Why Hasn't the President Solved Unemployment?????!

[IBCoupe]

'Cause Republicans are douches.

The leading opponent to my appointment, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, has questioned the relevance of my expertise. "Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in conducting monetary policy? No," he said in March. "His academic work has been on pensions and labor market theory."

But understanding the labor market — and the process by which workers and jobs come together and separate — is critical to devising an effective monetary policy.

So lemme get this straight: Obama is failing us because unemployment is at 9%, but when he nominates a guy who won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in researching unemployment, Republicans block it. Way to go.

[heliochrome85]

see, i read your link, and like an alzheimers patient, i forgot that i read it, found it again, got angry, and then posted it in my own thread. i need a starbucks, now if only i could find a starbucks...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENGUYeiGtNk[/youtube]

[szh]

Okay, I'll bite - not that I know enough about the topic to comment properly.

What does a Federal Reserve governorship have to do with unemployment expertise? Perhaps his skills are better used elsewhere - would augmenting the staff of the Labor secretary be better?

Regardless of which, I don't know the circumstances of why his nomination was blocked (perhaps indeed unjustifiably, but I am not going to go ballistic about something I don't know enough about). Most importantly, I find that self-serving blogs, as well as the media, are not good sources of true information.

Tariq, get over your anger - it will only lead to ulcers.

Z

[AZhitman]

Tariq, get over your anger - it will only lead to ulcers.

...or a XXL boomshirt.

[IBCoupe]

The Federal Reserve is the only centralized actor (except for Congress, I suppose, but I don't see them starting a WPA) that has any control over the economy, and this guy won a Nobel in Economics for his research findings relating to how employment trends are driven.

That seems pretty pertinent.

[bigbadberry3]

How much more qualified can you get when your resume includes a nobel prize !?!?

[stebo0728]

How much more qualified can you get when your resume includes a nobel prize !?!?

Please, Im not trying to say the guy isnt qualified, I dont know anything about him, BUT, the Nobel prize is a freaking joke, its tantamount to a 4th Grade Spelling Bee trophy.

[C-Kwik]

BUT, the Nobel prize is a freaking joke, its tantamount to a 4th Grade Spelling Bee trophy.

Neither of which you have...

[stebo0728]

BUT, the Nobel prize is a freaking joke, its tantamount to a 4th Grade Spelling Bee trophy.

Neither of which you have...

Nope, if it wasn't for these damned red underlines, my true deep south vernacular would show a lot more.

[IBCoupe]

How much more qualified can you get when your resume includes a nobel prize !?!?

Please, Im not trying to say the guy isnt qualified, I dont know anything about him, BUT, the Nobel prize is a freaking joke, its tantamount to a 4th Grade Spelling Bee trophy.

No. The Nobel Peace Prize is traditionally a politicized thing, but, like the internet, the other Nobel prizes are serious business.

[bigbadberry3]

How much more qualified can you get when your resume includes a nobel prize !?!?

Please, Im not trying to say the guy isnt qualified, I dont know anything about him, BUT, the Nobel prize is a freaking joke, its tantamount to a 4th Grade Spelling Bee trophy.

Remind me to show this to your son or daughter when they win a nobel prize.

[bigbadberry3]

And if you're bored go and put yourself on any of these lists

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/year/

[szh]

How much more qualified can you get when your resume includes a nobel prize !?!?

Really! Would a Nobel Prize in Physics qualify a person to be on the Federal Reserve then?

To ask more extremely rhetorically: would Paul Diamond be able to work as a Cellular Engineer at my company? Not a chance - I would not hire him for sure!

Yes, the Nobel Prize is an acknowledgement of the brilliance of the guys work in his particular specialty and expertise.

It says NOTHING as to his qualifications for a given position that may not be his field of expertise. The term "Economics" includes a lot of possibilities in specialization - particular at the level that a Professor would be at.

Now, having said that, whether Paul Diamond was qualified for that position or not is not something you or anybody posting here is qualified to comment on. And, neither perhaps, is the Senator who blocked his nomination, I acknowledge. But I do not know.

But, certainly, taking the words in a personal blog as gospel is silly - they are a bit more than likely to be quite biased, IMHO.

