Today's Buggy Commentary Is
. . . Found at a new web site, New Monetarist Economics, run by Professor Steven Williamson --- a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, and a member of the St. Louis district Federal Reserve. What happened to buggy's posting at Economist's View, the praiseworthy blog run by Professor Mark Thoma? Well, as buggy began to expect when his long, evidence-driven posts began to be rejected off and on a month or so ago, he found himself banned officially over this weekend.
No bugged out complaints to be made. It Professor Thoma's site --- he created and manages it, and it's his to decide the rules for posting. Then, too --- no surprise, just the opposite ---prof bug's posts generated an ongoing buzz of irritant and resentment in the circle of cocksure, know-it-all left-wing liberals and social democrats who numbered about 7 or 8 and yet monopolized about 75-80% of all the posts in each thread . . . . sometimes dozens from each of them. Oh well, that's life, no?
Not That It Matters Much
Above all, Prof bug got a better offer, let us say, than Socrates back in 396 B.C.E: no hemlock, not even a whiff of tar=and-feathers or a light dose of DDT, just a "Begone! and at the double quick, you nasty troll!" There are always other sites for the buggy prof to buzz about, and th buggy comment that you will find at P:professor Williamson's site --- click here --- got a nice reply from him in an email to the buggy guy.
Click here for the relevant thread started by Professor Williamson, then scroll down to the end or search for buggy or Michael Gordon . . . the tag "anonymous" put there at the top of the buggy thread when bug-guy had trouble for some strange technical-glitch posting under his usual moniker, but with the other names just mentioned found at the end.
Oh, Here's What Professor Williamson Said in His Email-Reply
Sorry about the problem posting the comment. I'm not sure what is going on there. Thanks for the comments.
It's clear that what is going on on China has to matter for our labor markets. The Chinese economy is huge, and Chinese policies that make a difference for resource allocation in China also have to matter for the United States. I know there is a view (and I'm sure this is clear in the data) that Chinese consumers are somehow being held back, but you certainly don't see that in a place like Shanghai. They look very Western in their consumption habits and are proud of it; real estate is booming to the point where condominium prices look like they do in Chicago. However, the disparities are huge. A large fraction of the population, particularly in Western China are still extremely poor.