I had never heard of Heritage before I read the article I posted, but I'm inclined to trust actual economic analysis and a clearly rigorous understanding of the situation over Krugman's little mantra.
From the little I've read of Krugman, I'm baffled as to how he received a Nobel prize. His opinion pieces in the NYTimes are TERRIBLE and seem to be written with one goal in mind: start as large of a flame war in the comments section as possible. That, and promote his books or whatever he is selling these days.
Also, you'd be a fool to just straight out ignore something because someone told you to. The least you could do is read and understand it to form your own opinion - then you can make an informed decision on its worth, rather than blindly following a pundit.
Yea, the Heritage Foundation is a right wing think tank known for very biased views. It's essentially an academic sounding mouth piece for the GOP establishment. It used to be more legitimate, but it's an outright political organization these days.
It just seems weird to worry about inflation and runaway depreciation when we are in an environment that has seen disinflation and dollar appreciation.
> but I'm inclined to trust actual economic analysis and a clearly rigorous understanding of the situation
You won't find that at Heritage, they do propaganda water carrying not serious economic research. Heritage is another incarnation of the scientists that worked for tobacco companies. The econmists that work at Heritage aren't paid to do real economic analysis, they're paid to support Heritage's policy positions with something that looks like real economic analysis.
> From the little I've read of Krugman, I'm baffled as to how he received a Nobel prize.
Uncontroversial pick, was one of the favorites.
> His opinion pieces in the NYTimes are TERRIBLE and seem to be written with one goal in mind: start as large of a flame war in the comments section as possible.
His opinions throughout the financial crisis have stood up as well as anyone elses, certainly much better than Heritage with their constant claims of QE leading to inflation.
> That, and promote his books or whatever he is selling these days.
'Don't trust anyone who writes books' is not a strong argument. Better advice might be, don't trust economic analysis that validates the preferred conclusions of the organization that paid for it.
> Also, you'd be a fool to just straight out ignore something because someone told you to.
This assumes my only reason for ignoring them is because someone told me to. No, I ignore them because they've time and again exposed themselves as hacks. Krugman's 'little mantra' is simply an easy to remember form.
> The least you could do is read and understand it to form your own opinion - then you can make an informed decision on its worth, rather than blindly following a pundit.
You'd be a fool to waste your time with parties who have already shown themselves to not be good faith participants. An informed person doesn't need to read your article from Heritage to know what it says about QE. It says QE is bad and will lead to inflation and perhaps other badness. An informed person knows this because that is what Heritage always says about QE, even years after they've been wrong over and over again. Informed people might be glad that they did not invest their money in line with Heritage's constant predictions that QE will lead to inflation.
> I'm baffled as to how he received a Nobel prize. His opinion pieces in the NYTimes are TERRIBLE and seem to be written with one goal in mind: start as large of a flame war in the comments section as possible.
You should always remember:
1. Don’t believe anything Heritage says.
2. If you find what Heritage is saying plausible, remember rule 1.