Z

[bigbadberry3]

SZH,

I realize there are different fields in which the prize is awarded (I have a physics degree so I follow this every year for the science) but his award was in the general area for which he was applying so I would argue that his nobel prize was a relevant qualifier.

EDIT: Would you hire Peter Diamond in your financial department?

[szh]

EDIT: Would you hire Peter Diamond in your financial department?

Nope.

I'd prefer somebody with real-world accounting and taxation experience and a prior life as a Controller or a CFO.

Z

[IBCoupe]

But Z, the what more would you want? The guy got a Nobel for studying how unemployment rises and falls in relation to economic activity. They want to put him in the small group of people with the ability to effect large economic activity.

I reject your argument that we can't know if he's qualified. Llook at his Nobel, look at his academic background and decide if you think he is qualified for a job whose main responsibility can be described as "contribute to the economic decisions that have the greatest effect on the world's economy." Do you think his is a voice you'd want contributing to the discussion at the Fed? If the answer is "no" and you've got an explanation, I can respect that.

But your skepticism looks feigned.

[szh]

But Z, the what more would you want? The guy got a Nobel for studying how unemployment rises and falls in relation to economic activity. They want to put him in the small group of people with the ability to effect large economic activity.

I reject your argument that we can't know if he's qualified. Llook at his Nobel, look at his academic background and decide if you think he is qualified for a job whose main responsibility can be described as "contribute to the economic decisions that have the greatest effect on the world's economy." Do you think his is a voice you'd want contributing to the discussion at the Fed? If the answer is "no" and you've got an explanation, I can respect that.

Look at my words again. I did not say that I knew he was or wasn't qualified for the Federal Reserve - if I implied that in any way, sorry! Indeed, I also said that the Senator who blocked him may be equally unqualified to judge his skills (and therefore possibly wrong).

Yes, Paul Diamond is very qualified in his particular area of expertise, but as a former student who studied at the college he teaches at and having been taught by some other Nobel laureates there, I can assure you that getting a Nobel does not mean they walk on water. This does not make one an expert on areas outside their field of expertise.

But your skepticism looks feigned.

Really? You can read my mind now - over the Internet no less?

My point is that no one posting here knows how to judge his particular skills for the job, so getting all hot and bothered about the fact that he did not get it seems like a tempest in a teapot - i.e., it seems to be just to feel righteously angry "about Republicans" again.

Indeed, just look at your words in the original post: "'Cause Republicans are douches" ... not Republican politicians or senators or congressfolks ... us Republican voters are douches to you?

Z

[IBCoupe]

That was a rhetorical "you," Z. My point is this:

• We know what the job is.

• We know what his area of expertise is.

How does one lack a determination on whether the two are a match? That's effectively what you're saying: it's improper for us to say that he us or isn't qualified. My question to you is this: just what the hell are we missing?

And, no, I can't read your mind. That's why I wrote that your skepticism looks feigned. I'll turn it back on you, now: go back and read my post.

[szh]

I will be more direct then ...

I have no skepticism about whether he is or is not qualified for the job.

I do know that I am not qualified to make that call.

And I do believe that no one posting in this forum is qualified to make that call either.

And therefore any outrage about him not getting the job is silly (feigned? ).

Direct enough?

Z

[IBCoupe]

What qualifications would be needed. You're not answering the question. What's missing?

[szh]

What qualifications would be needed. You're not answering the question. What's missing?

Didn't I pretty much just say that I am not qualified to say whether he is qualified or not for the job? That goes along with also not knowing what the job needs.

Without being an expert in the field, I am not likely to either (a) know what is required for it and (b) whether he is qualified.

And, to say it again, nobody here is an expert on this topic, so will have the same difficulty. So, outrage is not a reasonable position.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Imagine you work for a US Representative. Imagine that Representative has come to you, asking, "Politics aside, should I oppose Paul Diamond's nomination?"

Is your response to say what you've said here? Or would you maybe come up with a convincing answer as to what knowledge you lack? I'm asking you: what knowledge do you lack? If you had to make a determination, where would you start looking?

It's like you entered this thread with the distinct purpose of not addressing it.

[szh]

Different situation entirely, and you know it.

