- The decade by decade plot, which is highly influenced by alignment of periods, actually shows a 50% drop in inflation from the 80s to the 90s. Then says that 90s policy mandates made no difference.
- Fitting a linear trend to 100s of years of economic data with diverse data and economic regimes is meaningless wrt shorter-term policy. I guess we should expect -5% interest rate in 2100, because it dropped that fast between 1450 to 1550?
- Similarly, the arguments that COVID or Brexit should simply be blips seems like an outright denial that economic change happens. Wars, epidemics, and trade agreements shape history by reordering which economies are competitive.
I feel the need to say that I'm extremely in favor of spending on COVID relief etc, and I get the frustration that folks use FUD to complicate policy around social support spending until it fails. But the same thing happens around the spending itself. Late in the article the author discusses the way QE has been regressive, disproportionately impacting the rich. What makes anyone so confident that other forms of injecting money into the economy won't get siphoned the same way?
We're getting to a dumb moment in this debate where people are accepting flimsier and flimsier arguments that we should be able to "Just Do It" regarding spending, without consequences. If we're going to do some economically radical things, let's do so with eyes open that we will be headed to uncharted territory.