“just fundamentally not qualified in my mind” to be a Fed governor
That’s Senator Kevin Cramer on Dr. Lisa Cook; see the interview on FoxNews. Senator Toomey also objects, grudgingly mentioning the PhD but then noting that none of her academic work deals with monetary policy. (Senator Toomey also voted against Janet Yellen’s nomination to be Fed chair, so don’t count me terribly surprised.) I’ll note that Peter Diamond, nominated by President Obama, also didn’t have academic work on monetary policy (but was not opposed on the basis of that point). A highly critical (and misleading) article is in the Daily Caller.
To highlight the unequal treatment meted out to Dr. Cook vs. other candidates, consider this person’s academic qualifications: BA (Princeton), MA, Political Economy. That person was Paul A. Volcker. Note also the distinction between the treatment of Governor Miki Bowman, nominated by Mr. Trump; Senator Toomey voted aye on her nomination, despite the lack of relevant academic credentials (she’s got a JD).
Brad Delong has a piece which excellently lays out why Dr. Cook’s research is important, and at the same time relevant, to the Fed’s mission. See also Paul Romer’s article.
A couple of observations:
The Fed conducts monetary policy; but it also regulates (in conjunction with other agencies) the banking system. One of the things it is tasked to regulate is redlining, the “discriminatory practice in which services (financial and otherwise) are withheld from potential customers”, usually on the basis of race. I suspect that Dr. Cook’s research is relevant to this issue (she also has research on banking as well). (Personal aside: If you don’t know the history of redlining in America, you should learn it; you would learn lots of interesting things, including why there are/were Chinatowns).
On monetary policy, it’s now widely understood that its not neutral with respect to distributional effects defined along income (e.g., Coibion et al.), class (defined in terms of income source), and hence race. So once again, it seems that if one is concerned with assessing the impact of monetary policy, one would want to have in place a governor who has some understanding of these types of issues.
Here’s a list of economists writing in support of Dr. Cook’s nomination (I’d have signed, but I didn’t get the opportunity).
So, in my view, she is extremely well qualified to serve as a Governor of the Federal Reserve. (I’m responding to several commenters’ inquiries here.)
Full disclosure: I was a classmate of Dr. Cook at University of California, Berkeley, but in different cohorts (barely overlapping as I recall). I don’t recall extensive interaction, and do not recall having communicated with her since I received my PhD in 1991.
Update:
Harald Uhlig weighs in here. If an unbalanced panel data set were an issue meriting dismissal, I think I’d be in trouble. If there was a problem with the data set compilation from primary data sources, well a *lot* of people would be in trouble. Let he/she w/o sin cast the first stone (although theorists don’t have to worry about data).
Very well done. Thank you.
She could not possibly do worse than the crowd in there now.
I read the attached.
The Fed only has 400 economists! I thought it was, like, 900. Either way, they either need to hire 400 more or fire all 400.
See January 2021 inflation read 7.5% yoy and 0.6% mom.
How is the Senator qualified to judge whether the nominee is qualified? I understand he has an advice and consent role to perform, but that doesn’t mean he necessarily relies on his own understanding of a nominee’s qualification. What is this dolt relying on to draw his conclusion? Partisanship? An appreciation of the political value of dog-histle racism?
Let us not forget that Senate Republicans also thought Professor Diamond was not qualified. Well, that’s what they said they thought. Let’s never confuse what politicians say with what they think.
Macroduck How is the Senator qualified to judge whether the nominee is qualified?
Indeed. Good question. These are the same GOP Senators who voted to confirm Sarah Pitlyk as a District Judge, and she was ABA rated as “unquallified.” Those Senators couldn’t even judge the qualifications of someone from their own academic field never mind following an arcane cliometric argument in the footnotes. Should we posthumously revoke Robert Fogel’s Nobel Prize for his cliometric work on ante-bellum slavery just because it has lately come under a lot of academic scrutiny? As to John Cochrane, you’d think he might be a little humbler in his criticisms given the way he badly botched his explorations into the number of likely deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I don’t think monetary policy should be a requirement. Heck I’d like it if they were even more radical and hired some classical microeconomists like Ron Braetigam (spelling?). Or a corporate finance professor. Or an MBA. Or a CFO. Or a hedge fund guy. Think it would be good intellectual diversity. So Cook’s field of research is no problem.
I do think the main criticism (time series itself being wrong) of the patent paper is on target. She has a massive discontinuity in a temporal time series right where her data source changed. But again, so what. Is messing up a paper the end of the world? There was no ethical scandal. Just a methodology mistake.
And the rest of her papers are solid I guess (haven’t read, just looking at output). But nothing extraordinary. But then again is having a super h index a main criteria? This isn’t an academic job she’s going into.
I love Paul Romer’s opening:
“John Cochrane used a theory about Lisa Cook to dismiss her as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I know Lisa well enough to know that John’s theory does not fit the facts. I respect both John and Lisa as economists but recognize how they differ. John is a theorist. Lisa is an empiricist. Of the two, I would rather have Lisa on the Board of Governors because she is more attentive to the facts. I may not be able to convince John that she is better suited to the job than he, but perhaps I can persuade him that she is better suited than I, a theorist like John.”
“she is more attentive to the facts”
Romer is being way too kind. Cochrane is a clown.
My favorite Cochrane rant was his “weeds in the garden” thesis that deregulation would allow the economy to grow at 4% forever. Talk about a lack of microfoundations!
There is a lot in Toomey’s letter that makes me gag but can we focus on this?
Also important is Prof. Cook’s extreme left-wing political advocacy. She has supported race-based reparations, promoted conspiracies about Georgia voter laws, and sought to cancel those who disagree with her views, such as publicly calling for the firing of an economist who dared to tweet that he opposed defunding the Chicago police.