If I worked for a US Representative, then I would take the time to do my job and homework first - without answering off the cuff in any way, shape or form.

I'd go ask other experts, make myself familiar with the job description, the candidate qualifications, etc. before making any recommendations. (Without going looking now, do you have a copy of the job description and/or know the candidate's qualifications - beyond the "he has a Nobel prize" observations?)

Entirely different process and outcome.

It's like you entered this thread with the distinct purpose of not addressing it.

I posted to address the silly outrage and silly anger and silly "Republicans are douchebags" comment ... and explained my reasons. Not sufficient enough for you? Tough - deal with it.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Different situation entirely, and you know it.

If I worked for a US Representative, then I would take the time to do my job and homework first - without answering off the cuff in any way, shape or form.

I'd go ask other experts, make myself familiar with the job description, the candidate qualifications, etc. before making any recommendations. (Without going looking now, do you have a copy of the job description and/or know the candidate's qualifications - beyond the "he has a Nobel prize" observations?)

Entirely different process and outcome.

So you'd have to look things up to talk about a subject.

Why don't you do that for everything? I already looked up the guy's history. I was already familiar with the research, 'cause I was paying attention when his Nobel made headlines. I'm somewhat familiar with what's required for fed appointees, because I've talked about it before and I've read about it before. If I care enough to comment, I care enough to make an educated comment.

And before I make a claim about a thing, I make sure I have enough familiarity to do so. So it seems to me that the only reason you DON'T is that you're too lazy to do the legwork necessary.

I posted to address the silly outrage and silly anger and silly "Republicans are douchebags" comment ... and explained my reasons. Not sufficient enough for you? Tough - deal with it.

Z

And you did so on the basis of your presumption that we're all as lazy as you are. Who, exactly, is silly here? You admit that the information necessary to talk about the information is out there.

Here's an article from last year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... pissarides

Here's a Wikipedia article about what the Federal Reserve does:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Read those two things, then come back with an opinion about the relevancy of his research to the Board of the FED before you try to tell me that I shouldn't have one.

[IBCoupe]

Here's a shortcut. Wikipedia lists this as one of the primary functions of the Federal Reserve today:

To manage the nation's money supply through monetary policy to achieve the sometimes-conflicting goals of
• maximum employment
• stable prices, including prevention of either inflation or deflation[32]
• moderate long-term interest rates

And here's the crux of Peter Diamond's Nobel prize-winning research, as the Nobel committee stated when it gave him the award:

Why are so many people unemployed at the same time that there are a large number of job openings? How can economic policy affect unemployment? This year's Laureates have developed a theory which can be used to answer these questions.

[szh]

Yup. I must be lazy.

You, on the other hand, are a self-righteous arsehole.

Like the personal attack, insulting attitude better?

Z

[szh]

And, by the way, you are still not qualified to decide anything about that job.

Z

[IBCoupe]

And, by the way, you are still not qualified to decide anything about that job.

Z

Based on what, you presumptuous d!ck?

[szh]

Ah, yes. Proved my point with a personal attack again - shows how you like to respond to viewpoints that you don't agree with. My [deliberately feigned] insult was to show how you cannot take what you like to dish out.

Based on what, you presumptuous d***?

Easy. You showed that you think googling a few things makes you an expert.

Z

[IBCoupe]

You're the one throwing insults. Had you left it out, I'd have done the same. I figured that's what we're doing. If you don't want them, fine, but I fail to see how that proves anything. It might prove something if I had completely failed to respond to the substance of your post, in favor of hurling insults, but that's not what I did. In fact, I ignored almost all of your insults by responding only to the substance, unlike what you've done by making unfriendly words an actual issue. What is it you think I can't take, you intellectual midget?

I never once claimed to be an expert, but I've summarized his work for you. I've pointed to one highly relevant FED responsibility. What more do you want? How does the fact that I'm Google searching to get you citations indicate that I lack the knowledge or capacity to understand Diamond's research and how it might qualify him for a position of the Federal Reserve Board?

Z, if you're going to be so pompous as to tell us we shouldn't have an opinion on a certain subject, you might do well to actually be prepared and capable of defending that assertion.