Bartlett v. Kudlow

TW: This conversation ultimately goes nowhere, it is CNBC after all. But it accomplishes much. We see a moderate Republican, Bartlett, seek to have a real conversation on fiscal policy; whilst being interviewed by an ideologue, Kudlow, who regardless of Bartlett's answers spouts cliches, tired slogans and punchlines. Overlying this is the 2nd interviewer, Trish Regan, who mostly appears clueless but occasionally interjects the standard slanted BS (i.e. "obamanomics caused the housing bubble", Reagan was a god) of those of her generation who drank supply side kool-aid through the 80's and 90's rather than studied.

Bartlett's point is that neither Reaganesque/Laffernomics, Keynes or anyone else has a monopoly on good policy, one must adjust one's policies to the realities of the situation. Unlike Kudlow whose answer to all challenges is "tax cut (preferably for the wealthy and corporations)", all the while while alleging that he Kudlow is stating "universal truths".

I also link a Krugman response to the Barro tangent Kudlow threw out. Kudlow also mentioned the quack Amity Schlaes. Bartlett's reponse- "she is wrong" sums up her value.

From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"...Barro makes a great deal of the fact that private spending fell during World War II, rather than rising the way it should in a classical Keynesian (oxymoron?) story.

What I and others immediately pointed out was that this tells us very little about what would happen under current conditions: during World War II there, um, was a war on: consumption goods were rationed, construction required special permits, and so on. The government was, in other words, deliberately suppressing private spending, through direct controls. So WWII is not a useful data point for determining what the multiplier is under other conditions.

Barro’s response to this, as far as I can tell, was … nothing. I don’t think he even acknowledged the nature of the complaint..."