Not a Good Argument For Bernanke
James Hamilton is gung-ho in favor of Bernanke’s reconfirmation, and says this (HT2MR):
I sometimes hear Bernanke’s critics speak as if there is some kind of shallowness to his world view, as if he is somehow incapable of seeing what is obvious to those with common sense. If you want a bumper-sticker-size summary of what he’s all about, here it is– Bernanke believes strongly that a credit crunch can be devastating to regular people, and has done everything in his power to mitigate that damage. You may agree or disagree with his claim that the extraordinary steps taken under his leadership “averted the imminent collapse of the global financial system.” But you must agree with two things: the global financial system did not collapse, and preventing its collapse is the reason Bernanke did what he did. If you think his motives were anything other than this, you have been sucked into a groupthink far shallower than the world view sometimes ascribed to Bernanke.
OK, as for the part I put in bold above, I think Hamilton has an odd opinion of the limits of Bernanke’s powers. Scott Sumner has become world famous (in geeconosphere circles) for saying Bernanke needs to get his inflation on, for example by reversing his policy of paying banks to not make new loans.
Beyond that oddity, I don’t like Hamilton telling me what I “must agree with.” How about this equivalent statement?
I sometimes hear Dick Cheney’s critics speak as if there is some kind of shallowness to his world view, as if he is somehow incapable of seeing what is obvious to those with common sense. If you want a bumper-sticker-size summary of what he’s all about, here it is–Cheney believes strongly that a terrorist attack can be devastating to regular people, and has done everything in his power to mitigate that damage. You may agree or disagree with his claim that the extraordinary steps taken under his Vice Presidential leadership “averted another terrorist attack.” But you must agree with two things: the U.S. was not attacked after 9/11 on Cheney’s watch, and preventing such an attack is the reason Cheney did what he did. If you think his motives were anything other than this, you have been sucked into a groupthink far shallower than the world view sometimes ascribed to Cheney.
So who likes that argument? I realize some people would–Dick Cheney’s supporters, for example–but I doubt that Hamilton would, or a lot of the people endorsing Hamilton’s post.
