2021年4月20日 星期二

The silence of the wonks

Where are the open letters from conservatives condemning Bidenomics?
President Joe Biden is flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during the weekly economic briefing, as Brian Deese, director of the National Economic Council, listens in.Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Today's column is about the remarkable popularity of President Biden's economic proposals, and the haplessness of Republican attempts to condemn them. One thing I didn't have space to mention, although it's a topic I care about, is the peculiar silence of conservative wonks, of policy intellectuals you might expect to be writing op-eds and circulating open letters condemning Biden's aggressive spending and tax policies.

And yes, there are policy intellectuals on the right. Like just about all of academia, economics is a Democratic-leaning field — but not as much as other social sciences. One 2016 survey of leading institutions found that among economics faculty, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by "only" 4.5 to one, compared with an average of 11 to one in social sciences as a whole. Furthermore, the Republican minority in the profession has traditionally included some heavy hitters, researchers with bodies of work their colleagues take seriously and cite often.

In the not-so-distant past, Republicans could count on these friendly academics to stand up for G.O.P. policies and against Democrats. In 2009 Robert Lucas, the Nobel laureate from the University of Chicago, ridiculed the Obama stimulus as "schlock economics." In 2010 a who's who of right-wing intellectuals signed an open letter to Ben Bernanke (himself a former Republican), insisting that his efforts to rescue the economy risked "currency debasement and inflation." In 2017 a number of Republican economists with significant reputations strongly endorsed the Trump tax cut.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now comes Biden, pushing through a short-term spending bill much bigger than the Obama stimulus, following it with a plan to spend trillions more and raise corporate taxes. In the past, such plans would have met a barrage of objections. As it is, more or less respectable Republican economists have been eerily quiet. The noisiest condemnations of the Biden plan have come from Democratic economists, notably Larry Summers, the chief economist of the Obama administration.

What explains this silence of the wonks?

Part of the answer may be embarrassment over past acts of political loyalism. The signatories of that letter warning that Bernanke was debasing the dollar got considerable ribbing when the inflation they predicted didn't materialize, and then when none of them would admit having been wrong. Enthusiastic endorsers of the Trump tax cut are also, I believe, quietly embarrassed by the complete failure of that policy to produce the promised investment boom. Another display of party loyalty would just give critics a new chance to highlight their previous misadventures; better to stay quiet.

Another piece of the answer may be that conservative economists who still have some reputation to lose may have figured out that they're just being used; the modern G.O.P. isn't interested in giving them any actual policy role, preferring hacks and cranks.

ADVERTISEMENT

Finally, there's Jan. 6. For many years conservative economists waved off those who said that by making excuses for Trump and company they were giving aid and comfort to thugs. Now they realize that this was simply the truth, and they're slinking off into the sunset.

The result is the near-absence of respectable or even coherent voices opposing Bidenomics from the right. It may not be the most important reason Republicans are finding it so hard to get traction, but it's remarkable all the same.

Quick Hits

Wage numbers are weird in a pandemic.

Economists and cities.

Defining rural: It matters.

ADVERTISEMENT

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

Facing the Music

Always seeking what you don't haveYouTube

Who are you to ask for anything more?

Feedback

If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: For vaccine passports, less tech is best

We need dumb technology that does as little as possible and knows as little about us as possible.

For vaccine passports, less tech is best

Simoul Alva

I have been reluctant to write about whether and how Americans might provide proof of vaccination against the coronavirus. It's a political, cultural, ethical and legal minefield. Technology is not the point at all.

But if some workplaces, schools, public gathering spots and travel companies start requiring a "vaccine passport," it makes sense for them to do so in ways that preserve people's privacy, are simple to use, win people's trust and don't cost a fortune.

Let me tell you about an intriguing proposal from PathCheck Foundation, a health technology nonprofit. The central premise is that technology related to our health should be as minimal as possible. That philosophy should be our North Star.

Here is one problem with some early technology approaches to digital vaccine credential systems: They create too many middlemen that tap into your health records, said Ramesh Raskar, an associate professor at the M.I.T. Media Lab who also founded PathCheck.

In the United States, states are mostly the ones maintaining records of which residents are vaccinated. Early efforts to create vaccine credentials, like the Excelsior Pass in New York, essentially create a replica of those state databases with information including your name, date of birth, address, the batch numbers of your shots and so on. And that's what businesses and others access when they check whether people walking in the door are vaccinated, Dr. Raskar said.

ADVERTISEMENT

When you add multiple layers of technology into any system, it increases the possibility of your sensitive data leaking out. It's also expensive and complicated for everyone involved. "It's completely unnecessary," Dr. Raskar told me.

PathCheck's idea is to create simple software code that anyone — workplaces, schools or airlines — can incorporate into apps, without the need to replicate health records.

When you need to show a vaccination credential, a one-time code would transmit two pieces of information: your identity, and that you're vaccinated. Yes, there's still a middleman, but the difference is that the apps would do as little as possible to access your sensitive information. The relevant data is communicated more directly between your phone and the state health records. You might have to show your ID, too.

He compared this proposal to paying for a sandwich with cash instead of a credit card. There is no need for a complicated paper trail to buy lunch. The metaphor isn't perfect, but it's useful.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some of the organizations pitching vaccination credential technology, including IBM and the airport screening company Clear, are making a similar pitch that their technologies are as minimal as possible.

Dr. Raskar says that they're often not, because tech companies, states and others have tried to throw a lot of smarts at the problem. If you hear the word "blockchain" with vaccine credentials, know that something has gone off the rails. The risk is that we get complicated, potentially incompatible technology for people to provide proof of vaccination.

What we really need is dumb technology that does as little as possible and knows as little about us as possible. "How can we make it simple, simple, simple as opposed to what technology companies are doing, which is to add more?" Dr. Raskar said.

PathCheck is just one of multiple companies and nonprofit groups that are developing fraud-proof vaccination credentials. It's going to be confusing for awhile as these technologies are evaluated and tested.

ADVERTISEMENT

But PathCheck deserves credit for turning the approach to vaccination credentials on its head. Less and dumber technology is usually the best.

For more on this issue:

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • Being Big Tech means fighting big governments: Governments around the world are trying to put limits on tech companies with "an urgency and breadth that no single industry had experienced before," my colleagues reported. The grievances aren't uniform among China, the United States, Europe, Myanmar, India, Australia and other countries, but there is a common cause of government angst: tech companies' power.
  • Hacking McDonald's ice cream machines! I had no idea, but apparently the machines that mix McDonald's ice cream and shakes are proprietary, fragile and complicated — and only approved technicians are allowed to fix them. One couple built an internet-connected gadget for franchisees to repair the machines on their own, Wired reported, and it started a war with the restaurant giant.
  • Amazon is opening a hair salon in London. It's an experiment, but WHAT and also WHY?

Hugs to this

How do you bottle-feed a bunch of baby goats at the same time? You make a goat feeding assembly line.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018