==> A cool page on meteorite strikes; just watch it. (HT2 Daniel Kuehn)
==> On the Krugman/Reinhart-Rogoff exchange, unfortunately I suspected that there might be something fishy going on with their shocked, shocked reaction to claims that they didn’t share their data. I’m not completely certain of the true situation, but this Joe Weisenthal gloating seems plausible, based on what I’ve read.
==> But don’t think I’m letting Krugman off the hook. In addition to being uncivil, he’s also totally wrong in how he’s “explaining” foreign countries and “austerity.” Alan Reynolds walks through Ireland and Iceland, where Krugman’s narrative is crazy. (HT2 David R. Henderson)
==> Ah but when Reynolds takes on Brad DeLong, I think Reynolds misfires. Reynolds clearly had been pointing to the apparent oddity (he didn’t use the word “paradox” I don’t think, but the scent of mystery was certainly in the air). Reynolds keeps framing the puzzle as: How can Keynesians think (a) the government issuing more debt in exchange for dollars and (b) the government absorbing more debt in exchange for dollars, are both stimulative, when they seem to be the opposite policies? And yet the Keynesians think that monetary and fiscal action can both stimulate a depressed economy. (These aren’t his exact words, but I think they are accurately capturing the alleged puzzle Reynolds wants to raise.) But the problem is, the Keynesian actually doesn’t claim that issuing more debt per se is stimulative. What is stimulative (according to the Keynesians) is spending more money that is financed by borrowing. If the Treasury merely issued more bonds and then buried the auction proceeds–in the form of actual $100 bills–in the ground, I think DeLong would say that that would be contractionary or at best neutral.
==> This has to be a hoax. Not even economists would be myopic enough to try something like this.
==> Somebody asked me my thoughts of Steve Keen. I dug this up from the period before Yoko broke up Callahan/Murphy.