Yes a bit you would hear from me is also wrong. But I can send you in the right direction. Regardless, what I say is just reiterating material from monetarists, and I don't get too detailed because I don't understand the details
We're living in a uniquely historical time at this moment because for most of modern economic history, virtually everybody understood the role of monetary expansion or contraction for inflation or deflation in the macro economy, but over just the last couple years, there has been an upswelling, without any semblance of credible backing, about the dangers of this. The shift has permeated the professional field (but not the academic) as well.
Since WW2, there hasn't been much bickering in economics. Keynesians and monetarists agreed on almost everything (with slight variance), and they made up almost the entirety of the profession. Problems happened (like stagflation) and problems were solved (like stagflation). But then 2008 happened, and the Keynesians dropped much of what they previous believed (and derided Japan for in the Lost Decade), while the other side left monetarism for some weird fundamentalism that claims horribly inaccurate things like "inflation is theft". Today, the academic field is the same as it has always been, but everybody has forgotten the academics, and the only people who appear to have not been swayed away are called market monetarists
Fortunately for us, those who abandoned the academic views have been getting things wrong, and the effects of that are beginning to show up now. The "inflation is theft" side is held mainly by non-academics even though the views permeate the thinking of many, but for the most part, nobody listens to that side because it spouts batshit on the regular. This was the crowd that claimed the US was headed for hyperinflation. To most professionals, it's as easy as ten seconds of calculations to figure out that their math was horribly wrong. On the other side, the Keynesians have been talking a big game and making predictions, and those have not worked out for them either. The field is gradually returning to sense
Or just look at it this way: 2013 was supposed to be a BAD year for the economy. It was supposed to be bad, bad, bad according to Krugman and every left-leaning economist. Why? The sequester. There were people like Peter Schiff on the right crying bloody murder about how the sky has already fallen but nobody sees it, but he's been wrong ever since he got in front of a camera. Then there's the small handful of academics who said 2013 wasn't going to be a bad year because monetary offset the Fed was already implementing and the markets already reacted to the sequester immediately after it passed. And they were right. The only economists who don't have egg on their faces are those who espouse the standard view that only looks non-standard since everybody else abandoned the standard
Reply With Quote