,
16 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1. So talking Jason Furman for a sec, because @AOC criticized a paper he wrote in 2005 titled "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story" as sponsored by Walmart and she's getting blowback for it. Let me just offer a couple of observations about what is and isn't fair.
2. First, I like Furman. He has done good work on some important topics. He worked to protect the safety net, and his observations about superstar firms in 2016 were pivotal to moving the debate over concentration in certain circles. And he isn't corrupt.
3. But the debate over Walmart, and the institutional circles he moved in, were deeply destructive. At the time, the Hamilton Project at Brookings was just starting up. Hamilton was Wall Street tycoon Robert Rubin's holding pen for what would become the Obama economics team.
4. In 2002, Brookings was facing a budget deficit. It went on a massive fundraising spree, targeting among others corporate donors. It has been caught multiple times in pay to play scandals, including via Walmart and the Waltons. 
5. @SenWarren picked a big fight with Brookings over this in 2015, attacking a Brookings 'scholar' who attacked a consumer protection rule. This is common at Brookings. They defend the powerful. washingtonpost.com/politics/how-e…
6. Here's Brookings celebrating 40 years of airline deregulation. I don't know who pays for their work. Maybe no one in this case. It's not all pay to play. But the point is, there's no grounds for assuming credibility. Their reputation is what it is. brookings.edu/events/40-year…
7. In 2005, when Furman wrote his paper celebrating Walmart, Walmart was in a public relations fight with unions and liberals who were organizing against the company's track record against workers. The only thing surprising about this paper is Walmart *didn't* finance it.
8. Don't just take my word for it. Fed officials were saying it. "Wal-Mart is in the process of raising starting wages... some of the raises are part of the Wal-Mart, I’ll call it “Social/political” agenda because of all the controversy about Wal-Mart." federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy…
9. Being on Walmart's side in 2005-2006 conferred substantial advantages, especially career advancement within the Democratic economics apparatus. Today, Furman - who was wrong - is an important figure, while his opponents - who were correct - are not.
10. So you know, just by saying this about Furman and Brookings, I have harmed my career. This is how DC works. People are going to talk about how I'm [pick an insult or character smear] because I believe you deserve the right to know how your democracy is really organized.
11. I wrote this piece to describe these dynamics. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/0…
12. What's going on with @AOC and Furman is party disciplining, a 'don't go after your own side' attack. An irrelevant difference, conflating whether the paper was directly or indirectly sponsored, is grounds for such discipline. Over time, this accumulates into a reputation.
13. I spend a lot of time on the Obama administration, but it's really an intellectual edifice that goes back to Clinton and the 1980s. We have to end this mindset, that being wrong but in the consensus on behalf of the powerful confers credibility. We have to change.
14. I feel shitty writing this. I *like* Jason Furman. I don't think he would write his paper on Walmart today. He has done good for the world. I don't think he's corrupt. But he *did* write it, when it mattered, it was wrong, it *did* cause harm and it *did* help Walmart.
15. This Democratic culture of deference must end. It simply must. We do not have time for this anymore. We get one more shot at governing, and if we screw that up like we did the Obama administration, we'll get a competent authoritarian. It'll be over.
16. And as an aside, this isn't something that's just in the past. Jason Furman is now running the UK government's approach to tech monopolists. businessinsider.com/r-britain-hire…
