Paul Krugman: "Disputes over trade can seem gentlemanly because economists, at least, mostly talk sense. Disputes over macroeconomic policy can't, because they don't. Sad!...
...Some navel-gazing here. I've been getting very positive reactions to my Trade Talks podcast. (Yes, @ChadBown really is that tall.) But some of it comes with backhanded criticism; "Why don't you sound like that all the time?" https://piie.com/experts/peterson-perspectives/trade-talks-episode-66-paul-krugman-talks-trade So I thought I'd talk about how it looks from here. As far as I can tell, my commentary on macroeconomics has been comparable to what I said about trade; it's an area where I did real research, and pay close attention to real developments. The difference is that while people say dumb things about trade, you don't have a faction within the economics profession determined to support those dumb things. In macro, by contrast, prominent economists have been destructively ignorant and deeply partisan. So writing and talking about monetary and fiscal policy necessarily has an edge— a bit of ugliness, if you like—that talking about trade doesn't.
I don't see any way to avoid it: being nice about the macro debates would mean being dishonest with your readers. Put it this way: you didn't have famous professors at Chicago denying comparative advantage, but you did have such people insisting on the validity of Say's Law and warning about phantom inflation. Basically, disputes over trade can seem gentlemanly because economists, at least, mostly talk sense; disputes over macroeconomic policy can't, because they don't. Sad!...
#shouldread
