RE: Re: Re: Robert Glenn Hubbard

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

the only interesting thing i noticed was that he co-authored a paper by Steve
Fazzari in 1988 (and maybe another in 1987?). Fazzari is a Research Associate
with the Levy Inst. and was a close friend and colleague of Hy Minsky at Wash U.
He generally has a Post Keynesian outlook, and attends the mtgs Paul Davidson
runs every other summer in Tenn. But there is nothing in Hubbard's papers that
indicates any connection with Minsky-type issues, e.g. financial instability.

Jim - isn't everything in the President's Report already in the Statistical
Abstract? If you have the latter, what purpose are the tables and data in the
former? I look at the former precisely for the ideological stuff.

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:rosserjb@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:52 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:8532] Re: Re: Robert Glenn Hubbard


      I would basically agree with Jim.  When the CEA
was first established in 1946, I think there were some
who saw it as a nascent possible beginning of central
planning in the US.  In certain administrations, such
as Kennedy's, it was very influential on policy.  It has
increasingly become more of a shop for broadly considering
policy and gathering data, although in some areas it
remains quite influential.
       Clinton certainly downgraded it by creating the NEC
which was first headed by Rubin and most recently by
Sperling.  It clearly carried the immediate policy function.
However, Bush has been rumored to eliminate it, not the
CEA.  Other rumors have it getting folded into the National
Security Council.  This is part of this idea that the NSC will
manage international financial stuff with the CIA rather than
the Treasury.  Given how incompetent O'Neill appears, that
might not be a bad move.
      If the NEC goes, perhaps the CEA will be more influential,
although Hubbard seems to be a completely uninteresting
and totally conventional economist.  Looking at his papers
I cannot figure out at all what kinds of policies he might
support aside from just standard laissez-faire.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 1:28 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:8531] Re: Robert Glenn Hubbard


>Whoever is appointed to this role, my impression is that the CEA has had
>little or no practical impact in recent decades. Frankly, I don't know why
>Krugman was so upset about not being appointed by Clinton to head this
>council. Reagan wanted to abolish it, while Clinton set up a competing
>organization. I guess the CEA's main impact is that many economists read
>their annual book, THE ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT and then, being
>highly respectful of high-status economists, absorb some of the ideology. I
>just look at the data tables, which are luckily available on-line (at
>http://w3.access.gpo.gov/eop/).
>
>At 01:15 PM 2/28/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>George W. picked a fellow worker at Columbia to head up the Council of
>>Economic Advisers. His papers are at:
>>http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/ghubbard/Papers.htm. I can't
understand
>>most of what he writes. What I do understand, I take violent objection to.
>>
>>Louis Proyect
>>Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>