Must-Read: IMHO, Paul Krugman should have had not two but four parting observations:
- Primaries are valuable testing grounds for candidates’ ideas and teams, which is a point he makes.
- It’s dangerous to believe something because it is what you want to hear, which is a point he makes.
- A point he doesn’t make but should: If you believe that hysteresis is not a one-way ratchet–that it is as easy to boost potential via a high-pressure economy as to destroy it via prolonged depression–Sanders’s stimulus plans are underpowered by a factor of four.
- A point he doesn’t make but should: If you believe–which I do–that so far hysteresis has only gobbled about two-thirds of the gap between current production and the pre-2008 trend, then Sanders’s fiscal stimulus plans are about the right size–and HRC’s are much too small.
Romer and Romer on Friedman – The New York Times: “Two parting observations, however::
First, aren’t you glad not to see a candidate leading with his chin this way in the general election?
Second, this is an object lesson in the dangers of believing something because it’s what you want to hear. And that’s a lesson that applies to a lot more than economic growth projections.