...I consult a knowledgeable reference I trust.
That's how it is for me when it comes to economics. I have a background that does not include any formal training in economics. Being self-aware enough to know this, I seek out the opinions of those who have demonstrated themselves to be trustworthy.
That is, I seek out opinions of those experts who were right consistently.
So, for economics, I look to those who correctly predicted or warned of the situations we've been living. Unlike the standard television pundits, who were all shockingly blindsided by the turmoil, I go to the people who told us some time ago that this was going to happen.
Krugman, Stiglitz and Roubini all predicted these events. They also have several Nobels between them. So why are the people who not only demonstrably got it wrong, but also effectively facilitated our current woes, still the go-to pundits in the mainstream/legacy media?
I realize that's rhetorical; the media just need to justify their own existence.
The message from those who were consistently correct now is that we need a second and more robust stimulus if we want to avoid a painfully long recovery. Krugman's been saying this since before the first stimulus, and correctly predicted the long, slow, painfuly times we're in.
An effective second stimulus is unlikely, due to the political challenges. But that's the end result of the thing the Founding Fathers warned us about: an uninformed electorate. As long as the media only put forth pundits who were demonstrably wrong on just about everything, we'll have the burden and scourge of that uninformed electorate.
No comments:
Post a Comment