President Obama and President Monson to meet in DC.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Pop quiz: define "socialism", by contrasting it with "capitalism".

Once again, you display your ignorance of modern social democracy. Google "third way" and read up on it. (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)

Well, if we were talking about econometrics, then I'd be impressed with your statistical background. But we're mostly talking about public finance and macroeconomics, with a little bit of economic philosophy thrown in. You've already demonstrated that you're nearly completely ignorant of that last field, and I have no reason to be confident in your knowledge of the others.

I find "economic philosophy" to be boring and probably unnecessary. We can judge economic policies empirically.

On what grounds do you say that Obama's views are closer to Krugman's?

His background, the people with whom he has associated, and his rhetoric.

Obama worked at the most conservative of the great American law schools, so it shouldn't be surprising if he has more market-oriented views than most Democrats.

Even if it's correct that he "worked at the most conservative of the great American law schools," it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Moreover, the President drew advice from centrist economists like Austan Goolsbee long before he had to worry about the Blue Dogs; how would you explain that?

I don't know anything about him, so I don't know if your characterization of him is correct, but I believe Dear Leader was positioning himself for a presidential run even then.

And even if you were right, it's not like Krugman is a Marxist, anyway.

You don't say?

Besides, what does it even mean to say that Obama would have "risked" his domestic agenda by picking Krugman, if he actually agrees with him more?

This is not difficult. If he had picked someone unpalatable to the "Blue Dog" Democrats as I believe is the case with Krugman, then I do not think he would have enough support to push through his domestic agenda or something close enough to it.

Do you really mean to say that Obama tried to preserve his domestic agenda by picking someone who doesn't agree with it to implement it? Come on, Calc -- that's a bcspace-level argument right there.

1. The Larry Summers of today is not the Larry Summers of the Clinton era, as you admitted.
2. Compromise in government? Who'da thunk it? Sometimes presidents do not get their first choice of officials, but pick people who can accomplish many or most of their goals.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Pop quiz: define "socialism", by contrasting it with "capitalism".

Once again, you display your ignorance of modern social democracy. Google "third way" and read up on it. (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)

"Third Way" is a term without much meaning. It applies equally to George W. Bush and Friedrich Hayek as it does to Obama.

I'm still waiting on your definition, by the way. I'll tentatively assume that your non-response so far means that you don't know.

Well, if we were talking about econometrics, then I'd be impressed with your statistical background. But we're mostly talking about public finance and macroeconomics, with a little bit of economic philosophy thrown in. You've already demonstrated that you're nearly completely ignorant of that last field, and I have no reason to be confident in your knowledge of the others.

I find "economic philosophy" to be boring and probably unnecessary. We can judge economic policies empirically.

Sure, but it helps to be able to use the standard definitions of different economic systems, which you're apparently unable to do.

On what grounds do you say that Obama's views are closer to Krugman's?

His background, the people with whom he has associated, and his rhetoric.

"His background" would presumably include his employment at the most market-oriented of the great American law schools; would it not? "The people with whom he has associated" would include the centrist economists he's had by his side from the beginning, right? "His rhetoric" doesn't exclude the countless times he's called for a vibrant and dynamic market economy, right?

But you're a conservative, so you'll only see what you want to see.

Obama worked at the most conservative of the great American law schools, so it shouldn't be surprising if he has more market-oriented views than most Democrats.

Even if it's correct that he "worked at the most conservative of the great American law schools," it doesn't mean a damn thing.

It's not determinative of anything, sure, but saying it doesn't matter at all is a stretcher.

Moreover, the President drew advice from centrist economists like Austan Goolsbee long before he had to worry about the Blue Dogs; how would you explain that?

I don't know anything about him, so I don't know if your characterization of him is correct, but I believe Dear Leader was positioning himself for a presidential run even then.

Goolsbee's been with Obama since his 2004 Senate run. But this is futile, because no matter how far back I show that Obama has been entrusting market-oriented economists with his policy, you'll say that he was cravenly planning a presidential run at that point, and was looking ahead to when he'd have to battle with the Blue Dogs.

And even if you were right, it's not like Krugman is a Marxist, anyway.

You don't say?

I do.

Besides, what does it even mean to say that Obama would have "risked" his domestic agenda by picking Krugman, if he actually agrees with him more?

This is not difficult. If he had picked someone unpalatable to the "Blue Dog" Democrats as I believe is the case with Krugman, then I do not think he would have enough support to push through his domestic agenda or something close enough to it.

This is a very convenient charge, because it's impossible to disprove. It's like saying that George Bush wanted to invade Canada, but was only prevented from doing so because of political calculations. Pretty stupid.

Do you really mean to say that Obama tried to preserve his domestic agenda by picking someone who doesn't agree with it to implement it? Come on, Calc -- that's a bcspace-level argument right there.

1. The Larry Summers of today is not the Larry Summers of the Clinton era, as you admitted.

And the Larry Summers of today is still a centrist. It appears that he hasn't moderated on much except on his stance regarding financial sector regulation, which you seem to agree with. Are you a Marxist, Calc?

2. Compromise in government? Who'da thunk it? Sometimes presidents do not get their first choice of officials, but pick people who can accomplish many or most of their goals.

Which, again, explains why Bush didn't invade Canada, even though he was salivating at the prospect.

You're out of your element, Donny.