“Any central bank's ability to boost labor productivity is doubtful; whether recovery produces high or low value jobs is a complex matter of demographics, structural factors in the economy, and taxes and regulation. Attempting to manage this process must at some point run up against the BOE's inflation-fighting objectives, and no amount of assurances from Mr. Carney will mitigate the damage when that happens.” --WSJ editorial board, August 8th, 2013
There are powerful forces arrayed against growth in the world today: the Dallas Fed, the Bundesbank, the ECB, the Ron Paul family, the entire German nation, Obama’s monetary ignorance, and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, the official organ of the orthodox right.
The WSJEB, headed by the estimable Paul Gigot (and controlled by my guy Rupert Murdoch) is an avatar of hard money, pain, discipline and depression. Like the Republican right in 1896 and 1933, they think that the problem is imminent inflation, and the populist challenge to the divine gold standard. They are what we now call “Austrians”, which has nothing to do with the wonderful people who inhabit Austria and serve great food.
“Austrians” want hard money, oppose the idea of central banks, and want zero inflation. It is a charming and in many ways an admirable philosophy, but it is nonetheless pre-Copernican. The earth is not flat, and money matters. Yes, it would be a better universe if the earth were flat, and the sun revolved around the earth on a daily basis, and money didn’t matter. But it just ain’t so.
The WSJ doesn’t like Mark Carney (the new Canadian head of the BoE) because he is a monetarist, indeed maybe even a secret market monetarist. He has said things that have been interpreted as verging on Sumnerism: nominal targeting. In other words, he is an inflationist in the Fisher-Friedman-Bernanke-Krugman tradition. These are the kind of people whom one doesn’t want one’s daughter to meet, let alone date or, God forbid, marry. They are cheap and unclean.
The WSJ is worried that Carney might decide to target nominal growth, even if that meant massive money growth and higher inflation. No, in the eyes of the Journal, high unemployment is peachy, but inflation above 2% would be catastrophic.
Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more. All for less than $9 a month.
Subscribe Now
Why is the Right so in love with hard money, low inflation, and high unemployment? Here is my answer: because they do not believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. You could spread out a smorgasbord of caviar, salmon, lobster and Dom Perignon, and they would turn their heads and eat a cheese sandwich. Reflation is easy and thus sinful. It’s that Protestant thing. The only people who understand monetary policy are Jews and Catholics.
With ambitious spending plans and efforts to curb corporate power, US President Joe Biden hopes not only to spur an inclusive economic recovery, but also to defuse widespread anger among American workers. But with the US economy already rebounding strongly from pandemic-induced recession, critics warn that there are dangers to excessive stimulus.
The Summer of DisasterJeff GritchenMediaNews GroupOrange County Register via Getty Images
The view that central-bank interest-rate policy can and should be the main driving force behind greater income equality is stupefyingly naive, no matter how often it is stated. Central banks can do more to address the inequality problem, but they cannot do everything.
argues that monetary policy did not cause, and largely cannot mitigate, increasing income and wealth disparities.
“Any central bank's ability to boost labor productivity is doubtful; whether recovery produces high or low value jobs is a complex matter of demographics, structural factors in the economy, and taxes and regulation. Attempting to manage this process must at some point run up against the BOE's inflation-fighting objectives, and no amount of assurances from Mr. Carney will mitigate the damage when that happens.”
--WSJ editorial board, August 8th, 2013
There are powerful forces arrayed against growth in the world today: the Dallas Fed, the Bundesbank, the ECB, the Ron Paul family, the entire German nation, Obama’s monetary ignorance, and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, the official organ of the orthodox right.
The WSJEB, headed by the estimable Paul Gigot (and controlled by my guy Rupert Murdoch) is an avatar of hard money, pain, discipline and depression. Like the Republican right in 1896 and 1933, they think that the problem is imminent inflation, and the populist challenge to the divine gold standard. They are what we now call “Austrians”, which has nothing to do with the wonderful people who inhabit Austria and serve great food.
“Austrians” want hard money, oppose the idea of central banks, and want zero inflation. It is a charming and in many ways an admirable philosophy, but it is nonetheless pre-Copernican. The earth is not flat, and money matters. Yes, it would be a better universe if the earth were flat, and the sun revolved around the earth on a daily basis, and money didn’t matter. But it just ain’t so.
The WSJ doesn’t like Mark Carney (the new Canadian head of the BoE) because he is a monetarist, indeed maybe even a secret market monetarist. He has said things that have been interpreted as verging on Sumnerism: nominal targeting. In other words, he is an inflationist in the Fisher-Friedman-Bernanke-Krugman tradition. These are the kind of people whom one doesn’t want one’s daughter to meet, let alone date or, God forbid, marry. They are cheap and unclean.
The WSJ is worried that Carney might decide to target nominal growth, even if that meant massive money growth and higher inflation. No, in the eyes of the Journal, high unemployment is peachy, but inflation above 2% would be catastrophic.
Subscribe to Project Syndicate
Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more. All for less than $9 a month.
Subscribe Now
Why is the Right so in love with hard money, low inflation, and high unemployment? Here is my answer: because they do not believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. You could spread out a smorgasbord of caviar, salmon, lobster and Dom Perignon, and they would turn their heads and eat a cheese sandwich. Reflation is easy and thus sinful. It’s that Protestant thing. The only people who understand monetary policy are Jews and Catholics.