Krugman can play the insider though. (see last post). He was for Hillary over Obama. He pushes the Clinton-years-were-awesome / Bush-years-sucked-partisan-theory-line.
What you see right away is that the dollar fluctuates a lot, so impressions of big decline depend a lot on your starting point. Think of it this way: maybe the question isn’t why the dollar fell so much during the Bush years, but rather why it was so strong during the late Clinton years. (The tech boom/bubble is an obvious answer).Baker would say Rubin/Clinton had a strong dollar policy. Krugman knows governments can have policies regarding the strength of their currencies.
So: the euro was extraordinarily weak in the early 2000s (which I remember from a wonderful bike trip in Burgundy), reflecting teething troubles with the new currency. It recovered, and has stayed strong despite the crisis because of the refusal of the European Central Bank to match the easing of other central banks. Canada, meanwhile, saw its currency rise along with a great commodity boom.Did Bush have a weak dollar policy?
I believe Krugman is correct regarding MMT.
Gavyn Davies provides the link. Davies fails to mention Professor Bernanke on Japan. And Waldman may be right that we'll be at the ZLB for a long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment