Expert advice is hard for most people to evaluate. It often takes an expert, and so experts have a duty to explain the science, not lean on their credentials.
Not sure if you saw this little gem of larry's https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1475230229715161088?s=20 evidently there's no basis in economics for monopolies using supply bottlenecks to opportunistically price gauge and reap windfall profits using "inflation" as camouflage. Except that Isabella Weber just wrote a lovely piece in the guardian showing that there is a basis in history and in economics. It reminds me of a meme I saw once with a lady calling for a doctor because someone was having a heart attack, and a doctor of economics shows up and says "impossible, it wouldnt be in his rational self-interest"
I agree with you in principle but I think there's some important context and intent behind Krugman's use of the term "serious economists". I think it's important to make some kind of distinction between real experts in good standing within their field and others masquerading as experts while saying tax cuts always pay for themselves or we should return to the gold standard. I think that clarification is also useful when billionaire businessmen fancy themselves experts on the economy and start making misguided or misinformed claims to how it works. In my reading of Krugman, those people are most often his targets when he's highlighting the mainstream positions in economics. They truly are not serious economists. I think it's also a fair statement that the trump administration really didn't have any serious economists within it, especially toward the end.
I don't get the impression that there is a ton of daylight between you and Krugman there.
Using expertise to pull rank is obviously bad (and I've seen Krugman call others out on that before) . Bad-faith arguments that hold no basis in reality deserve to be called out and dismissed whether the subject is economics or epidemiology.
Before you assume Krugman is speaking in good faith let me relay to you a story Warren Mosler, the granddaddy of MMT, has told. He had Krugman over to his Jimmy Buffet style pad in the Virgin Islands. They had a long conversation on MMT, currency, government finance and so on where Mosler explained his theories and Krugman agreed and all his arguments were put to rest. We know he understood because he would periodically turn to his wife and break the concepts down for her...correctly. Immediately afterwords and ever since he's written articles and givien talks acting as though he's never heard any of it. When you've got that kind of distance between your public positions and your private ones as an economist that should raise major red flags.
I totally disagree with you on Covid shutdowns. Viruses weaken over time. What worked the first year is not needed now. It is the responsibility of people at risk to isolate. Everyone else should follow precautions but we don’t have to go back to 2020.
we have better tools to fight the pandemic now than in 2020. we are entering the third year of the pandemic we must get serious about containing Covid.
I don’t understand what your comment means. It’s doubtful that Covid can be contained. It is a cold virus. Even in Australia and New Zealand.
the virus gets there. The new variants even spreads with fully vaccinated and boosted people. ( I am vaccinated and boosted ). Like all viruses it weakens over time. And it just gets healthy people sick for a bit. It is the unhealthy that need to isolate.
Not sure if you saw this little gem of larry's https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1475230229715161088?s=20 evidently there's no basis in economics for monopolies using supply bottlenecks to opportunistically price gauge and reap windfall profits using "inflation" as camouflage. Except that Isabella Weber just wrote a lovely piece in the guardian showing that there is a basis in history and in economics. It reminds me of a meme I saw once with a lady calling for a doctor because someone was having a heart attack, and a doctor of economics shows up and says "impossible, it wouldnt be in his rational self-interest"
I agree with you in principle but I think there's some important context and intent behind Krugman's use of the term "serious economists". I think it's important to make some kind of distinction between real experts in good standing within their field and others masquerading as experts while saying tax cuts always pay for themselves or we should return to the gold standard. I think that clarification is also useful when billionaire businessmen fancy themselves experts on the economy and start making misguided or misinformed claims to how it works. In my reading of Krugman, those people are most often his targets when he's highlighting the mainstream positions in economics. They truly are not serious economists. I think it's also a fair statement that the trump administration really didn't have any serious economists within it, especially toward the end.
I don't get the impression that there is a ton of daylight between you and Krugman there.
Using expertise to pull rank is obviously bad (and I've seen Krugman call others out on that before) . Bad-faith arguments that hold no basis in reality deserve to be called out and dismissed whether the subject is economics or epidemiology.
see my thread here in reply: https://twitter.com/Claudia_Sahm/status/1476540267561897985?s=20 yes, I agree context is important.
Before you assume Krugman is speaking in good faith let me relay to you a story Warren Mosler, the granddaddy of MMT, has told. He had Krugman over to his Jimmy Buffet style pad in the Virgin Islands. They had a long conversation on MMT, currency, government finance and so on where Mosler explained his theories and Krugman agreed and all his arguments were put to rest. We know he understood because he would periodically turn to his wife and break the concepts down for her...correctly. Immediately afterwords and ever since he's written articles and givien talks acting as though he's never heard any of it. When you've got that kind of distance between your public positions and your private ones as an economist that should raise major red flags.
I totally disagree with you on Covid shutdowns. Viruses weaken over time. What worked the first year is not needed now. It is the responsibility of people at risk to isolate. Everyone else should follow precautions but we don’t have to go back to 2020.
we have better tools to fight the pandemic now than in 2020. we are entering the third year of the pandemic we must get serious about containing Covid.
I don’t understand what your comment means. It’s doubtful that Covid can be contained. It is a cold virus. Even in Australia and New Zealand.
the virus gets there. The new variants even spreads with fully vaccinated and boosted people. ( I am vaccinated and boosted ). Like all viruses it weakens over time. And it just gets healthy people sick for a bit. It is the unhealthy that need to isolate.
see my earlier post. https://stayathomemacro.substack.com/p/conversation-with-julie-raifman-public