This month’s edition of Cato Unbound on “The Monetary Lessons of the Not-So-Great Depression” kicks off with a probing, provocative essay by headliner Scott Sumner, “The Real Problem Was Nominal.” He says things like this:
We cannot hope to understand what happened late last year without first recognizing that the proximate cause of the crash was not a financial crisis, but rather a steep decline in nominal spending. Like any other fall in aggregate demand, this represented a failure of monetary policy. Severe demand-side recessions are almost never the result of special interest politics — the losses are too great and too widespread — but instead represent an intellectual failure by well-meaning public servants and the academic economists who advise them.
The real problem was not a “real” problem at all. It was a nominal problem, and the severe intensification of the debt crisis was a symptom of an ordinary Humean nominal shock. Furthermore, monetary policy was not “easy” but rather was highly contractionary in the only sense that matters, that is, relative to the stance expected to hit the Fed’s implicit nominal targets.
On deck we’ve got James Hamilton, George Selgin, and Jeff Hummel.
Newspapers, as we know them, are doomed. Should we worry? What’s next for journalism? Will there be journalism? That’s what we’re talking about in this month edition of Cato Unbound, “How We Will (or Won’t) Survive Without Newspapers,” which kicks off today with a smart lead essay from Here Comes Everybody author Clay Shirky, “Not an Upgrade — An Upheaval“. A taste:
Like driving, journalism is not a profession — no degree or certification is required to practice it, and training often comes after hiring — and it is increasingly being transformed into an activity, open to all, sometimes done well, sometimes badly, but at a volume that simply cannot be supported by a small group of full-time workers. The journalistic models that will excel in the next few years will rely on new forms of creation, some of which will be done by professionals, some by amateurs, some by crowds, and some by machines.
This will not replace the older forms journalism, but then nothing else will either; both preservation and simple replacement are off the table. The change we’re living through isn’t an upgrade, it’s a upheaval, and it will be decades before anyone can really sort out the value of what’s been lost versus what’s been gained.
Check out Declan McCullagh’s lead essay in this month’s Cato Unbound, a reconsideration of Larry Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace after ten years (can you believe it!) Lessig himself will reply, as will Adam Thierer and Jonathan Zittrain.
John Lott is unimpressed with Loury’s argument. The gist:
Charges of racism flow freely in Professor Loury’s recent book and this essay. He makes it seem that we lock up blacks because whites are afraid of them or that we simply dislike them and want to keep them locked up and away from the rest of society. But Loury forgets an important fact: for violent and property crime there is always an individual victim who gets hurt — for black criminals that victim is overwhelmingly black. Nor does he recognize how extremely progressive criminal penalties are. He also neglects acknowledging that we can’t determine if the number of people in prison is “too high” without discussing the benefit from prison — without discussing how many crimes were deterred.
Many blacks have their lives disrupted by the criminal justice system, but the lives and property of many blacks are also protected by that same system. Looking at only the cost of imprisonment seems a very strange way to answer the question of whether we should change the current system.
I’m really lookin forward to the rest of the replies, and to the subsequent blog chat. I find myself fairly sympathetic both to Loury and Lott, which gives me the sense that many elements of their positions are not mutually exclusive.
This month’s Cato Unbound is devoted to the topic “Behind Bars in the Land of the Free.” Brown University’s Glenn Loury kicks off the discussion with his lead essay “A Nation of Jailers,” in which he argues that American prison policy is both a travesty of liberty and equality.
I’ve often tangled with other libertarians about the effects of social norms on liberty. Glenn has made me think harder about the way the idea of individual responsibility is used selectively to reinforce barriers to opportunity. I wonder what others think about this passage of Glenn’s, which I think is correct, but which I admit makes me a bit uncomfortable:
What we Americans fail to recognize — not merely as individuals, I stress, but as a political community — is that these ghetto enclaves and marginal spaces of our cities, which are the source of most prison inmates, are products of our own making: Precisely because we do not want those people near us, we have structured the space in our urban environment so as to keep them away from us. Then, when they fester in their isolation and their marginality, we hypocritically point a finger, saying in effect: “Look at those people. They threaten to the civilized body. They must therefore be expelled, imprisoned, controlled.” It is not we who must take social responsibility to reform our institutions but, rather, it is they who need to take personal responsibility for their wrongful acts. It is not we who must set our collective affairs aright, but they who must get their individual acts together. This posture, I suggest, is inconsistent with the attainment of a just distribution of benefits and burdens in society.
What say you?
John R. Lott, Bruce Western, and James Q. Wilson are set to reply.
If the discussion of Harvard political theorist Nancy Rosenblum’s On the Side of Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship at Jacob Levy’s digs isn’t enough for you, try this month’s Cato Unbound, where Rosenblum makes her case for partisanship in today’s lead essay. In the coming week and a half, we’ll have replies from Cato’s own Brink Lindsey, GW political scientist Henry Farrell, and Stanford’s James Fishkin.
My problem with partisanship in the U.S. is that, due to the structure of the electoral system, there’s really no place for more than two parties. My own disenchantment with active political participation is in part driven by the fact that there is next to no chance that any party I would be willing to join could be a real force in government. I suspect that in the possible world where the U.S. suddenly became a proportional parliamentary system, a party with roughly my politics could pick up a fair number of seats and would have a chance of sharing power in coalition governments. But in the actual world, the best I can do is be a Libertarian and totally irrelevant, or I can join the Democrats or the Republicans and be actively hated, for one reason or other, by my co-partisans. So, no thanks.
I’m curious to see how my partisan sympathies shake out when I suddenly become Canadian.