In a recent post, Scott whimsically wondered whether there were two of himself. But actually, there are, in the sense that he will hammer home a particular perspective, then apparently violate it himself. One example is that he constantly says that interest rates are a poor indicator of the stance of monetary policy, yet then points to the Fed’s raising of interest rates in 1937, and the ECB’s raise mid-crisis, to show that tighter money can cause a double dip. (Sorry can’t look up links right now.)
Recently I saw another example. One of Scott’s trademark claims is that there’s no such thing as “waiting to see” if, say, QE has worked or not; you can tell immediately based on the market’s reaction to an unexpected policy announcement. For example, here is Scott in his own words in September 2012:
I’ve also tried to convince the blogosphere of other ideas, such as “targeting the forecast” and that there is no “wait and see.” I think it’s fair to say I’ve completely failed (thus far) to make headway in that direction. Roughly 100% of the blogosphere has reacted to QE3 by discussing likely future outcomes for AD/NGDP, as if in the future we’ll learn more than we already know. I view that as akin to astrology.
Yet when it comes to recent suggestions that the Fed’s policies are hurting Indonesia, Scott says: “I’d encourage everyone to take a deep breath and let’s wait 12 to 18 months, by which time it may be easier to see what’s going on right now.” I guess we’ll ask a Sagittarius.