Comments on: Christina Romer on the Lessons of 1937

By: Zach

Zach — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:26:03 +0000

FWIW, I think the Economist can be classified as a liberal (in the American sense) and illiberal (in the European sense) magazine.

By: Blackadder

Blackadder — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:57:01 +0000

I agree that caution is called for here. However, both Romer’s own work and the economic consensus suggest that, when the time for tightening does come, you should remove all fiscal stimulus before engaging in any monetary tightening.

By: phosphorious

phosphorious — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:44:29 +0000

“Why not mention that the Romer piece was part of a symposium in the Economist and that others made criticisms of her arguments?”

So an idea “criticized” is an idea refuted?

Have we discovered a new fallacy?

By: Gerald L. Campbell

Gerald L. Campbell — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:23:18 +0000

Nicolas,

Your comments above are just nonsense. What MM says here was standard fare taught in economics classes in the 1950s. To reduce these remarks to talking the points of the Democratic Party is way too cute and just plain silly.

But if you want to discuss Democratic and Republican party talking points, here is one Republican talking point you forgot to mention. When the Republicans turned their talking points into economic policy, the chief results were the Great Depression and the current economic crisis.

Now that record is pretty difficult to beat! No wins, all losses!

By: Morning's Minion

Morning's Minion — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:06:59 +0000

Christina Romer is one of the leading experts in economic history, especially the Great Depression. She’s been doing research in the topic for at least two decades now. It says a lot that a mainstream economic analysis from a leading scholar is seen as “Democratic talking point”. Such is the state of the world. Sigh.

By: Nicholas Jenkins

Nicholas Jenkins — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:58:03 +0000

Democratic talking points: straight from the Democratic Party to Brad DeLong’s blog (he’s been called on this before) to Vox Nova. Why not mention that the Romer piece was part of a symposium in the Economist and that others made criticisms of her arguments?