Brad DeLong has a post up (HT2 Scott Sumner) where he has the courage to announce: “What I Got Wrong: Batting 2 for 8.”
Long-time Free Advice readers can appreciate why this piqued my interest. But it gets better.
If I understand the indentation of his bullet points (showing which predictions were right and which were wrong), DeLong says he botched this one:
“* I thought higher inflation would follow rather than precede a strong recovery.”
So in summary, DeLong himself is admitting that his political/economic model of this crisis was 75% wrong, including a specific prediction about how inflation interacts with a weak economy.
I don’t want to discourage DeLong (or any other Keynesians for that matter) from self-flagellation in the future, but am I wrong for finding this latest post somewhat ironic?
UPDATE: Daniel Kuehn reports in the comments:
This just in to me from Brad:
The “I thought higher inflation would follow rather than precede recovery” is one of the 2 of 8 that I think I got right…
So, it’s still ironic that DeLong admits he was 75% wrong about the crisis, and yet (as far as I know) hasn’t done anything remotely like what he expected me to do regarding my ideological views, but I wouldn’t have blogged about this had it not been for my erroneous inference that DeLong’s inflation call was one of the things he admits he got wrong. (In case you’re wondering, I thought DeLong was referring to the fact that price inflation has been higher than what a simple Keynesian model would have suggested. Even Krugman has blogged about the fact that CPI is rising faster than he would have predicted in early 2009. Krugman’s explanation was something like [I’m paraphrasing], “This just shows that sticky wages are more powerful than we imagined. If some wages want to fall but can’t, and others want to rise, then you’ll get a gentle drift upward, even at the zero lower bound.” So I thought maybe DeLong was referring to something like that.)