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!
Uneasy Money 
But Kelly Evans was “brave/foolish” enough to answer in SS´s comment section…and got “trashed” by commenter Patrick Sullivan!
LikeLike
No link here to Scott’s post…
LikeLike
Will, Thanks for catching that one. I just updated with a link.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Patrick Sullivan – I remember arguing with a guy by that name back in the dawn of the millenium.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike