Conservative economist Greg Mankiw is upset by this meme which seems to be forming that Obama’s economic team is more special than any of Bush’s — which happens to include Mankiw himself.
So, in response to Paul Krugman’s post about the days of cronyism being over, Mankiw pulls out a large chart which purports to rank economists based upon their “academic accomplishments,” and wouldn’t you know it — plenty of folks from both Obama and Bush’s teams are on the chart. Thus, Mankiw deftly proves that everything Bush ever did (cough *tap Mankiw* cough) is just as good as anything Obama will do:
Judging by this objective criterion, it looks like the two adminstrations are drawing economists from roughly the same talent pool.
Of course, the bulk of Obama’s team earned their chops by presiding over the largest and longest economic expansion in American history (Clinton Admin.); and Mankiw and his buddies get to stake their claim in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
BUT THEY’RE ALL ON THE SAME CHART!
There is also some irony in the fact that Mankiw vaguely implies Krugman is a “hack” while referencing a chart which conveniently ranks Krugman ahead of Mankiw:
15. Paul Krugman
21. Greg Mankiw
5 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
If you had a little understanding of history, you’d know the success of the Clinton administration was due to 1) the Peace dividend (which he had nothing to do with), 2) Retaining Greenspan, 3) A Republican Congress shooting down his early budget and health takeover proposals and restricting gov’t spending which led to a balanced budget. There was no Clinton policy implemented which changed the economy, he took over at the end of a slight recession, in an economy still booming from the Reagan years.
Secondly, the ‘economic crisis’ – has it’s roots in the revision to the CRA of 95 – which Clinton and the dems supported. It required banks to make the “liar loans” that we are not suffering from in the credit markets. In addition, several of Obama’s adivsors (Raines, Johnson – until they were publicly exposed) were instrumental in increasing the markets exposure to such instruments – for their own gain. In addition, the Dem’s fought and refused 31 times to grant the Bush administration additional authority to limit/regulate FNMA/FHLMC since 2001.
A little knowledge is helpful before you speak usually.
Sigh, history.
Someone claiming both fully partisan responsibility and that Clinton inherited a “booming economy” clearly has no sense of “knowledge,” nor history.
Didn’t Greenspan just admit that his ideology was wrong and apologize for shoving Ayn Rand-style Objectivism down the government’s throat via 20 years of ever-increasing deregulation?
And the CRA was not responsible for jack sh*t, in a market where NINJA loans existed.
As for deregulation, that is true, and Summers should be decorating a gallows rather than a government post. However, that would mean that all GOP appointees should also be ‘dancing on air’, with Greenspan having the pole position.
What this post neglects to mention is that even Krugman said in his blog that having academic superstars doesn’t guarantee success. Krugman’s point was only that Obama had hired more talented and smarter people. And Mankiw was absolutely right in debunking that “argument.”
Comparing the actual results of different economic teams would obviously require a conversation far beyond Mankiw’s, or Krugman’s–or your–short blog post. And, since Obama’s not in office, we have to wait to see how his “team” does.
But that in no way addresses the point Mankiw made against Krugman’s argument.