"Everything reminds Paul Krugman of the GOP. Everything reminds me of sex, but I try to keep it out of my papers."
This is Paul Krugman:
Actually, before I get there, a word about self-styled conservative “market monetarists”: guys, have you noticed who your real policy enemies are? People like me, Brad DeLong, etc. are skeptical about the Fed’s ability to offset the effects of fiscal austerity, but we do want it to try. The furious academic opposition to quantitative easing is instead coming from moderate conservative macroeconomists, notably Taylor and Feldstein. So your problem isn’t just that the GOP’s effective leader on economic issues gets his macro from Francisco D’Anconia; it’s that even the not-so-silly wing of the party is dead set against what you consider reform.When I read Krugman's comment I came to think about what Robert Solow once said about Milton Friedman:
"Everything reminds Milton Friedman of the money supply. Everything reminds me of sex, but I try to keep it out of my papers."Paul Krugman undoubtedly is an extremely clever economist and when he actually writes about economics - rather than about obsessing about the US Republican party - he can be very interesting to read. Unfortunately he is no better than the people on the right in US politics he so hates. It seems like every issue he writes about has to involve the Republican Party. Frankly speaking I find that extremely boring and massively counterproductive. Personally I refuse to participate in the tribalism advocated by Paul Krugman. I do not judge economists and their views on whether they are affiliated with the Republican party or the Democrat party in the US. I find these affiliations utterly irrelevant. It is of course correct that Market Monetarists tend to agree with Keynesians like Krugman and Brad DeLong that the main economic problem in the US, Japan and the euro zone right now is weak aggregate demand (we would say weak NGDP growth). None of ever denied that. However, we equally agree with John Taylor that monetary policy should be rule based and we agree with Allan Meltzer (at least the 'old' Meltzer) that monetary policy is highly potent. That is as least as important - or maybe even more important - when it comes to policy advocacy. Furthermore, as particularly Scott Sumner often has argued that Paul Krugman has been extremely inconsistent on his view of monetary policy - sometimes he seems to that there is no role for monetary policy (he seems as obsessed with the imaginary liquidity trap as he is with the GOP) and sometimes he thinks monetary easing is great and will work. Or said in another way - we tend to agree the New Keynesian Krugman, but have no time for the paleo-Keynesian Krugman. Finally would you all stop calling Market Monetarists "conservative". As far as I know most of the Market Monetarist bloggers are either apolitical or think of themselves as libertarian or classical liberal. I am certainly no conservative - neither was Hayek nor was Friedman. PS Josh Barro might be to "blame" to this discussion. It is probably this comment that triggered Krugman's response:
"But while market monetarism is the shining success of the conservative reform movement, it also points to trouble for the reformists. We have had zero success in convincing Republican elected officials that easy money is ever a good idea. The Republican party has gotten, if anything, more rabidly afraid of inflation and more flirtatious with the idea of returning to a gold standard. The 2012 Republican National Convention adopted a platform calling for a “commission to investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar."PPS I feel that this blog post might have been a complete waste of time writing so I hope that I at least have not wasted your time as well. PPPS Scott also comments on Krugman as do Dilbert: