Is a Nobel Prize Enough?

Remove all ads!

Peter Diamond

He is a Mathematician who won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in that field.

The GOP, or a GOP US Senator from Alabama, has blocked him from being on the board of the FED (essentially a US central bank).

I would say his argument is that he is quite qualified to deal with the issues the FED.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06diamond.html

What is the reason for blocking his appointment?

Is it justified, just due to partisan/ideological leanings, both, or neither?

 

Surely it can be justified and due to ideology? One doesn't rule out the other.

 

Fair point.

I'll edit.

 

It looks partisan to me. They don't want someone in there with ideas like he has. That's not a horrible thing -- I'm sure there are other highly skilled economists who advocate GOP policies. They'll be blocked by the Dems. The FED will end up with middle of the road economists. Not the end of the world.

 

Perhaps, but where the "middle of the road" falls is another manner. Personally, I think having a few outlier voices might not necessarily be a bad idea, and the guy does look like he has some good credentials.

I actually think part of the opposition to him isn't necessarily due to ideology, but simply because he was an Obama nominee. Considering that he did quite a bit of work for the Social Security advisory council during the 80s and 90s, I would imagine he isn't exactly ideologically incompatible with conservative economists or politicians.

 

It is called "What comes around goes around". When the Democrats took control of the Senate in May 2001 they didn't even allow 8 of Bush's first 11 appellate court nominees to even have a Judiciary Committee hearing. Then when they lost control of the Senate the Democrats filibustered every appellate court nominee that Bush nominated. You may recall there was discussion of the "Nuclear Option" which would have changed the way the Senate worked which forced the Democrats the reach a compromise.

Well I'm sure this is just payback now that the shoe is on the other foot. Does it suck, yes. Does it mean that qualified people will not get appointments, yes it does. Is payback a *****, yes and it always has been.

Hopefully, the Republicans will eventually feel that they have gotten their pound of flesh and hopefully the Democrats will have learned their lesson and this nonsense will come to end when we have our next Republican administration.

 

Holy crap - we might have a while to wait for that. If I had to make a prediction today, I'd say Obama would retain the presidency, but that the Republicans will win control of both chambers of Congress.

 

Sooner, I hope - but I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, this didn't start in 2001 either - or do you mean to tell me Bill Clinton's judicial nominations enjoyed easy passage and only constructive criticism? That didn't seem to have been the case, apparently. Apparently it wasn't the case all the time before that, either. Turnabout didn't seem to teach anyone any lessons then.

On the other hand, opposing frivolous nominations is the responsibility and duty of the opposition party. Still, if it devolves into purely partisan bickering and ignores the realities of the candidates, it doesn't do anyone any favors - including the opposition itself.

 

The Republicans do have a bit of a point. He isn't directly experienced in monetary policy it seems. But on the other hand the Fed's remit is to influence inflation and unemployment, unlike the ECB which is just inflation. So having a labour market expert would be useful. So in conclusion I'm undecided.