I'm not for or against either side, but I was put off by your comment.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/november/neo-...
It appears that the relationship between interest rates and inflation is still an open question in economics, which is kind of fascinating, because it's like trying to drive a moving car when the relationship between the speedometer and the brake pedal is still being debated by experts.
There are similar debates when it comes to employment. Is a high level of employment inflationary? The established wisdom of the Phillips curve is that it is, because low unemployment leads to high labour bargaining power which leads to wages rising faster than productivity, which results in inflation. But there are many economists wondering if it's not the other way around, because people are employed to produce in-demand goods, while unemployed people don't produce goods but still need to eat. These unresolved questions create questions around the inflationary impacts of eg. a jobs guarantee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee) relative to a universal basic income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income) have some economists arguing for and others against. There is no widespread consensus about the outcomes of such policies.
Thanks. I have never understood why a zero sum interest would lower inflation. Or why fewer employed poatoe farmers would make potaties cheaper. And people talk about it like it was obvious but can never explain.
Many of the things mentioned in the article, specifically causes of inflation, are talked about by other economists. This tells me your idea that “anyone with some background in basic economics” are all in agreement (with you) is wrong.
Feel free to share a proper criticism, there is a decent amount you could discuss from the causes of inflation to her potential solutions. That would make for a more interesting discussion than hand-waving the entire article as “pure trash”, which I don't think is a fair description of the article even if you disagree with Weber.
Hardly surprising when it's from a smug rag like the New Yorker. Those writers/editors live in a bubble.