Reply #46: I say we dig up Friedman ...

[RoyGBiv]

Reanimate him, and make him watch ... Clockwork Orange style ... with a pink bow on his head.

I remember when Bernanke was appointed. I had an "oh shit" moment, not because I thought he was an idiot (he's clearly not) but because his background and expertise are only truly purposeful either in academics or a depression economy. I had the paranoid thought that Bush finally knew, was actually starting to understand, and even he was aware the fit was about to hit the shan and wanted someone that might possibly be able to salvage his legacy.

It seems to be all about his legacy lately. Speaking of bastards ...

Yeah, I've noticed that about Krugman. He even posted something on his blog a few weeks back that went entirely against almost everything I've ever understood him to believe about economics, and that kinda scared me.

Brad DeLong posted on his blog not long ago a headline something like, "I don't understand this ..." as a preface to a brief discussion of current dollar valuation. That also scared me.

DeLong has gotten more on track lately, more confident with his offerings, bleak as they may be, perhaps inspired by his colleague being appointed as economic adviser and forced to focus because he has to teach her classes now. A recent post he made about why we're paying such close attention to Depression history was quite good and admitted that what we're dealing with here can only be addressed by those who understand economics is not "hard" science and that crisis moments like these can only truly be address by those with a grounding in knowledge of economic history, not fanciful theories that make for good discussion but aren't worth much in the world of the real economy as it exists.