist Thursday and Iraqis celebrated with gunfire after American bombs killed the leader of al-Qaida [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 12, 2006 8:37:46 PM

» India - Imam Khomeini, we remember you from Imam Rohullah
of Iran was one of the brightest lights of Islam in the last one hundred years.... [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 17, 2006 2:51:11 AM

» Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer from trial, were broadly
only the key, or sentinel lymph node in patients undergoing surgery for early breast [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 2, 2006 3:22:37 AM

» Tsunami Relief Efforts On Track from of food or medicine
and say survivors of this week's tsunami are receiving enough aid, at least in the emergency's initial stages. [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 24, 2006 10:48:30 AM

» Lawyer Helps Businesses Save Money on Legal Fees? from and avoid common
is designed to help business owners detect and avoid common legal mistakes so they can be more successful in business. (PRWEB Jul 22, 2006) [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 24, 2006 8:10:53 PM

» 'Creatinine Is The New Cholesterol' For Detecting Vascular Risks Of Kidney Disease from metabolism -
kidney disease, now also recognised as a risk for heart disease. [click link for full article] [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 25, 2006 3:06:54 AM

» Woman In Coffee Shop Judges A Record 147 People from a clothing buyer
for Nordstrom's and a coffee-shop regular, broke her own record for judgmental behavior when... read more [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 6:36:05 PM

» RF Micro closes in on billion-dollar milestone from it is "well on
Greensboro-based chip manufacturer is heading towards its long-term target of making annual [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 8, 2006 3:30:13 PM


Amazing stupidity, though of course there must be more involved. Yuch.

Posted by: anne | Oct 4, 2004 3:35:22 PM

Note that the comment re inflation was actually made by Donald Luskin (who should certainly know better) in response to a letter by an author upset with a column in which Luskin tore into said writer. I don't care enough to go read the original columns, but this is not the voice of National Review speaking in the offensive excerpt, it's Luskin.

FWIW, I generally view Luskin as akin to Krugman (though not as good a writer). They're both usually OK when they stick to economic issues, but they don't. Politically they're both hacks whose word shouldn't so much be taken with a grain of salt, as thrown into a black hole at the center of the Andromeda Galaxy.

Posted by: Shelby | Oct 4, 2004 5:23:27 PM

Show me any article where Luskin's made any economic assertion more complex than "when supply goes down, demand generally goes up" that doesn't fall flat on its face, Shelby.

Posted by: jesse | Oct 4, 2004 5:30:04 PM

Show me any Krugman article that comes with light years, or hundreds of millions of light years of, this kind of economics howler.

Krugman is, well, shrill on politics. But he is a superb and conscientious economist.

Luskin never lets economic thinking get in the way of his plutocratic wet-dreams.

Posted by: Dave L | Oct 4, 2004 6:06:38 PM


I think Luskin's on solid ground with this, about Spitzer and mutual funds:

And this is a fair take (both political and economic) on patent rights, that slams the Bush administration:

Posted by: Shelby | Oct 4, 2004 6:28:27 PM

Wow, that Brad DeLong sure is one thin-skinned academic. I posted one mildly critical comment on the linked post, and I've been banned! (And the criticism of DeLong was well-deserved, since Luskin is NOT saying what DeLong (and Yglesias) claim he's saying; rather, Luskin is merely saying that adjusting ONLY for inflation is misleading, since there are other adjustments (such as effective tax rate and non-cash comp) that affect how much a person really can buy with the money he earns.)

My respect for Matthew and Kevin Drum, for allowing comments that may criticize them, continues to increase.

Posted by: Al | Oct 4, 2004 7:23:32 PM


You really have no clue if you think Krugman and Luskin are comparable on economics.

Posted by: GT | Oct 4, 2004 7:43:06 PM

GT: That's not what I said. They're "akin" and they're both "OK when they stick to economic issues". I'm not trying to compare them as economists.

Posted by: Shelby | Oct 4, 2004 8:02:34 PM

Al, while some bloggers ban for abusiveness and rudeness, DeLong bans for stupidity and mendacity (do the math).

Personally, I can see merits to both...

Posted by: djw | Oct 4, 2004 8:21:33 PM

OK, let me say then that Luskin is most certainly NOT OK when he sticks to economic issues. Brad Delong's blog is full of posts where he catches Luskin making simple and basic errors of economic reasoning.

Luskin does not understand economics. Which is why so many wonder why the National Review publishes him.

Posted by: GT | Oct 4, 2004 9:04:11 PM

DeLong bans for stupidity and mendacity

So, you're saying that I got banned for proving that DeLong was stupid and mendacious? I realize that's what my post did, but, still...

Posted by: Al | Oct 5, 2004 10:29:52 AM

Even if I agree with him usually, it's true, Delong is very thin-skinned and cuts out criticism of himself that's no nastier than what he levels at others. But at least he runs comments that argue against his views. Insta-idiot doesn't run anything that suggests he might be wrong. But then, if he did, his credibility would disappear into thin air.

Posted by: polo | Oct 5, 2004 11:12:20 AM

Insta-idiot doesn't run anything that suggests he might be wrong. But then, if he did, his credibility would disappear into thin air.

He frequently posts email excerpts that disagree with him. If he had a comments feature it would be ludicrously overrun, given his traffic levels. Now, if you were talking about Joshua Micah Marshall you might have a point.

Posted by: Shelby | Oct 5, 2004 2:43:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.