More links

I write these and then immediately forget all the stuff I wanted to put into them.

Felix Salmon and James Kwak do a bloggingheads together. Lots of talk about wine, in addition to finance and banks.

Ryan Grim talks about The Federal Reserve’s role in funding economists and economics journals.

…The Fed’s hiring of so many economists can be looked at in several ways, [Economist Rob] Johnson says, because the institution does, of course, need talented analysts. “You can look at it from a telescope, either direction. One, you can say well they’re reaching out, they’ve got a big budget and what they’re doing, I’d say, is canvassing as broad a range of talent,” he says. “You might call that the ‘healthy hypothesis.'”

The other hypothesis, he says, “is that they’re essentially using taxpayer money to wrap their arms around everybody that’s a critic and therefore muffle or silence the debate. And I would say that probably both dimensions are operative, in reality.”…

At the Journal of Monetary Economics, every single member of the editorial board is or has been affiliated with the Fed and 14 of the 26 board members are presently on the Fed payroll.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to More links

  1. David says:

    I hate to say it, but the second hypothesis is founded on an ignorant, overly cynical view of what a Fed economist does.
    Being employed at the Fed as a research economist, as the JME editors are, is much closer to being an academic than a bureaucrat. Many of the researchers are still very critical of the Fed, and many are totally uninterested in what it does. My professor went to work for them without the slightest idea about how monetary policy models work. There are lots of guys at the Minneapolis Fed that would opt for much more passive monetary policy than is actively purused and fundamentally disagree with the forecasting models used there. In fact, a major working paper out of the Minneapolis Fed, joint with Minnesota guys was titled “A critique of Structural VARs Using Business Cycle Theory” and another “New Keynesian Models Not Useful For Monetay Policy.”

  2. David says:

    sorry. Take out ignorant. That’s just me being cranky and defensive of my buds at the Fed. Still, it’s overly cycnical

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s