Gee I did not know members of the FED cannot have in the past advocated basic civil rights. Maybe Biden needs to nominated a MAGA hat wearing version of Judy Shelton! Toomey should not be in the Senate as he is not qualified to be dog catcher.
“Here’s a list of economists writing in support of Dr. Cook’s nomination”
The first 20 names on this list represent some of the most respected economists in the nation. Of course Donald Luskin will compile his list of “economists” who oppose her nomination. Of course since Luskin himself will sigh it means the list is nothing more than the usual cast of right wing clowns.
While Menzie’s overall argument is spot-on that Dr Cook is qualified, the argument that Menzie presents is absolute sh*t. Again. I’m saddened by how terrible Menzie is in presenting arguments – even when I agree with the overall premise. Volcker’s credentials were far beyond anytime writing a dissertation. It’s laughable to only cite Volcker’s academic record. Laughable and ignorant. Powell is a much better example of an unqualified member of the FOMC ATHAN Volcker and it isn’t even close.
He was talking about how Toomey voted for Miki Bowman rather than saying Volcker was not qualified. I guess you were ready to chirp again rather finish reading. Or maybe you are up to your usual lying
I read it all. You apparently did not. First paragraph references Toomey and Cramer. Second paragraph mentions Volcker and only his education and does so out of freaking nowhere. And there was no lie from me at all – you suggesting such is a lie. Typical.
Point remains – poor comparison.
Menzie failed.
PaGLiacci failed.
You apparently did not finish that particular paragraph. OK you’re an idiot
I also think it’s silly to mention Volcker when his vote to serve on the BOG occurred decades before either Cramer or Toomey were members of Congress. Just terrible takes all around by Menzie Chinn.
Econned, you disagree with Menzie because you don’t understand what Menzie has written. That is very clear. What you’ve written simply does not match reality. What also seems clear is that you don’t understand because you choose not to. Taking what Menzie wrote at face value would deny you the opportunity to preen and pose, so you pretend he said something other than he did. Your only here to pretend that somehow your views carry weight and that pretense is best served by criticizing people who actually do matter.
Face it; you’re nobody. You act like a spoiled child because you resent your lack of importance. Menzie is good enough to provide a forum in which shutting you up isn’t an option and you thank him by talking smack. You are that worst denizen of social media, revealing how ugly you are because there are no consequences.
Adam Smith would need to write a sequel to “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” if he were here to see the behavior of people like Econned on the internet. The social mechanism Smith saw as guiding human behavior toward civility and decency breaks down for those who have not internalized civility and decency. When the invisible hand isn’t there to deliver a spanking, trolls be trolls.
Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
You’re a duck alright. Ducks quack and that fits you well. MacroQuack shall be your new name.
Hahaha. You’re upset at someone’s comment on the internet. You take the time to opine “ that somehow your views carry weight” and “ you’re nobody”… you can’t see how ridiculous such a comment makes you seem. Just think about it.
This is not a single substantive point in your latest lame attempts to insult everyone. Par for the course for you.
Your response to me, in broad strokes, is like your response to Menzie. You have nothing of substance to say, so you reach for worn-out nonsense. I’m honored.
“Econned, you disagree with Menzie because you don’t understand what Menzie has written. That is very clear. What you’ve written simply does not match reality. What also seems clear is that you don’t understand because you choose not to.”
Menzie never said Volcker was not qualified and he also knows Toomey was not in the Senate in the late 1970’s. Menzie was CLEARLY putting up Toomey’s stupid qualification as being a bit weird.
Menzie never said Greenspan was not qualified either. He was just poking Princeton Steve’s really dumb comment. And yes Stevie boy is not a US Senator.
Now Econned protests he is not lying. OK then – Econned just admitted he is incredibly STUPID. But we already knew that.
Econned tries to tear others down, like prof chinn, to compensate for his own lack of importance in the world. He is jealous and does not understand why people choose to listen to prof chinn, but do not choose to listen to econned. So he forces himself onto everybody through somebody elses blog, in the process attempting to discredit said blog. Sad and juvenile behavior.
I was watching a roughly 2 hour documentary about Ira Glasser. In it they showed some segments of his televised debates with William F. Buckley. In one of these debates Ira Glasser stated (my paraphrase) how he could not understand (and was borderline amazed) why Buckley couldn’t see he was on the wrong side of history:
From Ryan Grim at “The Intercept”
“Let us speak frankly,” Buckley wrote in the editorial, titled “Why The South Must Prevail.”
“The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote,” he goes on. “In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail — that is all. It means to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way.”
Buckley goes on to weigh whether such a position is kosher from a sophisticated, conservative perspective. “The central question that emerges,” he writes, “is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?” His answer is clear:
“The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own. NATIONAL REVIEW believes that the South’s premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.”
Having justified denying the vote to Black people in the South as “enlightened,” Buckley then grapples with the proper level of violence needed to sustain the “civilized standards” he is intent on upholding.
“Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.”
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/05/national-review-william-buckley-racism/
I’m curious how Friedrich Uhlig thinks his descendants will explain his preoccupation with attacking Black economists and the side of history Friedrich is working overtime at associating himself with?? Does Uhlig think they will explain his seeming fixation (fetish??) of attacking Black economists and Black academics with much family pride, or another less pleasant personal feeling??
do you think volcker would have been nominated and confirmed if he had been a black female?
Don’t know but I would say it’s likely with all else being equal – Volcker had a ton of experience pre-FOMC. But I do expect she will be confirmed. I also know of others (who aren’t black females) with just as impressive CVs who have not been confirmed.
Econned, I find your answer insulting and dishonest. You want to whitewash the past, and ignore the obvious misogyny that occurs today. Volcker would have had NO chance were he a black female up for confirmation at the time.
Remember why Trump did not reappoint Yellen? I suspect he did not want a woman on top especially since she was short (5’3″ whereas the great Milton Friedman was 5 feet period).
I’m sorry you’re insulted by an honest answer provided on the interwebz. Insulting you wasn’t my intent. Moreover, I do not “whitewash the past” and I completely agree misogyny is an issue today and even moreso in the 70s. But you asked a question and I gave a clear answer that was based on someone with identical pre-BOG experience…
I’ll be clearer – as stated, given Volcker’s experience I do think the same person as a black female could be confirmed. Why? Because the experience of President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is huge. the experience of Under secretary of the Treasury for international monetary affairs is huge. While I cannot find any info on the 70’s, it is worth noting that today the Senate’s Committee on Finance and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs must approve various undersecretary positions. So there’s a chance Volcker went through confirmation for that position. Again, a black female with Volcker’s experience would have a decent chance of being confirmed in 1979. A black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience would have a very difficult task not gaining approval by Senate. But what’s important is that a black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience has a very high likelihood of being confirmed today.
Hope I didn’t upset you again.
econned, let me clarify the question a bit more.
“Why? Because the experience of President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is huge. the experience of Under secretary of the Treasury for international monetary affairs is huge. ”
and do you think a black woman would have been given those opportunities? she never would have gotten the opportunity to even be offered the position of fed chair.
discrimination and prejudice often works this way. people argue I would give a strong minority candidate the job, but the system usually keeps the minority out of the pipeline to begin with. so you can technically argue you are correct (I still don’t agree with your argument), but what you are talking about is a unicorn that never would have existed. it is 2022 and we are poised to get the FIRST black female on the fed board of governors. your correct response should have been that Volcker would not have been selected if he were a black female, because there is no way possible he would have been able to obtain those credentials in the 1970’s.
baffling,
I noticed a typo in my 2nd response. See {corrections}…
“Again, a black female with Volcker’s experience would have a decent chance of being confirmed in 1979. A black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience would have a very difficult task {} gaining approval by Senate {in 1979}. But what’s important is that a black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience has a very high likelihood of being confirmed today.”
You should have been clearer in your initial request. I stand by my statement that if Volcker were a black female she very likely could have garnered enough votes. You cannot separate Volcker from his experience. Maybe if you were bright enough you would have asked if a black woman with Dr Lisa Cook’s experience would have been nominated in 1979. The answer to that, as I clarified above is very unlikely.
“You cannot separate Volcker from his experience. ”
and you think a black female in the 1970’s would have been given the opportunity to obtain that experience?
again econned, your answers are dishonest and insulting. you want to deny the real discrimination that has existed in our country for decades.
This idiot ‘baffling’ states “again econned, your answers are dishonest and insulting. you want to deny the real discrimination that has existed in our country for decades.”
This is a ridiculous and dishonest accusation. I have replied to ‘baffling’ in this very thread that…
“I completely agree misogyny is an issue today and even moreso in the 70s.”
-and-
“A black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience would have a very difficult task gaining approval by Senate in 1979. But what’s important is that a black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience has a very high likelihood of being confirmed today.”
Hey baffling, f-off!
Econned, no need to use such foul language.
Could a black female have even been given the opportunity to gain the experience volcker had upon nomination to fed chair? Its 2022 and still we have not had a black female fed board member. So yeah, she would have been confirmed with ny fed experience. But then, you know that experience would never happen. Just admit if volcker were a black female, no chance he would have been the fed chair. None. Period.
baffling,
You’re incompetent. Again, for the idiots in the room:
“A black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience would have a very difficult task gaining approval by Senate in 1979.”
You still need to f-off.
Econned, that is not what i asked. Lovely language, by the way. Very sophomoric.
baffling,
The problem is you’re an idiot. I don’t typically use such language when replying to anonymous commenters online but your record is crystal clear. In this specific instance, you’re unable/unwilling to do a basic extrapolation. It’s embarrassingly basic. Your inability show you’re an idiot. You’re so incompetent that you can’t see how my reply is a clear answer to your “question”. You are an idiot. A dub@ss. A dolt. An idiotic dumb@ss dolt who should f-off.
“ In this specific instance, you’re unable/unwilling to do a basic extrapolation.”
I dont need to extrapolate what you might/not mean to say. You need to simply say it econned. Your continued use of poor derogatory language has simply been a cover to refuse a direct answer. It is very childish. Its like when a four year old quietly mumbles while looking away when forced to apologize for bad behavior. Very sad. As i said, sophomoric. At least most four year olds dont have your crude vocabulary, econned.
baffling
Despite your silly moral postering, you are an idiot who is in need of fing-off. You’re so dishonest it’s laughable. Again, for the baffled idiot in the room: “A black female with Dr Lisa Cook‘s experience would have a very difficult task gaining approval by Senate in 1979.”
So, please, go f-off.
Again you are not addressing the question at hand. Which is a black female with volkers experience. If there has not been a black female fed governor, then there is no way volker would have become fed chair if he were a black female. Econned, you continue to want to answer a question i did not ask. And avoid the true criticism. Using foul language in the process.
Wow. EC. Taking a stand on Dr. Cook, but you’re disappointed by Dr. Chinn’s argument re: her qualifications. Absolute sh*t?
Interesting because that’s how many here rank just about everything you post. You’re a self-aggrandizing critic who takes “stands” on very little yet feels comfortable taking a ‘stand” against much of what our host writes.
Absolute sh*t? Indeed, you’re obviously quite familiar with it, smell and all.
Yes, absolute sh*t. And it is. I don’t see you disagreeing, you’re just posting more logical fallacies. You’re doing precisely what you’re accusing me of. But you’re too biased to see it.
And you can’t smell.
noneconomist,
It may be that can’t smell, but he sure as heck stinks a whole lot.
Barkley Rosser,
Your continued infatuation with me is very strange. It’s strange but it is fun. But it’s primarily strange.
Pot calling kettle black
Econned
February 10, 2022 at 8:55 am
Wow – this troll has some serious emotional issues. Barkley – stop encouraging the profane garbage.
Greenspan, Volcker, Powell. Not an economics PhD among ’em, though Volcker’s master’s thesis was a critique of Fed policy. All approved by a majority of the Senate, including a majority of Republican Senators.
Blacks nominated by Biden to high office are all being declared unqualified by Republicans. They are not alone, of course, but if I were running a Senate campaign in Georgia…
Well, wouldn’t want to drag politics into the nomination process, I suppose.
Macroduck: Greenspan did eventually get a PhD.
He did. And I have read some of Volcker’s analysis of various issues. He is much better at this stuff than Judy Shelton could ever be.
“if I were running a Senate campaign in Georgia”
I took Russian history from a Virginia Republican who moved to Georgia to take a tenured position he was clearly qualified for. Lester Maddox (Democrat) was running for governor and my professor suggested to his fellow Republicans that they make a big deal of Lester’s racism. He told us that these Georgia Republicans back in 1974 looked at him like he from Mars. Which is to stay what works well in Atlanta does not work so well in other parts of the state.
Her publications are weak. Twenty articles in, what, a thirty year career so far?
The first listed article is not even an article, but an interview or conference transcript.
https://europepmc.org/article/med/33814551
Second article: Innovation is important, and women and minorities are underrepresented.
https://equitablegrowth.org/addressing-gender-and-racial-disparities-in-the-u-s-labor-market-to-boost-wages-and-power-innovation/
Third article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s11369-020-00186-0
This is not even an article, but a kind of roundtable
Fourth article: Gist: We need more women and minorities in innovation. Here’s one of the recommendations:
Proposal Part 2: Increase the diversity of the applicant pool for flagship innovation programs by promoting increased diversity among the people who review applications for the programs.
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/Cook_PP_LO_8.13.pdf
Fifth article: “Getting money urgently to low-wage U.S. workers”
809 words. Counts as a quickie op-ed
https://equitablegrowth.org/getting-money-urgently-to-low-wage-u-s-workers/
Sixth article: “The implications of U.S. gender and racial disparities in income and wealth inequality at each stage of the innovation process”
Women and minorities are underrepresented. Again.
https://equitablegrowth.org/the-implications-of-u-s-gender-and-racial-disparities-in-income-and-wealth-inequality-at-each-stage-of-the-innovation-process/
Seventh article: Summary of three doctoral dissertations.
It’s a summary of three doctoral dissertations. Literally. That’s certainly original and important work.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/abs/summaries-of-doctoral-dissertations/9F52C14249A2EA30055355B66A86B424#article
Eight article: Gated
Ninth: “THE MORTALITY CONSEQUENCES OF DISTINCTIVELY BLACK NAMES”
“Having an African American name added more than one year of life relative to other African American males.”
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21625/w21625.pdf
Tenth: “Violence and Economic Growth: Evidence from African American Patents, 1870- 1940″
“I find that violent acts account for more than 1,100 missing patents compared to 726 actual patents among African American inventors over this period.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44113425?seq=1
What about her blog? Here it is. https://lisadcook.net/blog/ No entries.
She is a lightweight scholar. If you want the Fed to be in the business of innovation for minorities and women, well, I suppose she is one alternative. If you want it to be in the central banking business, she’s a the wrong choice.
Steven Kopits: Funny list; maybe you should go to her cv. In any case, do a GoogleScholar search for Alan Greenspan *before* he became Fed Chair.
Another horrible argument. Greenspan wasn’t an academic – why would he waste time publishing in journals? He was doing economic consulting and serving as CEA Chair.
Well, Steve Kopits thought her lack of strong publications would make her a bad choice as a Fed governor. So, why would it not also be an argument against Greenspan? Either publications are needed or they are not.
Econned never got context
Disagree with your last sentence. It’s dependent on the individual. Think of it like a job posting that says work experience can replace education and vice-versa. Research is a meaningful asset. But, like in the case of Volcker or Greenspan, real-world experience is an asset as well. Neither are necessary nor are they necessarily sufficient.
Did Mr. Greenspan as the CEA chair come up with those stupid WIN buttons? Was he in agreement with cutting government spending during the 1975 recession?
Another phenomenal “contribution” by the resident tragic clown PaGLiacci. PaGLiacci brings so much to these discussions. We value their insight and sophistication. Hooray PaGLiacci, the tragic commenter.
(shoot us all now)
Funny how Econned rants on and on never answering even simple questions
Yesterday I posted a link to Dr. Cook’s bio and CV. I guess Stevie was too lazy to read it but here is the CV again:
https://lisadcook.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Revised-CV-PDF-Edits-0521.pdf
Princeton Steve’s review of her writing is grossly incomplete. But what else is new?
BTW – Econned claims she has a weak CV. Something tells me Econned has not read it either.
I never once said this. You’re a habitual liar. You tragic clown.
Greenspan was an economics consultant and sat on the boards of a number of large, public corporations before being appointed to the Fed. Moreover, he was not an academic, and therefore we would expect less of a publication trail. He was a legitimate candidate, perhaps not the best on paper, but still a credible candidate, I think.
Cook, by contrast, is an academic, so we would expect published work. That track record is frighteningly thin and pretty weak overall. Would she be within a thousand miles of nomination is she were not a woman and black? I think not.
I think all this makes the Fed look like something of a joke. To me, the Fed is The Cathedral. Only the best should work there, and they — and we — should have the confidence that they are the best. That’s my view.
I would consider Raskin and Diamond, in particular, as entirely credible at the Fed. Similarly, if Jim or Menzie were nominated to the Fed board, I would be thrilled and have confidence that technical decisions would be make as well as humanly possible. In the current case, I do not see a candidate with the requisite skills or demonstrated interest in central banking.
Steven Kopits: If you’re applying this “dual” job aspect, then you should include Dr. Cook’s service as CEA senior economist and Treasury adviser. My highest post in the USG was senior economist at CEA. I never worked at Treasury (although once had an opportunity to do a DAS job).
Doesn’t cut it for me. I’ve read a good number of her publications (‘publications’). It’s pretty thin stuff.
I could give you 100 better qualified economists in about two hours, if you want me to assemble a list.
Menzie,
But you’ll never be nominated for a post on FOMC. Another awful argument.
Being on a corporation’s board is more creds than being an established economist? Lord – you really are dumb. I bet you think Jack Welch should head the FED.
“Steven Kopits
February 10, 2022 at 11:11 am
Doesn’t cut it for me. I’ve read a good number of her publications (‘publications’).”
Now this troll is lying. He claimed she wrote only 20 things but by now he has to have seen her resume. He has not begun to read her contributions. Not that this economic know nothing would understand even basic economics.
Let me repeat – Princeton Stevie pooh is not even remotely qualified to judge her qualifications.
“I could give you 100 better qualified economists in about two hours, if you want me to assemble a list.”
Princeton Steve is Donald Luskin! I bet his little list would include all sort of dolts such as Luskin, Stephen Moore, Art Laffer, and of course board members of oil companies. Like this troll would know an actual economist if he ran over him or her.
Good thing, writing papers is not the main job of a Fed Governor, then.
Well, what is the job of a Fed governor? Is it championing women and minorities in innovation? Because that and the prevalence of African American names in the US is about what Cook writes about. I prefer my central bankers to be, you know, kind of central bankers. Not climate change specialists, immigration advocates, industrial policy champions or advocates for social justice. I want them to be central bankers focused on optimizing inflation, maximizing employment, and holding together the national and global financial system with the s**t inevitably hits the fan.
Let me put in one exception to that. I would be thrilled to see some big data people at the Fed board. I think the Fed, best I can tell, is under-funded for data gathering and analysis. At this point, the Fed should have at least monthly, and possibly, weekly GDP estimates for every country around the globe and possibly for every US subregion, along the lines of the GDP Now efforts (but way more sophisticated). That’s a budget of, say, $50-100 million per year for that kind of data acquisition and processing. Well worth it, from my perspective, and I would be thrilled if the governors had some related expertise on board.
Steven Kopits: The Fed broadly is hiring data scientists (you would know if you perused the JOE). You really have no compunctions about pontificating about things you don’t know about, do you?
So where is the Fed’s global GDP forecast? Why are they still in the chewing-gum-and-paperclips phase for the GDP Now report, and why has the Nowcast been suspended?
Compared to what’s available in the real world, the Fed is in the stone age. I stand by my statement. But maybe you could show me where to find the Fed’s country by country GDP estimate and forecast for Q4 and Q1 country by country, for example.
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow?panel=1
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/nowcast.html
Steven Kopits: So speaking as somebody who has been a visiting scholar at the Board (for weeks at a time), visiting scholar at the SF Fed, and who has ongoing contacts with people who work on the topic you mention — do you *really* think they publish all the internal models and model results they have?
I can’t speak to the NY Fed’s GDP nowcast (You are wrong, by the way, Atlanta Fed has NOT suspended releases of GDPNow, which you would know if you spent a microsecond googling it). I suspect they want to assess the model performance before putting out more estimates that miss. I’d guess you have no compunctions about putting out repeatedly off nowcasts.
So there are estimates of GDP in the IMF’s World Economic Outlook. Do you *really* think in-between the twice-yearly releases there aren’t revisions, more than in the updates? Do you really think there’s only one monolithic model that the IMF has that produces the one and only forecast? Do you think the country desks all have exactly the same forecast as in the WEO? (So, once again, writing as a sometime consultant, and multiple time visiting scholar to the Fund.)
Sincerely, you are a buffoon when you are asking these pompous questions without any knowledge.
Show me that the Fed is using real time data. Why don’t I have a real time estimate of, say, Turkey’s GDP by the Fed? Where is it? Show me the website.
As for the IMF, it does not, to the best of my knowledge have a NowCast for global GDP. But if you know the website, by all means, link it.
I think, Menzie, you’re not aware of the variety of real time data out there.
Steven Kopits: I can assure you that they have a real-time estimate and forecast for Turkey for internal use. What’s in it for them to publicize it? Just so you can dissect it? On the other hand, you’ll note that GDPNow started out as a research series, and there’s a disclaimer that says “not an official forecast”, etc. etc. The researchers have an interest in publicizing their methodology, etc.
In other words, organizations do not publish for external consumption everything they are tracking.
I can speak to the NowCast because the statement is literally right at the top of the website I linked:
“Suspension Notification
The uncertainty around the pandemic and the consequent volatility in the data have posed a number of challenges to the Nowcast model. Therefore, we have decided to suspend the publication of the Nowcast while we continue to work on methodological improvements to better address these challenges. (September 3, 2021)”
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/nowcast.html
You’re saying that the Fed has a real time forecast for every country using big data like satellites and mobile telephone data? I mean, that’s incredible. I’d like to learn more about that. Which department does this analysis? They must have published on it. Do you have a link?
So give me a specific climate change example.
Fires in California? Tornadoes in Kansas? Hurricane in Florida? How does that change anything? You’re still using the same tools related to employment, inflation, and interest rates. No systemic implications in anything I can see.
Now, pandemics, war and in particular, nuclear war, those are big time systemic risks. Who was the Fed’s pandemic expert prior to Feb. 2020? I would have thought they had a whole team. Who were those folks? And who’s on their war team? Surely they must have a dedicated group looking at the systemic implications of war. Who are the experts on the Fed board on these topics? Isn’t that the appointment we’re looking for?
Btw, the Fed screwed the pooch on the pandemic, didn’t it? Transitory inflation. Well, not that transitory, was it? Unless you’re arguing the Fed was targeting 7.5% CPI. Isn’t that the expertise the board needs?
Steven Kopits: And here I thought the Fed did regulatory policy regarding banks, as well as monetary policy, and how that monetary policy might have distributional as well as aggregate effects. Color me surprised that I was wrong. (I’m being sarcastic here, just in case you are unaware.)
And you’re saying climate change has no implications for the conduct of monetary policy and regulatory stances, particularly with respect to preparation for shocks that might affect economic conditions? Even setting aside the issue of Dr. Cook, may I say you are truly a dolt.
And yet Steve is a consultant – likely paid by clients who wear MAGA hats to the office. Of course even the dumbest quack can call himself a consultant so long as he gets enough rich idiots to pay him.
Give me a compelling concrete example of the Fed and climate change.
Steven Kopits: Well, ignore the financial costs already incurred by climate change, consider those things smart people at the Fed are thinking about: https://glennrudebusch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021_FRBSF-EL_Climate_change_is_a_Source_of_Financial_Risk.pdf
you don’t think the fed should have a good understanding of the economic ramifications of the various climate change scenarios? seriously? it could impact billions of people around the globe and the entire global economy. and you think the fed should have blinders on to the potential risk? stunning Steven.
Give me an example.
an example of what? the example is climate change. that has an economic impact. or are you doubting that, Steven?
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20201218a.htm
Since Princeton the world’s worst consultant Steve thinks the FED should not be thinking about climate change, it is clear that this arrogant know nothing failed to read this speech by Lael Brainard even though she delivered it about 14 months ago.
Steve – you have asked you before to STFU until you actually learn something on the topics which your babble about in such incredibly embarrassing ways.
Who appointed you as editor of the AER. You are not qualified to judge her writing
Steven Kopits
February 10, 2022 at 11:28 am
Give me a compelling concrete example of the Fed and climate change.
Just wow – Dr. Chinn has to waste his time educating this utter dolt? Hey Steve – I will be glad to teach first grade arithmetic but I charge $800 an hour.
FRBSF Economic Letter
2021-03 | February 8, 2021 | Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Climate Change Is a Source of Financial Risk
Glenn D. Rudebusch
Menzie provided the link. I bet Stevie Pooh has not read this and I know he will not understand if he does.
Give me one concrete example of systemic risk related to climate.
We have. Pay attention troll
‘What about her blog? Here it is. https://lisadcook.net/blog/ No entries.’
As opposed to your worthless blog where you write intellectual garbage in droves. I guess you did not know that some working for the government are discouraged from blogging even when what they write actually makes sense.
Well, I’ve published more than twenty pieces, haven’t I?
20 PLUS worthless rants
Shouldn’t Biden nominate me to fix inflation with indexation and drop a CBDC basic income on everyone in the world?
Don’t forget screaming confidence intervals at every meeting
dr. cook is a member of council for foreign relations (cfr).
prolly supports atlantic council as well.
should make some gop’er happy.
Ah well, Menzie, they did not invite me to sign that letter either. Darn!
To those noting that people like Volcker and Greenspan had lots of non-academic experience, well, Cook also has lots of that, including lots with various parts of the Fed and such outfits as the World Bank. She has done research for or been on boards or committees of the Feds in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Minneapolis. She was on the CEA under Obama, and it is my understanding that she dealt with international banking issues among other things there. Indeed,, she has been on a long list of committees and organizations, lots of real world policy experience, lots of it related to the Fed.
So, looks like she compares pretty well with these guys like Volcker and Greenspan, especially that unlike them she also has academic publications as well.
BTW, Cook’s most cited paper from 1999 in the Journal of Business Venturing was about banking in Russia. She has a lot of experience and knowledge about banking issues, both academically as well as in actual policy roles.
And yet Princeton Steve says none of this cuts it even if Stevie has perused a small subsample of her writings. None of which Steve even remotely understood.
Uhlig: “Her most significant contribution is arguably her 2014 publication in the Journal of Economic Growth on “Violence and economic activity: evidence from African-American patents, 1870-1940″. That work is the cornerstone of Paul Romer’s advocacy to appoint her. Disconcerting questions regarding that publication have arisen. Michael Wiebe has pointed out what may be an odd treatment of missing observations, resulting in an unbalanced panel. Andrew Gelman has raised a number of questions. I hope that more colleagues will dig deeper into it all, and examine these issues (and due apology to all that I have missed here). I have to confess that I did not yet do so myself.”
First of all everyone should read what Paul Romer wrote. How to deal with missing observations is always a tricky issue. It seems some have decided Cook did this all wrong but how would Uhlig know as he admits he has not examined this issue himself. Sorry but this is an incredibly weak critique.
Zero to do with central banking.
Mentioned is right. You are a dolt
Uhlig provides links to Dr. Cook’s distractors. Let’s see:
(1) Nobel prize economist Tucker Carlson’s worthless tweet;
(2) Eminent scholar George Will complains about her political views;
(3) OK – an actual economist John Cochrane has one of his patented disjointed rants; and
(4) And then we have the racist snark from Peter Navarro.
At least Navarro argued an economic issue. He is afraid she is not an inflation hawk. Funny thing – when Trump was President, his advisors get all angry when the FED did decide to rein in aggregate demand growth.
I find it rather bizarre that people are complaining about the editing of Wikipedia posts. Like any serious person who rely on Wikipedia for anything beyond the weather. But since Uhlig’s rant had links to people stressing out about Wikipedia as well as Cook’s being in favor of civil rights, isn’t this part of Uhlig’s Wikipedia page reads:
‘In June 2020, using Twitter, Uhlig criticized Black Lives Matter and compared people who supported it to “flat-earthers and creationists”‘
Maybe he need to edit that out!
Monthly CPI is out.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Up 0.6% seasonally adjusted. Would be 7.2% annualized (I guess). TTM was 7%, not seasonally adjusted.
Seems pretty similar to the overall year of inflation. Doesn’t mean it won’t moderate more in future, obviously. But this datum doesn’t fit with the earlier arguments about inflation moderating. More like, just some of the same, with jitters around the overall TTM average. DEC was 0.5%, NOV was 0.8%. And we had other up/down parts of the curve over last 12 months.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-10/Chinese-mainland-records-29-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-17wYIdi8sX6/index.html
February 10, 2022
Chinese mainland reports 29 new COVID-19 cases
The Chinese mainland recorded 29 confirmed COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, with 7 linked to local transmissions and 22 from overseas, data from the National Health Commission showed on Thursday.
A total of 28 new asymptomatic cases were also recorded, and 824 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation.
Confirmed cases on the Chinese mainland now total 106,663 with the death toll remaining unchanged at 4,636 since January last year.
Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-10/Chinese-mainland-records-29-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-17wYIdi8sX6/img/e72201d725434ef58e6a5cddb8073670/e72201d725434ef58e6a5cddb8073670.jpeg
Chinese mainland new imported cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-10/Chinese-mainland-records-29-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-17wYIdi8sX6/img/92b13b3c4af34638bc34d0ef14844137/92b13b3c4af34638bc34d0ef14844137.jpeg
Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-02-10/Chinese-mainland-records-29-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-17wYIdi8sX6/img/293a54754e95458e9c884dab52e5f7ef/293a54754e95458e9c884dab52e5f7ef.jpeg
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
February 9, 2022
Coronavirus
United States
Cases ( 78,824,393)
Deaths ( 935,922)
Deaths per million ( 2,801)
China
Cases ( 106,634)
Deaths ( 4,636)
Deaths per million ( 3)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=sVz7
January 15, 2020
Consumer Price Index and Consumer Price Index Less Food & Energy, 2020-2022
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=FmWS
January 15, 2020
Consumer Price Index for Food and Energy, 2020-2022
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Fn2B
January 15, 2020
Consumer Price Index for Rent and Owners’ Equivalent Rent, 2020-2022
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ECQX
January 30, 2020
Consumer Price Indexes for New and Used cars & trucks, 2020-2022
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=KPSr
January 30, 2020
Consumer Price Indexes for New and Used cars & trucks, 2020-2022
(Indexed to 2020)
Different topic but one of interest. It seems the champions of tax cheat multinationals have found a way to spin things to suggest they are paying more in corporate taxes now than ever. Check this out:
https://financialpost.com/opinion/corporate-taxes-what-race-to-the-bottom
I provide a Cliff Notes version with a little dusting away the spin. Yes nations like Canada and Germany are increasing their corporate profits taxed as a share of GDP. But how did they do this? I bet – even if this article never mentions it explicitly – that their decision to enforce transfer pricing for a change.
Now the US is doing miserably with taxes being less than 1% of GDP. Now this spin does give part of the blame to that stupid Trump tax cut for the rich in 2017. But this trend was occurring even before Trump’s tax deform because the US sucks at transfer pricing enforcement.
Now it would have been nice if the person who wrote this spin just said that.
Biden has suggested we should enforce these rules. I wish his team well.
Interesting discussion of Harald Uhlig and racism:
https://steinbaum.blogspot.com/2020/06/some-thoughts-on-harald-uhlig-etc.html
https://twitter.com/haralduhlig/status/1286086897467641857
Harald Uhlig @haralduhlig
Let me politely suggest to replace Paul Krugman with a Black American colleague as columnist @nytimes. Paul had a great run there for more than 20 years. Let’s thank him all for what he has done and move on. @paulkrugman: just graciously step down!#ReplaceKrugman
7:53 PM · Jul 22, 2020
He gets a twofer – getting rid of a smart liberal as well as firing off one of his racist rants. What a guy! GAG.
It seems Princeton Steve wants to on the FED based on all of his worthless blo posts. Sorry but Judy Shelton is more qualified
I am neither a macroeconomist nor central banker. It is not in my wheelhouse nor my core interest. Having said that, I have written more about monetary policy and institutions than Cook has, best I can tell. That’s a low bar, by the way, and the reason I think she is a poor candidate for the position.
If I had a choice of the top of my head, it would be Jim Hamilton, with whom I have presented at the SF Fed. Jim has a way of asking innocuous sounding questions in an unassuming way, and yet compelling the listeners to re-asses their positions.
But, if we want a random (to me) candidate, a quick check of faculties turns up Harald Uhlig, from Chicago:. If you want to see a compelling publications list, look at his (below). For example, here’s a light-hearted piece from Uhlig: “Solving Nonlinear Stochastic Growth Models: A Comparison of Alternative Solution Methods”
That’s the kind of expertise and brain power I associate with the Fed.
https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/research/help/bibliographies/econfac/uhlig/
Steven Kopits: Your random selection turns up one of the most vehement critics of Dr. Cook?
Has Stevie been reading what ltr and I have dug up about Uhlig? And conservatives complain about Cook’s politics?
Swear to God, pure coincidence. I was looking for appropriate faculty for the Fed. I naturally started with Harvard, and there were a few people there, but mostly too young or too famous. I then looked at MIT, and it’s really interesting there. Everyone seems to have some sort of specialization in game theory; didn’t really find a lot of macro guys. Don’t know what that’s about, and I’d be interested in kind of what MIT does nowadays. The next stop was Chicago, with a storied history in quant macro.
The way their website is set up, it’s a little bit difficult to easily tell who has what expertise. I briefly considered Nancy Stokey, but she seemed a little too econometrics for me. (I mean, I am skimming this stuff pretty fast, she looks eminently qualified.)
Pretty soon after that came Uhlig, so I looked at his cv. He is a heavy duty macro guy, writings on inflation, debt crises, business cycles, booms and busts in credit and housing, all kinds of modeling related work, corporate debt, fiscal stimulus, sovereign default, bank runs, asset price development, monetary policy and output, technology shocks, inflation targeting, monetary transmission mechanisms… I mean it goes on and on and on . The guy is a macro monster. That’s the resume I would expect a Fed governor to have.
As for Uhlig and Cook. I knew nothing of Cook until yesterday, and I had never heard of Uhlig until I looked him up this morning. (Sorry, Harald! I’m a huge fan now!)
As for racism and economics departments. I pretty much did the first year of the econ PhD at Columbia and was offered a full ride there. That first year was the singularly least pleasant year of my life. It was both extremely hard — I was good in math in high school, but was all liberal arts in college — and singularly unhelpful. On a daily basis, I do not use one thing I learned there in the econ program. The first year was basically a hazing, like Turow’s One L, but econ version. I think there were 30 students per year there. Columbia struggled to fill the program as it was. It had a nasty reputation. Of the 30, there were one or two women, no blacks or Latinos that I can recall, good number of Asians and Jews. A number of washed out math majors. That was thirty-three years ago.
The program was ruthless. To suggest that there was racism, well, that would have been an improvement of about two steps up compared to the climate there. It was intellectual cannibalism, they would eat you up regardless of race, sex or religion. But it was the same standard. for everyone. It was equal opportunity ruthlessness.
You may think that a criticism of the program. I don’t see it that way, but the unbending focus on math meant that you either had the necessary math background, or you didn’t. I didn’t.
I would guess Chicago is a similar story.
Kopits is a huge fan of Friedrich Uhlig, big surprise.
There are a few Germans who can admit when they have met the better man. And even tip their hat to the better man. Perhaps Friedrich Uhlig and "Princeton""statisticsTA"~Kopits could learn a few things from history.
https://images.app.goo.gl/x3y8TGF4RHtcrRcY6
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Luz_Long_and_Jesse_Owens.png
How is it that Jesse Owens reached a level of sophistication over 85 years ago that Professor Heinrich Uhlig hasn’t reached in the year 2022 and most likely won’t before he dies?? The many times academic journal published Heinrich Uhlig needs an immensely elongated learning curve.
“But if the economy accelerates too much, they risk a speeding penalty in the form of excessive inflation.”
Like I said – you are not qualified to comment on her qualifications. I have seen your babbling on monetary policy – dumber than a stupid rock. BTW I read what Uhlig said and commented on his pathetic rant. And you choose to mention him? Go figure!
BTW – your little list of what she wrote was one of the most dishonest comments I have seen in a long time.
‘If you want to see a compelling publications list, look at his (below).’
I am well aware of his publications. I also provided the CV of Dr. Cook well before your little dishonest short list. I guess you are too busy lying to us and smearing Dr. Cook to keep up with the conversation.
Look – you are a lying troll. Maybe you cease commenting on this until you apologize for your dishonesty.
interesting, often times those on the right argue that we need fewer ivory tower popes, and more salt of the earth people with real world experience. I think we have a candidate in cook who is far less theoretical, and far more empirical, in her approaches. it is interesting that now we have people coming out of the woodwork crowing how we need more paper writers on the fed board, rather than people with their feet in the real market. just an observation. it is funny how quickly one is to argue somebody’s experience is not relevant, when you have already decided you don’t like the person. but If you like the person, you say that experience makes her more diversified, and thus even more qualified.
Steven,
Uhlig has about 20,000 google schlar citations; Menzie has about 27,000; Jim H. has over 79,000.
When you selected Cook’s pubs you missed her most cited one, which is about Russian banking. Frankly, right now, I think having somebody who knows about the Russian financial system at the Fed may be a lot more useful than some other things people are talking about, with none of the above three having any pubs on that topic.
What she has that Uhlig does not, but that the previously unpublished Volcker and Greenspan had is a lot of policy experience, including a lot with the Fed, in her case with four diffrerent regional Feds. Of course, both Menzie and Jim H. aslo have Fed experience.
Steve did not select his list. That was the list in John Cochrane’s rant. Steve basically lied to us when he omitted this wee little detail. BTW Cochrane never pretended the list was all of her papers. That was the suggestion from the lying troll we call Princeton Steve.
Go head to head on Cook’s and Uhlig’s cv. Tell me which one is the central banker.
I hate to break this to you but you are not the President of the United States. Maybe you can go work with Putin’s hand picked Ukraine crony and select their next central bankers.
BTW – check out Peter Diamond’s CV. If you don’t know why I raise this – then you are the most clueless troll ever.
I have to confess I’m generally not sympathetic on most of the crybaby stuff on racism. But I gotta say, I think she’s got a pretty strong case here:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/sha-carri-richardson-compares-her-situation-with-kamila-valieva-only-difference-i-see-is-im-a-black-young-lady-174711170.html