Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Nonsense Watch

See Scott Sumner’s post today about this piece about nominal GDP targeting by Kelly Evans.  Scott writes:

What’s happened to the Wall Street Journal?  They seem to be increasingly veering toward the Rick Perry school of monetary analysis.

And then:

I can’t imagine any reputable economist disagreeing with me on any of these three points, even if he or she hated NGDP targeting.  The WSJ is simply flat out wrong.

And again:

Don’t you love it how the WSJ switches over to Keynesian economics, just after they’ve trashed the idea that the economy needs demand stimulus.  Is there any model there?

But you really need to read Scott’s entire post to get the full flavor of his skewering of the Journal‘s “analysis.”

The only surprise here is that Scott actually seems to be surprised.  What an innocent!

About these ads

9 Responses to “Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Nonsense Watch”


  1. 1 Marcus Nunes October 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    But Kelly Evans was “brave/foolish” enough to answer in SS´s comment section…and got “trashed” by commenter Patrick Sullivan!

  2. 2 Will October 24, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    No link here to Scott’s post…

  3. 3 David Glasner October 24, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Will, Thanks for catching that one. I just updated with a link.

  4. 4 Floccina October 24, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    The only surprise here is that Scott actually seems to be surprised. What an innocent!

    That is a great line. in my experience papers will say anything that they think will help them gain an audience that will help them sell ads.

  5. 5 KH October 24, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Definitely a classic Money Illusion post, ending, as it does, with a gratuitous slap at Paul Krugman. Skewering of skeptics is the de rigueur response at TheMoneyIllusion. In my opinion the frequent skewering, in both posts and comments, does not reflect well on the blog’s host.

    Kudos to Mr. Woolsey for responding civilly and in substance to the WSJ author in comments.

  6. 6 Benjamin Cole October 25, 2011 at 10:55 am

    The WSJ op-ed was weaker than Tiny Tim’s right hook. The reasoning was half-baked when it was not opaque, banal and blindered by ideological fevers.

    I like it when the anti-inflation. anti-growth crowd suddenly wails about the plight of the workers, who suffer from inflation, as did WSJ op-ed’er Kelly Evans. Yes, they have been so concerned about workers at the WSJ. Hoo-haw.

    Really, give to me five percent real growth for five years with five percent inflation, and I will show you a happy man, whether I am working or owning.

  7. 7 David Glasner October 25, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Marcus, Yeah, I saw that. She didn’t know what she was getting herself into. That was too bad.

    Floccina, Thanks, I must admit that I sort of liked it myself.

    KH, Scott is actually one of the nicest people in the world.

    Benjamin, Well, I do sort of feel bad for Kelly. She probably means well.

  8. 8 Barry October 26, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Patrick Sullivan – I remember arguing with a guy by that name back in the dawn of the millenium.

  9. 9 Barry October 26, 2011 at 7:43 am

    “Definitely a classic Money Illusion post, ending, as it does, with a gratuitous slap at Paul Krugman. Skewering of skeptics is the de rigueur response at TheMoneyIllusion. In my opinion the frequent skewering, in both posts and comments, does not reflect well on the blog’s host.”

    Krugman has been publicly right about so many things, when so many people in so many fields were either wrong, or merely cringingly silent in fear of Bad Thoughts from the elites.

    Which means that a lot of people will never forgive him. In particular, I expect a lot of economists to spend their time arguing about Krugman’s typos, rather than the horrible errors of the people who brought us to disaster.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




About Me

David Glasner
Washington, DC

I am an economist at the Federal Trade Commission. Nothing that you read on this blog necessarily reflects the views of the FTC or the individual commissioners. Although I work at the FTC as an antitrust economist, most of my research and writing has been on monetary economics and policy and the history of monetary theory. In my book Free Banking and Monetary Reform, I argued for a non-Monetarist non-Keynesian approach to monetary policy, based on a theory of a competitive supply of money. Over the years, I have become increasingly impressed by the similarities between my approach and that of R. G. Hawtrey and hope to bring Hawtrey's unduly neglected contributions to the attention of a wider audience.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 283 other followers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 283 other followers

%d bloggers like this: