Wrong on so many counts, poor Friedman

It´s not Friedman that was wrong, but Paul Krugman:

Friedman’s money supply rule soon proved itself inadequate, but a more flexible kind of monetarism — one that still left no role for fiscal policy — did end up ruling conventional wisdom from the mid-80s to 2007, the era of the Great Moderation. Then came the Great Recession, the Fed funds rate came up against the zero lower bound, and we were banished from the monetarist paradise. In fact, as I’ve written on a number of occasions, recent experience pretty conclusively shows that Friedman’s claims about how easy it would have been to avert depression were all wrong.

Still, QE, in the eyes of its most enthusiastic advocates, can return us to Milton’s Eden. And they are determined to read the evidence as confirming that hopeful notion.

Yet there are many economists, myself included, who regard this view as highly unrealistic, yet support more aggressive Fed action all the same. Why? First, because it might help and is unlikely to do harm. Second, because the alternative — fiscal policy — may be of proven effectiveness, but is also completely blocked by politics. So the Fed’s efforts are all we have.

PK supports monetary policy because it´s a placebo. It can do no harm and, who knows, ‘psychologically’ it might help!

Imagine if FDR thought the same in early 1933. He probably wouldn´t have thought delinking from gold would be worth the trouble! As the charts (reproduced from the previous post) indicate, Friedman was right to claim how easy it would have been to avoid the depression, given how easy it was to turn the economy around. Today, on the other hand, we are content with remaining ‘depressed’.

Parallels_1

And what about the “proven effectiveness of fiscal policy”? The charts show that while between late 2007 and 2009 the deficit more than quadrupled, employment tanked (Note that when QE1 came online the rate of fall in employment was reduced) and in 2010-13, while the deficit was almost halved employment increased consistently (less than what would be desirable because monetary policy is still keeping the economy depressed).

Wrong

 

But to PK acolytes, he can never be wrong!

2 thoughts on “Wrong on so many counts, poor Friedman

    • Max, agree. What´s “radical” is ‘environment dependant’. In that sense, Volcker was ‘radical’. FDR was ‘extremely radical’. Bernanke has been ‘bland’. Adopting a new target would be much less ‘radical’ than what FDR, or even Volcker, did.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.