Sumner in a new post apparently takes Krugman's side in an argument he's having with some conservatives over UI.
"But in mocking “aggregate demand,” Barro never really says whether he agrees with people like Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas, who have argued that a big drop in NGDP will raise unemployment, or whether he disagrees with this view. He simply dodges the issue. But it’s a really important issue, as in my view the evidence for the claim of monetary offset (fiscal stimulus doesn’t boost NGDP) is 100 times more powerful than the view that AD doesn’t matter (i.e. more NGDP fails to boost RGDP.) It’s especially disappointing because I recall an earlier Barro piece on fiscal stimulus where he said something to the effect that if falling AD is the problem then just print more money (I’ve forgotten the exact words.)"
"I’ve noticed an increasing tendency for people on the right to dodge the issue of whether nominal shocks matter. And this is why I increasingly identify with people like Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, but with hardly any living economists."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25996
On this I can certainly agree with Sumner: the Monetarist argument is 100 times more powerful politically speaking. Sumner likes to claim that he's above politics but he recently came close to admitting that the real point of Monetarism is not AD at all but a much more politically powerful argument to achieve neoliberalism through the back door.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/01/yes-scott-ive-rejected-neoliberalism.html
Speaking of political attacks, Krugman sees David Cameron doing a Sumner. I mean does this not perfectly describe Sumner as well as Cameron's sudden attempt to spike the ball on France-based on very little?
"British performance was clearly worse than French until the last couple of quarters, when it pulled slightly ahead. Again, hardly the kind of thing that would justify the boasting."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/running-economies-into-the-sand/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
It's politics alright, specifically Monetarist politics.
"But in mocking “aggregate demand,” Barro never really says whether he agrees with people like Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas, who have argued that a big drop in NGDP will raise unemployment, or whether he disagrees with this view. He simply dodges the issue. But it’s a really important issue, as in my view the evidence for the claim of monetary offset (fiscal stimulus doesn’t boost NGDP) is 100 times more powerful than the view that AD doesn’t matter (i.e. more NGDP fails to boost RGDP.) It’s especially disappointing because I recall an earlier Barro piece on fiscal stimulus where he said something to the effect that if falling AD is the problem then just print more money (I’ve forgotten the exact words.)"
"I’ve noticed an increasing tendency for people on the right to dodge the issue of whether nominal shocks matter. And this is why I increasingly identify with people like Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, but with hardly any living economists."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25996
On this I can certainly agree with Sumner: the Monetarist argument is 100 times more powerful politically speaking. Sumner likes to claim that he's above politics but he recently came close to admitting that the real point of Monetarism is not AD at all but a much more politically powerful argument to achieve neoliberalism through the back door.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/01/yes-scott-ive-rejected-neoliberalism.html
Speaking of political attacks, Krugman sees David Cameron doing a Sumner. I mean does this not perfectly describe Sumner as well as Cameron's sudden attempt to spike the ball on France-based on very little?
"British performance was clearly worse than French until the last couple of quarters, when it pulled slightly ahead. Again, hardly the kind of thing that would justify the boasting."
"It really is amazing to watch a so far brief and not all that impressive cyclical upswing get sold as a gigantic policy triumph. But I guess that’s politics."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/running-economies-into-the-sand/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
It's politics alright, specifically Monetarist politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment