Reader EConned writes about Judy Shelton:
One can disagree with Shelton’s policy stances, public statements, writings, etc… but there’s no doubt she’s an eminent economist. Debating the substance of her views is great but I certainly don’t see the need to just “hate on her” I. The fashion of this comment (and, honestly, the OP). There are Americans including policy makers of past, present, and future who respect her opinions… for better or for worse.
Now, I know “eminence” is in the eye of the beholder. As an academic economist, I would be tempted to go to “Google Scholar” or the successor to the Social Sciences Citation Index to make my own judgment.
Personally, I don’t know Dr. Shelton, have never met Dr. Shelton, nor corresponded with Dr. Shelton. However, I find her views on government statistics strange, her views on currency manipulation confusing, and her malleability with respect to the conduct of monetary policy troubling.
I agree with all of this (particularly the last sentence in the last paragraph) except Menzie’s 2nd sentence in the first paragraph. Sure, if Menzie wants is “ tempted to go to “Google Scholar” or the successor to the Social Sciences Citation Index to make my own judgment” he should do so. But this is not what many “ Americans including policy makers of past, present, and future who respect her opinions” necessarily would do. MAGA doesn’t live in an ivory tower.
Also, and not as a comparison for Shelton, but to show Menzie’s temptation is silly, let’s look up Jay Powell on Google Scholar.
EConned: Jay Powell doesn’t self-identify as an “economist” although I suspect he’d be happy with “economic policy-maker”. He has a JD. Judy Shelton has a PhD in BusAd.
Kashkari is a Mechanical Engineer but you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think he and Powell are economists.
You don’t self-identify as partisan but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
EConned: Point of information: Doesn’t Kashkari have a MBA (Finance?) from some obscure place called “Wharton”?
Is Kashkari not an engineer? Are you saying his peer reviewed research makes him an eminent economist? Please provide the journals. Or are you saying it is his BSchool paper from Wharton that makes him an eminent economist? What does your ego say, Menzie?
EConned,
You are the one who brought up Kashkari here, EConned, not Menzie. You are getting pretty silly here, not to mention utterly and inappropriately pompous.
Barkley, I know I brought him up – I can’t help you if your genuinely read all comments and I still don’t understand why. Please note that only someone who is “utterly and inappropriately pompous” would comment in the fashion you’ve done – without any meaningful contribution and without being asked.
The problem, EConned, is that not only did you bring him up, but you got into demanding that Menzie go chase down all sorts of information about a guy you brought up. How about you do it without making stupid comments about Menzie’s ego.
The point of my comment was to point out what a blank you are making of yourself here with this sort of nonsense.
Got any other people you want Menzie or others here to go chase down the journal articles by?
Barkley – I “demanded” nothing. The same value of your contributions.
EConned must think our host is his research assistant. Since Econned is too damn lazy to look up Neel Kashkari’s writing, it seem the Minneapolis FED makes this all too easy for us:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/people/neel-kashkari
“Is Kashkari not an engineer?”
i do not think kashkari uses his credentials as an engineer to justify himself as an economist. econned, that was an error on your part. but he can certainly say that his engineering degree makes him a problem solver.
Powell is arguably eminent as a central banker, but not so much as an economist.
I’d like to add that (other than a link to prior posts by Menzie bashing Shelton) the a original post in question had zero substance. What was its purpose? Why does it matter now that Shelton is appointed senior fellow at an institute Menzie doesn’t respect? Other than cheap thrills via bashing the Independent Institute and Shelton, I’m not sure. Debating Shelton’s policy ideas while a nominee to the BOG is completely sensible AND expected from an “academic economist” but what is the purpose now? What’s exactly to gain from such a partisan hit job? The aforementioned post along with this post dedicated to disagreeing with a commenter’s use of the word “eminent” makes me concerned for Menzie’s ego. And please note that it’s posts like these by our host that fosters the nasty comment section within Econbrowser.
EConned: Let me get this straight. On my own blog, I am not entitled to remark upon assessments that I think are in error. I mean, does this mean that nothing that does not serve a purpose should be written about?
And do you think Dr. Shelton is out of the running for a position should the Republicans ever retake the presidency?
Entitled? Hahaha. What are you talking about??? You’re absolutely “entitled” but now you’re almost sounding as bad as those who claim their first amendment is violated when FaceBook bans them or they’re told to wear a mask. No one said you aren’t entitled. Even the entitled do silly stuff.
I don’t think Shelton is or isn’t out of the running. Is that your point re: your substance-less blog posting?
Ah, EConned, so you do not think Shelton is or isn’t, so you do not think. Yes, that is pretty obvious.
Barkley,
You’re hilarious. I haven’t given Shelton thought since Biden withdrew her name from consideration as a BOG nominee. Why on earth Menzie cares about her appointment is another issue. Please do keep up.
This falls under poking the bear just to poke the bear. EConned is the 9 year old grade school boy who thinks the way to get attention is pulling on the girl’s ponytails who sits in front of him in class. Baaaaaaawwwring. And this is the guy worried about “ad hominem”?? Read Yves Smith’s blog, and you’ll discover what I did over a decade ago as a junkie of Finance/Economics blogs. The ones who sob loudest about “ad hominem” are almost always the most prolific offenders.
EConned,
Right, you have only commented on her 12 times. So, of course, you have not given her a thought. It seems you are unable to think at all.
Barkley, you’re still providing zero substance. Absolutely nothing. Good form, friend!
Maybe you should start your own blog – which of course all of us will choose to ignore.
i think econned is simply jealous that he cannot create a blog that attracts anybody, so he wants to spend his time trying to tear down other blogs. makes him feel better on the inside, tearing down others. psychological defect from his upbringing?
and let’s be clear, shelton intentionally tries to put herself in the public conversation. she is not some book mouse sitting in a backroom aghast that somebody has found her. she puts herself and her views into the public crosshairs. you can’t cry foul when the public responds, no matter how much econned wants to whine about it.
and when a commenter misuses a term like “eminent economist”, either intentionally or out of ignorance, menzie is well within his rights to point out the silliness of the comment. so it is best to simply not make such silly comments.
I replied to someone who used that term. Keep up.
it was a poor response. do better.
Zero substance? Excuse me but have you taken the time to read Menzie’s past posts on Shelton’s writings? If so, you would know there has been a lot of substance. If not – your laziness does not give you the right to make such absurd claims.
Yes I’ve read them and I agree with them. You, on the other hand, have not read my posts. I referenced Menzie’s prior posts on Shelton. Please keep up. Your laziness does not give you the right to make such absurd claims.
HIs laziness? You cannot bother to check the publication record of a FED governor you bashed? You refuse to check what Milton Friedman said about Shelton’s bizarre views on monetary policy and exchange rates? My Lord – you do protest too much!
pgl – each of your above claims on March 21, 2021 at 3:40 pm are false…
Every.
Single.
One.
“There are Americans including policy makers of past, present, and future who respect her opinions”
Well Team Trump is the past and they would tag any village idiot who kissed Trump’s ring as “eminent”. The problem with these “eminent” people is not that we hate them but we can read what they write. And stupid is just stupid.
Now there is no one in the current White House that is foolish enough to listen to Ms. Shelton. Maybe a few of the clowns in Congress but hey.
And God help us if any of our future leaders are as incompetent as Team Trump.
Not sure “Team Trump is the past” is correct but otherwise you’re spot on. May a/some/all god(s) help us.
I was hoping Urban Dictionary would give me one of its funny definitions of eminence that might fit Ms. Shelton but they stuck to the boring traditional definitions. I did learn a new word VAXHOLE but never mind that so we can go to Merriam Webster:
Definition of eminent
1: exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : PROMINENT
2: standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : CONSPICUOUS
3: jutting out : PROJECTING
Shelton is certainly prominent in writing utter intellectual garbage. So may she is conspicuous if not projecting but not exactly in a good way.
I am calliing you our as a liar, or ar least a misrepeswnter, EConned, a con man in short. This definition is for use of the word “eminent” in connection with physical objects, not people. I have just checked the Oxford English Dictionary, and those are indeed the words it uses for physical objects.
Here are words that mean “eminent” when the word is used about a person:
“exalted”
“dignified in rank or station”
“distinguished in character or attainments”
“noteworthy”
Sorry, but none of this applies to Judy Shelton, not remotely.
Mea culpa – I have mistyped a couple of times – it should be The Cambridge Dictionary as I initially stated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/us/amp/english/eminent
Sorry for the confusion. Also, while you’re there check the definition for “liar”.
Oh wow. Ans you have the nerve to say I need to “check the definition for ‘liat'”? What you wrote as the Cambrideg definition is not it all.
It gives two sets for a person (“emiment domain”) is also covered.
“famous and important” with an example of a group of fifteen “eminent” political figures being given. This might fit.
But then we have “noticeable or worth, remaking on, or very great” For this the example is a group of “linguists and lexicographers” choses to decide on the proper use of a word, how ironic. So these people are “of worth” and “very great” viewed as top experts in their field by fellow experts.
Certainly Shelton has gotten to be “famous” just as Adolf Hitler. But she is not “worthy” or “very great.” She is, as Menzie noted, viewed that way by people who are barely above being five year olds in their knowledge of economics.
That you come here and lie, and then even lie about your lying (oh, you did offer a mea culpa for being partially inaccurate) is very much a sign of your trollishness.
Yes, Shelton is famous and prominent. But “eminent”? Sorry, but no way.
Barkley –
Open your eyes and simply read the very first definition.
“famous, respected, or important:
an eminent historian”
Your dishonesty is pathetic.
EConned: And so, David Irving is an eminent historian by EConned’s criteria.
Menzie Chinn Post author at March 28, 2021 at 11:41 am
“EConned: And so, David Irving is an eminent historian by EConned’s criteria.”
I do understand that you are incredibly infatuated with me (obvious in part by seeking out my attention through creating this hilarious blog post). However, please attempt to quell your fiery obsession and acknowledge that I am not responsible for anything published within The Cambridge Dictionary. The ‘criteria’ is set by scholars of the English language – of which I will inform you that I am not. I know, it’s shocking. At the same time, and based on your ‘commentary’, I assure you that you are no scholar of English either.
EConned: I see no answer to my question here. So I take it your answer, based upon your reading of the Cambridge Dictionary, is “yes”. So noted. Thank you.
Barkley, again ignoring as convenient.
Here’s another Cambridge example…
“They transformed the candidate into a public person and thereby proved him eminent and influential.“
You’re disingenuous at best and as such, I will not be replying to you again within this post. And, unlike you, I will keep my word. Good day.
Oh dear, here I go again, violating my word and letting the drivel coming out of Con Man make me reply.
You keep messing up with the definitions, but somehow you want to have me be the one exhibiting “dishonesty.” Wow you are truly an out-of control liar.
So, the first one of two for the Cambridge online dictionary, not the Oxford or Urban Dictionary one, reads
“famous, respected, important.”
On Shelton I only grant you the first one: famous. You have defended her as supposedly “respected” because 47 GOP senators voted for her for Fed BOG, even as some of them outright said they did not respect her capability as an economist. Most of them know little about economics, and certainly they all voted for her because Trump supported her. But he supported her because she changed her views to totally go with ones he liked for his personal political interests. That alone pretty much shreds any respect she should have from anybody.
And as for “important”? Sorry, no dice on that one either.
OK, EC, maybe if you manage to come up with yet another false claim that I am lying while you are doing so all over the place, maybe you can get me to post yet again. But I really am tired of dealing with someone as totally worthless and flagrantly immoral as you seem to be.
Menzie at March 28, 2021 at 3:27 pm…
I hope that this is not a slimy attempt to label me as a Holocaust denier or someone who supports Irving’s position. Seems like you’re yet again toeing the line on another logical fallacy. While I do not know you personally, I hope you (as I would anyone) are better than engaging in such a sloppy propositional fallacy in discussing a topic. If this is not your aim, I do apologize for the assumption but do note that your writing suggests this might be your intent (if this confuses you, I will happily lay it out to you – just ask).
Note that I don’t know Irving. I looked him up and within the first few sentences I stopped. If you’re interested in applying a clearly written definition from a respected institution of higher learning, you should be capable of doing so. You’re a big boy. But, you should note, how you *feel* about someone’s views is *not* relevant to the definition provided. I know from your blog posts that objectiveness is not your strongest attribute, but the definition from Cambridge Dictionary as I provided is very clear. Please, note THAT. Thank you.
Menzie: I see no answer to my question here. So I take it your answer, based upon your sloppy logic and sleazy rhetoric, is “yes”. So noted. Thank you.
EConned: Actually, I’ve not an answer to my question. Thanks for contributing though. I need examples for my classes.
Menzie – is it not acceptable to ask you to explain the reason for your question BEFORE it is answered? Of course it is. But you know you’ve put yourself into a corner that you don’t feel comfortable in so you deflect and ignore. The reality is that you’ve tacitly acknowledging that yours is a plebeian attempt to label me as a Holocaust denier or someone who supports Irving’s position. And you’re yet again engaging in another logical fallacy. Your attempts at dialogue are infantile and ignorant making you a terrible host.
“The reality is that you’ve tacitly acknowledging that yours is a plebeian attempt to label me as a Holocaust denier or someone who supports Irving’s position.”
econned, since you appear dense, let me explain. menzie is not interested in showing that you are a holocaust denier at all. in fact, he would probably be appalled if that were the case at all. it was an attempt to show how your definition and interpretation of “eminent” is very flawed. you inability to understand this, or reticence in acknowledging your error, simply underscores the dishonesty in your comments on this blog.
baffling on March 31, 2021 at 7:53 am…
Again, it isn’t my definition and any interpretation is clear. The likelihood that the word “or” was accidentally included by Cambridge University Press approaches zero. The referenced definition is clear except to those who are disappointed that a word that they *feel* shouldn’t apply to someone does apply given the definition. There’s no error in interpreting the word “or” except on your part, Menzie’s part, and others.
“There’s no error in interpreting the word “or” except on your part, Menzie’s part, and others.”
OR is the least of your problems, econned. you seem to not understand the other words like famous, respected or important. shelton does not fall into any one of those categories. you may “feel” she satisfies those criteria, but she does not. you simply lack the ability to understand common english, or you intentionally act ignorant.
You have everything backwards and your dishonesty is shocking.
You say that I “may “feel” she satisfies those criteria, but she does not.”
You’re the one who “feels” she doesn’t satisfy. So how do we settle? There unquestionably are people who feel she is “famous, respected, or important” which is why she was nominated to be a member of this nation’s central bank. It’s quite clear despite your subjective blindness.
You also claim that I “simply lack the ability to understand common english, or you intentionally act ignorant.”
This is disingenuous debate at its worst – you may not like her. Again, she was nominated to a seat on the BOG.
Also note that one example by Cambridge English Corpus is as follows…
“ They transformed the candidate into a public person and thereby proved him eminent and influential.”
This could easily be Shelton and you know this.
econned, i fail to see how her being “nominated” provides any credibility to her being eminent. the fact that she was nominated but failed to achieve confirmation signifies she is not eminent. you need to come to terms with that fact of the situation.
“the fact that she was nominated but failed to achieve confirmation signifies she is not eminent. “
So does this make Peter Diamond not eminent? Choose your strict criteria wisely.
If it wasn’t self-evident that Mrs. Shelton’s economic views were available to the highest bidder, no one would know who in the hell she is. Because that is the single and very lonely reason donald trump took an interest in her. And it’s as simple as that. Or to put it in terms some people on this blog might take a liking to, Shelton makes Gerald Friedman look like a slave to empirical analysis and modest forecast targets in the interest of realism.
Could eminent economists simply be those whose views are most in vogue among corporate elites, who are likely to promote their careers and publicise their nostrums? Many of those economists advancing the sanctity of free markets and hyping the benefits of managed trade agreements would fall into this category, since deregulated corporations were the major beneficiaries.
JohnH: Could be. Gotta ask Akerlof, Spence and Stiglitz how asymmetric info and signaling justify crushing workers’ rights…
I agree with Menzie. Could be. Could also be a widely-read blogger. Or maybe a central banker. Could also be that an eminent economist is one who is widely known and respected in certain groups for their views regarding policy and is sought out by policy makers as an adviser. None are necessary and none are sufficient. Could be a lot of things.
This mostly copy/pasted comment is not intended as a sword joust with our good blog host (I’m limited, but smart enough to know when I’m cerebrally outmatched). Just meant to agitate inner thought:
“Summers looked at me intensely and asked a question so well rehearsed that I suspected he had used it to test others before me.
‘There are two kinds of politicians,’ he said: ‘insiders and outsiders. The outsiders prioritize their freedom to speak their version of the truth. The price of their freedom is that they are ignored by the insiders, who make the important decisions. The insiders, for their part, follow a sacrosanct rule: never turn against other insiders and never talk to outsiders about what insiders say or do. Their reward? Access to inside information and a chance, though no guarantee, of influencing powerful people and outcomes.’ ”
https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/2017/06/when-yanis-met-prince-darkness-extract-adults-room/
I’m not certain what profession those two men in the real life conversation belonged to. Possibly the one asking the question was a smidgeon short of being chosen as donald trump’s “White House Adviser on Immigration Policy”?? What other profession would a conspiracy theorist such as this exist??
Benyamin Appelbaum, whose job put him in a great position to know, documents in “The Economists Hour” the mutual admiration between Milton Friedman and his followers and powerful corporations and bankers, who were dedicated to free markets and to trashing America’s social safety net. Many of the figures he portrays would certainly be regarded as “eminent” by today’s political and economic elites.
Excuse me but Milton Friedman is one of the most respected economists of the 20th century. Yea he was not a Bernie Bro but so? BTW the best take down of the “eminent” Judy Shelton came from Milton Friedman. But it seems Econned still does not know what that exchange was about.
“Milton Friedman and his followers and powerful corporations and bankers”
Only a complete know nothing would ever suggest Friedman advocated mega banks or corporations with monopoly power. I have told everyone that JohnH is a know nothing fool but comments like these just make the point incredibly obvious.
A Friedman fanatic, Phil Gramm, was instrumental in Bill Clinton’s evisceration of Glass-Steagall.
JohnH
March 26, 2021 at 11:24 am
Another pathetically stupid comment. I guess you will be blaming the actions of Donald Trump on the late Milton Friedman. If you think Friedman was all in favor of mega banks, you clearly have not read a word he has written on monetary economics.
But since you insists on embarrassing your own mother – please persist with your really dumb parade.
So, johnH, I shall tell you a UW story about Milton Friedman, aside from how he his not being rehired to teach statistics in 1940 was an embarrassing example of anti-Semitism at our alma mater.
The Don Nichols arrived from Yale in 1967, probably after you were gone, and died a few years ago. I am sure Menzie knew him as in later years after lots of advising Dem politicians on policy at both the state and national levels he hung out at Menzie’s prime nest, the LaFollette School, which also did not exist back when you were around.
So at one point an effort was made to get the Board of Regents, the system-wide governing body, to fire Don for allegedly being “a communist.” He fortunately did have tenure and this did not go anywhere, but why did it even come up?
Well, in an undergrad course at one point he talked about how the American Medical Association is a monopolistic institution that raises the incomes of its members by getting government to restrict entry into the profession. I also note this is a current issue as the sky high by global standards pay for US physicians is a non-trivial part of the sky high medical costs people in the US face. As it turned out a student in this class just happened to be son of the AMA national president, and I remind you that Joe McCarthy came from Wisconsin. So this kid told his dad about Don’s shocking statements, and his dad then went with the full power of the national AMA behind him to the Board of Regents to demand the firing of Don for this obvious and blatant expression of “communist” sentiment.
Of course, as Don always liked to note when recounting this story, the first economist to demonstrate this monopolistic power of the AMA was a certain economist who did so in his PhD thesis, none other than Milton Friedman.
Menzie Chinn:
“Gotta ask Akerlof, Spence and Stiglitz how asymmetric info and signaling justify crushing workers’ rights…”
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/opinion/reckonings-harvest-of-lemons.html
October 14, 2001
Harvest Of Lemons
By Paul Krugman
Recalling the wonderful papers of George Akerlof, A. Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz reminds me why I became an economist in the first place.
All three men focused on the complications a market economy faces when information is ”asymmetric” — that is, when sellers know something buyers do not, or vice versa….
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/11/business/3-americans-awarded-nobel-for-economics.html
October 11, 2001
3 Americans Awarded Nobel for Economics
By Louis Uchitelle
Three American economists were awarded the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science yesterday for their pioneering research in the shortcomings and imperfections of market systems….
Mr. Stiglitz also relied on his research to challenge traditional International Monetary Fund practices that led, he concluded, to unnecessary economic trauma during the Asian financial collapse of the late 1990’s.
Because of his repeated criticism of the I.M.F., Mr. Stiglitz found himself forced from his World Bank job last year. But he has not let up. ”There were terrible results in Asia,” Mr. Stiglitz said at his news conference yesterday. ”The I.M.F. is only now changing its view.”
There he goes again. Corporate elites? You are a one trick pony.
Apparently pgl has never heard of the US Chamber of Commerce. Must be nice to shield oneself from reality in that comfy Ivory Tower!
“Just as America reached Peak Left, the Friedman doctrine — and, a year later, a battle plan commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, drafted by the corporate lawyer Lewis Powell, quoting Friedman, just before he joined the Supreme Court — became founding scripture for an economic crusade to discredit the New Deal consensus and rewrite the social contract. Democratic and liberal leaders, alas, didn’t put up much of a fight. At the end of the 1970s, for instance, PBS commissioned a 10-episode series, “Free to Choose,” starring Friedman and funded by General Motors, General Mills and PepsiCo.” A club of eminent folks if ever there was one!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/business/dealbook/milton-friedman-free-markets.html
JohnH: Even before Friedman went on his libertarian jag, he was I’d say “eminent”, insofar as he’d already done pathbreaking research on the permanent income hypothesis (which is one of the main subjects he won the Nobel for); his “Monetary History…” w/Anna J. Schwartz was predated his role as a “public intellectual”, and interestingly invoked at least central bank activism in the face of financial collapse.
So let me just say, support by the powers-that-be doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of “eminence”.
Maybe I missed this but where did Dr. Friedman publish this alleged Friedman Doctrine. Me thinks JohnH is just making stuff up Bruce Hall style.
Not only that Monetary History but there was also his 1948 discussion of fixed v. floating exchange rates and monetary unions, which of course was way over the head to the eminent Ms. Shelton.
Uh-oh, looks like our resident New Yorker is having reading comprehension problems again. It’s in JohnH’s link and cited many times online. One might even say it’s famous:
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b7a300356fb06478dcea5a/t/5fb99036957a3511df281e4a/1605996599044/A+Friedman+doctrine%E2%80%90-+The+Social+Responsibility+Of+Business+Is+to+Increase+Its+Profits+-+The+New+York+Times.pdf
Apparently, this elementary, and all the more blatantly false idea Milton Friedman happily pollinated to feed the orgy of American corporatism, and feed his own career accolades from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (you may remember this “little known” outfit from their lusty affection for Neera Tanden~~another fraud of a person) can even be found in the academic literature. Uh-oh, add one minus score for the “labor economist” of our blog.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C37&q=%22friedman+doctrine%22&btnG=
Moses,
You are misusing the term “corporatism” here. I realize that some use it to refer to corporations dominating societies, but that is not its original meaning or wider usage. It refers to economy-wide wage barganiing systems. The idea was originated by a leftist French Catholic thinker in mid-19th century named Ozanom, and would later be advocated in a Roman Catholic encyclical in the late 19th century that advocated harmonious labor-management relations, the Church’s original response to socialist worker movements gaining strength then.
The term got famously picked up from the Church by Mussolini, who made “the Corporate State” the goal of fascism, with this picked up also by the Nazis in Germany and the Vichy regime in France. Note that this involved the state managing wage-setting and labor-management relations, not corporations telling unions what to do.
In the post-war era corporatism appeared in various democratic European nations in varous forms, especially in the Nordic nations, but also in Austria and some others. In Sweden it started actually in 1938 with the Saltsjobaden agreement between the main labor organization and the main management one, without any government input. This centralized wage setting in Sweden was highly successful until it broke down in the 1980s, and the government did participate in this.
Today by most measures probably the most corporatist economy following this definition is Austria, where it has been quite successful, with this helping to keep both unemployment and inflation down in the nations where it has been used in a democratic framework. Of course, it has long been the case that the actually existing Austrian economy has nothing to do with Austrian economics.
Milton Friedman was not the same thing as the Chamber of Commerce. But do babble on incoherently. You are renowned for doing that.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/friedman-doctrine/
The Friedman doctrine = the Shareholder Theory. Gee management maximizes shareholder wealth. Duh – that is what is taught in Finance 101. That does not say the New Deal was a bad idea at all. In fact FDR’s SEC was set up to make sure managers did not lie to outside shareholders.
Look one can argue some of Friedman’s free market devotion was not the best economics. Then again part of that belief would break up the American Medical Association which is something progressives agree with.
But shhh – don’t bother JohnH with the fact that the real world is complicated and being conservative does not mean one is an evil champion of the ultra rich. It only gets this know nothing angry.
pgl supposedly is an acronym for “progressive growth liberal.” What a joke! He can’t abide any criticism of Friedman or hold him even partially responsible for the intellectual underpinnings of Libertarianism, the Reagan Revolution, and the enormous damage that laissez-faire policies fostered, helping cause median incomes to stagnate and the social safety net to have developed enormous holes.
pgl is neither progressive nor liberal, but clearly neoliberal.
JohnH: I don’t take anything pgl wrote as saying Friedman wasn’t “partially responsible for the intellectual underpinnings of Libertarianism, the Reagan Revolution, and the enormous damage that laissez-faire policies fostered, helping cause median incomes to stagnate and the social safety net to have developed enormous holes.” Rather it seems he was asserting that Friedman made real economic contributions to monetary theory, and the literature on exchange rates (while I mentioned consumption theory). That point seems completely defensible.
JohnH
March 26, 2021 at 1:45 pm
I appreciate how Menzie properly framed the discussion that you misrepresent. But come on man – I have never criticized something Milton Friedman wrote? Either your IQ is less than zero or you know you lied with that one. Hey – you do seem to misrepresent a lot so hey!
surely Shelton is the gold standard in economists!!
Not Trampis March 25, 2021 at 5:13 pm
surely Shelton is the gold standard in economists!!
I see what you did there.
Regarding Shelton probably the biggest problem is indeed her willingness to just switch her supposed views in order to please a political leader who might be offering her a good job. Shelton did this with respect to monetary policy. After a long history of supporting tying the money supply to gold and while Dems were in office calling for tight monetary policies and pushing up interest rates, when Trump was in office and while the economy was in a basically full employment situation with the economy steadily growing (pre-pandemic period) she suddenly was all for stimulative monetary policy and pushing interest rates to zero.
Do you see the hypocritical problem with this, EConned? Whatever one thinks of her supposed positions, this shows something that is not worthy of intellectual respect.
I do see the hypocritical problem with that and I did not need you to point it out to me. The problem is that you’re apparently unable to grasp the fact that one can disagree with Shelton’s policies yet still view things objectively enough to acknowledge Shelton is eminent among a non-negligible portion of this nation’s policy makers. If I’m reading ANY of my comments you’re supposing I supported Shelton’s nomination at BOG, you have completely misread every word I’ve typed.
EC,
“non-negligible portion”? Actually looks like a handful. Really. One of them was Trump, the person she was trying to impress with her hypocrisy, and he seems to have been impressed.
Yes, I now think you are a troll. Gag. Pretty nauseating.
Barkley…
Actually, if you believe that my comment is trolling and that an exPOTUS, and the millions of Americans who follow him like a deity (including sitting lawmakers) are negligible, you should ask the constituents of these legislators. Gag. Pretty nauseating. You are again proving your worth which asymptotically began approaching zero the moment you invited yourself to the conversation. Gag. Pretty nauseating.
Oh, if Trump thinks something then immediately his millions of followers think it? Sorry, I doubt even 1% of them know who Shelton is.
Barkley Rosser, in an attempt to fit his priors, is conveniently ignoring the 47 Senators who voted to confirm Shelton. Good form, Barkley!
EC,
When her name was put forward earlier, several Republicans opposed her. But then later indeed a whole bunch did, obeying Trump. But 47 is still not a particularly large number, and most of those people know very little about economics.
Sorry, no game for you.
GTFOH – 47 is damn near half.
That “these people know very little about economics” is inconsequential to the TOPIC AT HAND. Please do pay attention.
Your commentary has been astonishingly short-sighted and downright awful.
econned, hitler was eminent among a non-neglible portion of his nation’s policy makers as well. it goes to show, just because a lot of people think somebody is eminent, does not really make them so. they can still be considered a failure.
Define eminent. I’m using Cambridge Dictionary’s entry:
“ famous, respected, or important”. She’s certainly “famous”, she is “respected” by some policymakers (47 Senators votes for her confirmation which Barkley Rosser thinks is “ not a particularly large number” but I distress because he is clearly delusional), and is “important” for the general population due to her being a BOG nominee and currently “important” within this blog due to Menzie Chinn’s obsession over her recent appointment.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/us/amp/english/eminent
Do you now see?
she is infamous, not famous. she is not well respected, she is belittled by most of the profession as well as most of the population. and she lacks importance, with no serious contribution to her field where you consider her “eminent”. econned, you are like shooting fish in a barrel.
“her willingness to just switch her supposed views in order to please a political leader who might be offering her a good job”
There is a lot of this in consulting and ‘expert’ testimony. In the DHL transfer pricing case, the tax court judge called this “malleable opinions”.
Don’t Feed The Troll!!!
But if Menzie isn’t fed this blog might not be sustainable.
Even rick stryker agreed with me that shelton was a wacky individual with no credibility in the economics world. Rick was aghast that anybody would consider her “eminent”.
Per your comment, I almost completely agree with you and rick stryker. So what do we do now?
You agree with “shelton was a wacky individual with no credibility in the economics world”. And yet you called her an eminent economist. Damn – you are one conflicted dude.
In other news, 1/6 was nothing more than a love fest per Donald Trump.
Yes. You see, I can disagree with Shelton’s policy desires and be glad that she was never appointed onto the BOG yet still acknowledge she is influential with some non-trivial amount of the country’s legislators. For you information, please note that there is nothing conflicting about being objective.
you almost completely said nothing.
at any rate, rick is probably not a good source for comparison. rick stryker advocates for discriminatory practices against the lgbt community while naming himself after a [edited-mdc] porn star.
econned, you must agree that rick stryker lacks credibility with such hypocrisy. or was it a freudian slip?
baffling –
Your comment has me… baffled.
You initiated by stating…
“ Even rick stryker agreed with me that shelton was a wacky individual with no credibility in the economics world. Rick was aghast that anybody would consider her “eminent”.”
I responded…
“ Per your comment, I almost completely agree with you and rick stryker. So what do we do now?”
Your response to that is that “ rick is probably not a good source for comparison”???? So maybe YOU shouldn’t use rick as a source for comparison. I only mentioned that I agree with you two. If it’s true that “ rick is probably not a good source for comparison” and it’s true that “ Even rick stryker agreed with me that shelton was a wacky individual with no credibility in the economics world.” Then could it also be true that you aren’t a good source for comparison?
I simply clarified and corrected myself, that rick was not a good choice. I also pointed out why. You need to keep up better econned. But you must agree that rick stryker chose the name of a porn star poorly, right? Must be a foolish individual.
Baffling – I don’t care about rick’s name or pornstars.
Either you are asking me if there’s a Freudian slip by rick or a Freudian slip by you and either way it doesn’t concern me and I don’t care. Nor do I care about labeling someone that I don’t know “foolish” for their name. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you have followed the blog for years then you should know him. Are you being dishonest in your comments?
Baffled – I have zero clue who he actually is nor why he chose that name nor what he has in relation to pornography. Your comments are outlandish.
Econned, if you followed this blog you know about rick stryker. You and he are quite similar, distasteful. Not sure what you find outlandish.
‘Georgia has officially passed its “Brad Raffensperger Is a Traitor” Act’
https://jabberwocking.com/georgia-bans-water-giveaways-in-voting-lines/
Kevin Drums onloads on Georgia’s new voter suppression law. Kevin on occasion has made some sensible comments on economics even though he is not an economist. But is he “eminent”?
Econned says he is a fan of the writings of Milton Friedman so I have asked him to note what Milton Friedman said about the “eminent” Judy Shelton a few times. Econned has failed to do so and I have grown tired of waiting for this troll so let me turn this over to Brad DeLong:
In 1994 Milton Friedman wrote about Judy Shelton: “In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece (July 15)… Judy Shelton started her concluding paragraph: “Until the U.S. begins standing up once more for stable exchange rates as the starting point for free trade…” It would be hard to pack more error into so few words…. A system of pegged exchange rates, such as the original IMF system or the European Monetary System, is an enemy to free trade. It is no accident that the 1992 collapse of the EMS coincided with the agreement to remove controls on the movement of capital …”
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/NR_09_12_1994.pdf.
To turn monetary policy away from internal balance toward preventing exchange rate movements that market fundamentals wanted to see occur was, in Friedman’s view, the road toward disaster. It was simply wrong. And it could be held together only if economies moved from free trade back toward managed trade—and so beggared not just their neighbors but themselves.
https://www.bradford-delong.com/2020/03/shelton-the-charlatan-project-syndicate.html
Explain why it is that you feel I am required to respond to your requests? And how would I respond to any request that I’m unaware of? And now that I’m aware, why would I respond to a request that’s wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand? I’ve been clear that I don’t agree with Shelton’s policy stances. While I do hold Milton Friedman in the highest of regards, I honestly do not care what he says about Shelton.
Wait – you start a bogus defense of Ms. Shelton along with demanding Menzie do your research for you but you cannot be bothered to pay attention to what your hero Milton Friedman had to say about Shelton’s insane views on monetary policy (which BTW is the topic our host raised).
Sorry dude – but I did not realize you are that damn dumb. Next time you make some sort of stupid complaint, I’ll save my time and just fall on the floor laughing.
Nope. Let me help you, next time that you read please put down your eye blinders and pickup your reading glasses.
“why would I respond to a request that’s wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand?”
Fixed v. floating exchanges rates is wholly irrelevant? Monetary unions are wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand? Damn you are really dumb. Do you even have a clue what Judy Shelton has written in her little career as an “eminent economist”???
And I thought JohnH was the dumbest troll ever. Not even close.
It’s irrelevant. I know Shelton’s history. I don’t agree with her policy stances. I’ve said this numerous times. You choose not to read/comprehend. Put down the blinders and practice reading comprehension with an objective mind. It’ll help you in life.
“While I do hold Milton Friedman in the highest of regards, I honestly do not care what he says about Shelton.”
but you do seem to care about others who hold her in high regard or “eminent”. econned, it is so confusing to keep track of which views you consider important, and which views you do not consider important. you seem pretty wishy washy on this topic, based on convenience.
Econned seems to think that her views on economics are wholly irrelevant to whether she should be seen an eminent economist. He indeed is THAT stupid.
You calling me “stupid” shows that you aren’t willing to actually discuss the issue at hand. It isn’t about “whether she SHOULD BE seen an eminent economist”. It’s that she is seen as an eminent economist and I’ve clearly laid out why based on the definition of the word within the Oxford Dictionay. Please keep up and keep it civil per the “policy” of this blog.
You’re still missing the point. It is precisely because others hold her in high regard, including nominating her to BOG, etc that makes her eminent. It’s only confusing for you because your reading comprehension is lacking and/or you don’t understand the word being discussed.
EConned: So if a bunch of 5-year olds think “X” is eminent, then tautologically “X” is eminent?
Also, thinking about this further, would Stephen Moore count as an “eminent economist” in your book?
Econned subscribes to populism in determining whether somebody is eminent or not. Apparently those with expertise in the field should be ignored-its simply a popularity contest to him. At any rate, i find it odd that econned considers shelton wrong on economics but still thinks she is eminent. Seems like rick stryker logic.
Menzie – this comment is C- level trolling along with the post itself – and. I. Love. It.
Which 5-year olds are you referring to? How do they define ‘eminent’? What is their take on optimal monetary policy regimes?
More seriously, why not take up your gripes with Cambridge University Press?
EConned: Well, what about Stephen Moore? He fulfills your listed criteria for being well known and respected by lots of politicians of a certain stripe.
Baffling –
I never asserted that “those with expertise in the field should be ignored“. You only “find it odd that econned considers shelton wrong on economics but still thinks she is eminent” for one of two reasons, you don’t understand the definition I provided via Oxford Dictionary or you didn’t read my posts. You tell me.
EConned,
How about we go with OED definition for its use on people, not the fake one you pulled out of the Urban Dictionary, which is for physical objects. So
“exalted”
“dignified in rank or station”
“distinguished in accomplishments or attainments”
“noteworty”
Oh, “distinguishished in character or attainments”
“EConned
March 27, 2021 at 12:53 pm
Menzie – this comment is C- level trolling”
Written by THE expert at C-level trolling. I hear that the other trolls consider EConned as an eminent troller!
pgl at March 28, 2021 at 8:20 am:
“Written by THE expert at C-level trolling. I hear that the other trolls consider EConned as an eminent troller!”
I am curious, do you (or anyone) truly think I’m the one trolling? I made a simple reply to someone’s comment in another post. It was Menzie who created an entire post ton my comment. How is it not Menzie who is the troll? also, he made the initial post on Shelton that’s just him trolling – there was zero substance in his post. Neither are new for Menzie as this (trolling) has been his m.o. for quite a long time.
I can understand how people don’t like Shelton’s views (I’m one of those). I can’t understand how people can’t be objective in assessing a definition for a word as provided by the Cambridge Dictionary. Trust me, it is okay to acknowledge that someone you neither like nor respect is, within the confines of a respected dictionary, properly defined as ‘eminent’.
Baffled,
You’re confusing yourself. As it relates to ‘eminent’ – I don’t care *what* they think of Shelton – I care about the meaning of the word. I said that I hold Friedman in great regards but only you would think that I was referencing his interpretation of a single word in the English language. The definition of the word I have provided is clear and, despite how great I think that he is, Milton Friedman can not change the definition. Period.
EConned: I’ll ask the question again: Is Stephen Moore then “eminent” by your criterion?
Moses Herzog
March 26, 2021 at 2:17 pm
Nice try to defend your drinking buddy. #1 – I did not subscribe to the NYTimes so I found what this “doctrine” was on my own. If you laid off the booze, you would have noticed that.
But thanks for the 2nd link which confirms #2 – the Friedman doctrine was about what everyone knows firms do and not the rant JohnH attributed it to allegedly say.
OK Uncle Moses – go consume your 5th bottle of wine and go to sleep. Duh!
Here, the sober lies of pgl
“Maybe I missed this but where did Dr. Friedman publish this alleged Friedman Doctrine. Me thinks JohnH is just making stuff up Bruce Hall style.”
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2021/03/on-the-word-eminent#comment-251121
I want everyone here to know, commenter pgl, the lover of Mario Cuomo and ALL DNC lies is completely sober when he lies about other commenters on the blog, and is completely sober when he embarrasses himself by not knowing famous NYT editorials and famous theories put forth by an economist he brags he met. Very admirable, albeit dullard.
pgl is also challenged doing simple keyword searches on Google Scholar, but again, always sober when lacking the mental dexterity involved in typing two words and clicking his cursor over a link. Google Scholar searches and getting around paywalls with Google and internet caches is burdensome and grueling stuff for the sober labor economist. He is a “sophisticated” and sober New Yorker though, and loves all female groping Governors telling lies about elderly deaths, so, it’s not all bad. Defending Cuomo’s purposeful lies about elderly death counts FOR MONTHS is how pgl verifies his feminist street creds?? I have no idea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/nyregion/andrew-cuomo-sexual-harassment.html
pgl for MONTHS told us the accusations on Andrew Cuomo’s low NY state death counts were just people helping donald trump~~so maybe pgl thinks a woman who said Cuomo groped her is just “out to get donald trump”?? I guess sober pg is a master of mental gymnastics, so, why not??
2nd to last sentence should obviously have been typed, “trying to help/assist donald trump”. I’m afraid my anger at people who lie and say false things about others makes my brain jump ahead of my fingers. I fail to see how some people here think how having a Masters or better gives them the right to tell lies or make blatantly false statements and then act like nothing happened. I know there’s a person in the comments section here who bullies his students into swallowing back and gulping his lies. People who supposedly work in the private sector have less “excuse” (“excuse” read as personal rationalization) for not admitting when they had their head up their A**
When I was what I call a “pretend teacher”, teaching classes when I didn’t have a teaching certificate, I offered my students $10 for any time they caught me in a typo on the blackboard or in an error. I had to pay off that twice as I recall in about 7 years of “pretend teaching”, and there was no “retribution” towards those students when they pointed it out in class, they were my better students. Some of you in the classroom OR at your work could learn a lot from that, instead of lashing out when you’re called out on a major F-up for someone who studied economics post-graduate.
Moses,
Did you meant to ding pgl for supposedly being a fan of Mario Cuomo as you said? I think Mario Cuomo generally had a pretty good record. It is his son Andrew who has been botching things up a lot.
You know – I had decided to ignore this worthless troll. Why I changed my mind is beyond me. I think we all agree Econned is a total waste of time. Uncle Moses is even worse.
Here he goes again. No old drunk one – I am not campaigning for Randy Andy. You grow more pointless as time goes on. Maybe you should see a good doctor about this.
Per the words of pgl
“Maybe I missed this but where did Dr. Friedman publish this alleged Friedman Doctrine. Me thinks JohnH is just making stuff up Bruce Hall style.”
Maybe you should have looked it up in the academic literature before telling lies about someone on the blog. You can’t use Google Search to look up a single NYT article, or Google Scholar, like everyone else on planet Earth manages to do?? You expect JohnH to only put up links based on your low ability to ferret them out?? Maybe you need to read before you type and make a JACKASS of yourself about an iconic economist you claim to have met, but don’t even know one of his more famous (and very simplistic) postulates.
I used to wonder why Barkley had such issues with you. It seems you have issues with how the wind is blowing. Please seek professional help as you really have gone bonkers.
Oh dear. This will be my last post on this thread, and frankly, I agree with those, Menzie, who say you should not have even started it. Mostly it has allowed this awful “EConned” to spout more garbage. Ugh mostly.
So I shall probably annoy certain people who do not like me making egomaniacal statements (that is you, Moses H.), but I shall put forward my views on this matter of what it means to be an “eminent ecomomist.” This is terminology I have very rarely, almost never, used. Obviously this is an undefined concept that very much depends on the audience. So we have some people who think, apparently including “EConned,” that Judy Shelton is an “eminent economist.” ]
In my egomaniacal way I shall note that I have a very high cutoff for who might be worthy of such a designation. With the possible exception of Jim Bullard it includes no members of the current FOMC, including Fed Chair Powell. I think it probably does apply to Powell’s predecessor, Janet Yellen, now US Treasury Secretary, and the only women ever to hold not only that position but also Fed Chair and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, as well as having just stepped down as President of the American Economic Association. I think Janet Yellin is an “eminent economist,” but given that I think that almost nobody currently in a high position at the Fed, well, then some poor loser who could not even get approved to join that group, namely the worthless Judy Shelton. is most certainly in my view not even remotely in the ballpark for even being considered to be an “eminent economist.”
So, to get even more egomaniacal here, let me introduce another ill-defined term “genus.” My own personal standards for both of these terms is very high, way above my level. But I have known and still know people who fulfill both of these prestigious categories. As it is, there are very few economists I view as fitting the “genius” category, which I see as mostly applying to top mathematical geniuses and then super high artistic geniuses in painting or literature (da Vinci, Shakespeare). Frankly the only economists in my view who were geniuses were also highly mathematical, and I shall not give out this very short list, although I have personally known some of them.
So let us get to this matter of the difference between “eminent” (now leaving aside economists) and “genius.” So two days ago I hosted Robert Putnam to present a seminar at my uni. The father of “social capital” and one of the most Google Scholar cited people of all time, Bob, who has an enormously long list of awards and has advised presidents of both parties, is unequivocally “eminent.” But I am sure he himself would agree that he is not a “genius..” (Aside, I think he deserves an econ Nobel Prize, and I said so when I introduced him).
On the other side we have “geniuses” who are not “eminent.” Well, in terms of people I know personally this becomes a matter of “who is deciding?” But the person in my mind is the late Paul Erdos, someone I knew personally. In fact in my mind the “genius” category is smaller and more serious, and to the extent this category has any meaning, Paul Erdos, with his more than a thousand math brilliant pubs, fits the bill. Now, within math, he is indeed unequivocally “eminent,” but beyond math he rapidly becomes obscure.
But this is not so straightforward, as my candidate for being a “genius” but not an “eminent” something or other might not hold fully. What is undoing it is that the “Erdos Number” is becoming an increasingly important indicator people use in certain circles. It is the numerical distance you have in terms of coauthored publications you have with Erdos at the base. So, if you coauthored with him your Erdos number is 1. If you have coauthored with one of those your Erdos number is 2.
About 15 years ago I was at a conference with a lot of high-powered mathematical economists and beyond, and I had a conversation with Duncan Watts, probably the world’s leading mathematical sociologist, the father of “small networks,” with serious network theory being probably the most serious high level mathematical idea coming out of sociology. So he had in fact in one of his books discussed the networks implied by Erdos numbers, and when I met him I told him that at that time I had an Erdos number of 5. His response was “Everybody has an Erdos number of 5.” I was put in my place, but I know that there are very few of you who have that number, much less one lower.
I apologize for this outbreak of massive egomania here. Have a good weekend, all of you, really.
I stopped at “With the possible exception of Jim Bullard it includes no members of the current FOMC”. It’s a lost cause if Clarida isn’t ‘eminent’ however one defines the word. Unreal. Hahahahahahahhaahahhaahahahahaahahhahhahaha
I night include Clarida. But, EConned, it is completely arbitrary who counts as “eminent” or not, and as I noted, my standards are very high. The person also has to be worthy of respect, and Shelton is certainly not that, not even remotely close. If you want to have low standards for what makes someone “eminent,” well, be my guest, but I do not respect your standards.
Be gone, Barkley. Remember this?
“This will be my last post on this thread”????? Stay true to your words. Now please tell me who is a liar NOW?!?!?
Yes, EConnned. I lied on that. Shame on me
So, are you going to admit you have been at least seriously misleading if not outright lying? I grant you did offer a mea culpa on one of your misidentified supposed dictionary definitions. But more recently, not only did you misreport the Cambridge definition, but you have taken to claiming you have been using the Oxford one, which I accurately reported and you have using also inaccurately.
But now, after all this time wasting with you, it probably really is time let this pass.
Barkley’s 2nd sentence was spot on:
“Mostly it has allowed this awful “EConned” to spout more garbage.”
You are nothing but a troll. And you seem to be quite proud of being a troll. Sorry the rest of us wasted time trying to exchange with such a worthless excuse of a human being.
The troll is Menzie – I’m only entertaining him. You replying tells us what?
Menzie is the host – not the troll. Now set up your own blog. Those who decide to go after you can be deemed to be trolls there. Me? I skip worthless blogs so you will not see me commenting on your worthless posts.
pgl
March 29, 2021 at 10:33 am
Hosts can’t troll???? Seriously, do you honestly feel Menzie’s post isn’t anything more than an attempt at trolling? Look inside and be objective before you answer. And if not, what do you feel to be the purpose of this post?
Also, you’ve been commenting a ton on this post so what do you think that makes you?
Oh, my Erdos number has managed to get down to 4 now.
BTW, I think a way to clarify all this is to distinguish eminent from”prominent.” Shelton is certainly the latter, which indeed means basically “known of by a lot of people,” but without any implication that the person is worthy of respectable.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/us/amp/english/eminent
Cambridge dictionary as I’ve stated (and, I did erroneously reference Oxford Dictionary a couple of times.
‘famous, respected, or important’
I guess the word or is key here. Yes the village idiot known as Judy Shelton is famous. Respected? Not so much.
EXACTLY!!!! “Or” IS the key word!!!!! Someone finally gets it. Also, she’s respected by some, even if it isn’t by you or I.
Econned demonstrated real logic. He considers shelton’s views on economics wrong, yet still thinks she is an eminent economist. Talk about twisting yourself up in logic. Just admit you described her incorrectly.
Baffling…
-If you’re upset by a definition given by the Oxford Dictionary, that’s your problem to address.
-If you’re unable to objectively address things, that’s your problem to address.
-If you’re unwilling/unable to comprehend the writing of another, that’s your problem to address.
Econned, your arguments lack logic. You say somebody is wrong on their economics but still consider them an eminent economist. This is your problem to address. I simply point out how logically absurd your position is.
Econned says he has a lot of respect for Milton Friedman’s writings on monetary economics. I do too but when I point out how Milton Friedman has utterly mocked Shelton’s writing on monetary policy – Econned protests that this is irrelevant. Yes – he is THAT stupid.
Econned’s day job is making pretzels. He is very good at this. Dare we say he is an eminent pretzel maker!
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
You clearly have downed way too many beers.
Based on his definitions, econned most definitely considers neera tanden eminent. Glad he is on her side.
Baffled –
Im merely a pretzel maker and in no way responsible for how the Cambridge Dictionary defines words.
I am going to ad yet another comment on me here (Begone!!!!).
Focusing on the Cambridge dictionary definition I think the key word is “respected.” This has been I think the core of the issue all along here. Shelton is “priminent” because she has gotten a lot of attention, with the also prominent but not remotely eminent Trump nominating her for Fed BOG, which the Senate did not confirm, getting her even more attention and thus fame and prominence, if not necessarily much in the way of importance, and definitely not in the way of respect after how she got Trump’s attention.
But I think there is a kind of unaddressed issue here that does not have an easy answer but has lain behind many remarks by many people: who is it who decides whether or not somebody is sufficiently “respected” or not? None of the dictionaries brought up here addressed that at all, but it is clearly important.
I think what most people think is that the crucial group to make this judgment are those in the area the person in question is in. So to determine if Judy Shelton is an “eminent economist” or not depends on what her fellow economists think. And it is pretty clear that very few of them had much, if any, respect for her as an economist, even prior to her shredding her more general personal respectability by her shameful shifting of her views to sell herself to Donald Trump. Thus implicitly in the various dictionary examples that came up it is presumably other historians who decide on the respect-worthiness of an “eminent historian” and presumably some other linguists and lexicographers were responsible for selecting the “emiment” set of those that were deciding on the meanings of certain terms, another dictionary example.
I recognize that for given cases one may well argue about who gets to decide and how unanimous that judgment must be, blah blah blah. There is not definite answer to this. But, I am sorry, it is not 47 senators who should be taken seriously in deciding whether or not Judy Shelton be viewed with “respect” as an economist, even if she was getting more promimence from them voting for her for an appointment.
Now maybe I shall really Begone!!!
But you failed to understand the meaning of those words. Glad to know you feel neera tanden is eminent, at any rate.
It isn’t about what I “feel”. Again, with so many others here you’re allowing emotions to get in the way of a clear definition. Here is Cambridge Dictionary’s very first definition. Again…
“ famous, respected, or important:”
(And please do not omit the “or” fri the above definition as we have recently witnessed a particular dishonest commenter who may ir may not be a mathematical economist.)
And here is one example from Cambridge Dictionary…
“ They transformed the candidate into a public person and thereby proved him eminent and influential.”
To me, Cambridge University Press is crystal clear.
Cambridge? Try Urban Dictionary. Much more current and funny.
It seems econned is rather picky in who satisfies his cambridge definition of eminent. There appears to be more to it than the definition he tries to use. If he disagrees with them politically, apparently is does not matter if they qualify by his definition. Interesting. And here i thought he was objective and logical, rather than simply a partisan hack.
Picky how? – I’ve only referenced Shelton as it relates to being eminent so your first sentence is false. Again, agreeing with someone is not a criteria that Cambridge University Press stipulates in their defining the term. The definition is clear and your ignoring the definition is “interesting” and “baffling”.
econned, you have been presented with several names that satisfy your dictionary definition of eminent, and yet you have refused to acknowledge they are eminent people based on your criteria. now these names have been chosen to be either politically hard to accept for a certain political persuasion, or simply morally corrupt, so they would be rather uncomfortable for you to agree with. either way, you seem to not want to acknowledge they satisfy the same definition you use to call shelton eminent. you seem to be picky in your selection process. come one econned, keep up with the conversation. its time to admit your trolling on this issue was misplaced.
It’s not my dictionary. How many times do I have to tell you that. If you disagree with a definition from respected dictionary, that’s your problem. Come on, baffling, stop pretending you can’t understand the written words.
Its your interpretation of the words. Again, you were given various names that satisfy your interpretation. And we hear Crickets. Why is that? Because you were being misleading and dishonest in your discussion of shelton. And you know it.
Baffling – how do you interpret the exact definition that was given? I feel you and others are being subjective.
I won’t acknowledge these other questions because they’re disingenuous and coming from a bad place.
“Baffling – how do you interpret the exact definition that was given?”
econned, the words “important” and “respected” do not describe shelton. you want to play technicality, and as long as you find one person in agreement with the words you think it applies. i hope you are not a lawyer, because you do not play the technicality game well. as i have said before, there were several other “uncomfortable” names that satisfy your technicalities, but you have not embraced them as eminent. it is quite obvious you have a pickiness to your definition.
“Come on, baffling, stop pretending you can’t understand the written words.”
i very much understand the written words. i also understand how to apply them. apparently you lack that ability. perhaps a refresher course in freshman composition would be helpful in the future.
Baffling the definition has “OR” in it and not “AND”. Please be honest with yourself and those you’re communicating with.
econned, the words “important” OR “respected” do not describe shelton. again, your attempts to use technicalities in your argument are wasted. you are simply wrong, but refuse to admit it in typical trumping fashion.
So you’re saying someone who was nominated to a BOG seat is neither famous, respected, or important? I don’t think you seriously believe that. I know Menzie doesn’t because he keeps blogging about her even after Biden withdrew her nomination.
“So you’re saying someone who was nominated to a BOG seat is neither famous, respected, or important?”
conned, in the case of shelton, the correct answer is that she is NOT eminent. if the nomination goes through, you have a fair argument. to be nominated does not mean you are “famous, respected, or important”. the president can nominate anybody, there is no requirement they be eminent. the fact that the nomination was NOT confirmed supports the notion that she was not eminent. again econned, you are trying to play games with technicalities that are simply silly. in fact, your argument illustrates that the candidate was NOT eminent. if she was, she would have been nominated AND approved. notice the use of the word AND in that statement?
So here is a statement by baffling’s:
“the fact that the nomination was NOT confirmed supports the notion that she was not eminent. again econned, you are trying to play games with technicalities that are simply silly. in fact, your argument illustrates that the candidate was NOT eminent. if she was, she would have been nominated AND approved.”
Let’s see, by baffling’s baffling logic we should all now note that Nobel laureate Peter Diamond is not eminent. Or is this a time that “A Nobel is Enough” (how many of our remaining readers will get that reference?) or is it because he’s a he and she’s a she that a failed BOG nomination “ illustrates that the candidate was NOT eminent”?
well, if a person’s leading credential is a failed nomination, then they don’t fall into the eminent category. professionally, there is not a lot to support shelton as eminent. diamond on the other hand does have professional recognition with a nobel. shelton does not have that luxury. if she did, i would call her eminent.
“or is it because he’s a he and she’s a she that a failed BOG nomination “ illustrates that the candidate was NOT eminent”?”
no. it is because it does not appear shelton has done groundbreaking work. diamond has. he/she makes no difference. shelton dug a hole in her gold bug years that is simply difficult to explain. please explain to me the important work of shelton that should classify her as eminent.
Shelton is/was important because she has/had the attention of policymakers to the extent that she was nominated to one of the absolute most important policymaking positions within this nation. Objectively, there is no denying this whereas, subjectively, there’s a rather baffling approach.
How does your dictionary define village idiot? Shelton is certainly a village idiot and it is clear you are too.
pgl – it isn’t “my” dictionary. It’s a respected dictionary used throughout the world. That you’re upset in how they define a term is something you need to address and do so without hurling baseless insults (yes, we all know Menzie encourages such behavior but does that make it right?).
Sigh…..
Yeah, I know I said I was not gong to comment more here, but this ridiculous thread just goes on and on, and EConned keeps saying indefensible things that others let him get away with, so I guess I need to be the one to point them out.
In this case it is this ongoing nonsense about dictionaries, where he already botched things up considerably by misidentifying several times which one he was quoting. But now he has glommed on to one definition out of one dictionary and is just going on and on about how superior it is and so on, even though even by it Judy Shelton is not eminent because she is not “respected” by practically anybody and certainly not by experts on economics.
But in fact there is a hierarchy of dictionaries. Cambridge beats Urban. But there is a most respected, most scholarly, deepest, most authoritative, heck, most “eminent” English language dictionary of them all. It is the one I dragged in, looking at the hard copy I happen to have in my house. That is the OED, the Oxford one, and this is one of those cases where Oxford beats Cambridge, and does so unequivocally.
So I posted here what it says twice, but somehow EConned has steered the discussion back to the inferior Cambridge definition by sheer repetition and assertion without ever recognizing the OED one, with the Cambridge one opening the door for him slightly with its mention of “fame” (Shelton only being briefly important when it looked like she might end up on the Fed BOG, but then she failed to be confirmed by the US Senate, so that disappeared). For the third time here is what the OED says eminence means for a person rather than some object jutting out somewhere prominently.
“exalted”
“dignified in rank or station”
“distinguished in character or attainments”
“noteworthy”
So, I am sorry but there is just no way Judy Shelton is any of this, and this is the most authoritative definition around, the most eminent. What it brings out one does not see in either the Cambridge or Urban ones is the matter of “character,” not to mention “dignified” and “exalted.” I think aside from the matter of most people knowing that very few professional economists respect her work, there is also implicit in the word “eminent” this aspect of character: that an eminent person in anything is not only somehow “respected” for the quality of what they have done, but that their character as a person is also respected by others.
This is where Shelton most seriously falls down and also why nobody would call somebody like Hitler eminent, no matter how famous and important a mass murderer he was. The final blow for Shelton’s “character” is this miserable matter I first brought up here, this business where she loudly and publicly changed her tune on monetary policy without a shred of intellectual argument in order to impress Donald Trump into nominating her for the Fed post. She showed utter hypocrisy and a complete lack of character. There is simply no way she is an “eminent economist” or an “eminent person.” Instead, she is beneath contempt.
Valiant trolling job by Menzie but it doesn’t look like we will reach 200 comments.
An important reminder for all of the readers and especially Menzie’s students… when a definition doesn’t sit right with your emotions, just deflect and ignore the actual definition and examples given by respected dictionaries. And it shouldn’t matter what the actual definition is if said definition does not fit your agenda. Do not allow a definition provided by a leading dictionary to get in the way of your disdain for someone who you disagree with. So yes, it’s okay to simply ignore key aspects of definitions such as qualifiers like the word “or”.
This should be a great lesson for all.
Definition of eminent from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : PROMINENT
the lesson econned shares is to be careful how you let others define something, as they may have an agenda. there is no way shelton fits the definition. he seems to confuse nomination with achievement.
baffling is baffled. Again.
Again. From Cambridge Dictionary:
eminent
adjective
famous, respected, or important
Definition under the synonyms via Cambridge thesaurus:
“ known and recognized by many people”
An example by Cambridge Dictionary used in a sentence:
“They transformed the candidate into a public person and thereby proved him eminent and influential.”
The lesson baffling shares is to NEVER take the advice of some whose name, via the Cambridge Dictionary, literally translates to “completely unable to understand or explain something”. Checkmate.
“famous, respected, or important”
shelton does not satisfy any of these terms. she is not famous (perhaps infamous). if you go out into the street and ask somebody who judy shelton is, they will look at you with a blank stare. respected? not by the vast majority of the profession. her gold bug years damaged her. important? in what way? what were her important contributions to economics? the importance of being a gold bug? even by your definition, she is not eminent. you keep repeating the same false argument over and over again, econned.
Anyone whose policy views are getting the attention of policymakers to the point that they are nominated to positions such as BOG is important. I know it. You know it. Menzie knows it. Period. Give up.
EConned: Important – yes. Eminent – no.
Menzie – you just agreed that, based on Cambridge Dictionary’s definition, Shelton is eminent. Noted.
EConned: Just so you recall, I was not one of the people who said I would be bound by the Cambridge Dictionary.
Menzie – not one person has said they “would be bound by” any dictionary. But it’s good to see it’s taken you this long to publicly agree that based on the definition by Cambridge Dictionary Shelton is eminent. I feel that this detente should require a new post but I seriously doubt you’re game. Anyway, good to know that you’ve finally come around to acknowledging Shelton fits the criteria of “eminent” as given by (at least) one of the world’s leading dictionaries. Better late than never, Menzie!
Menzie – did you lose my comment? I see baffling’s comment below which came after my reply to your last comment. Thanks.
EConned: Yes. Re-write, and I will approve w/in 24 hours, promise.
Is neera tanden eminent?
Baffling – as you should be fully aware, the question that you have asked is incomplete.. I’m assuming you have a canned response as to why *you feel* this person should be considered eminent or not be considered eminent so please let us all know. Get it off of your chest and entertain us – but in doing so please try to overcome your very own name’s meaning.
Cheers to you and your Neera infatuation.
neera tanden satisfies every single criteria you applied to shelton, when calling her eminent. so i am curious, would you call neera tanden eminent? or is it because she is a liberal and shelton is a conservative, that you allow your hypocrisy to play out? time to twist pretzel.
baffling –
So you’re saying Tanden is eminent based on the definition of the word? That’s fine. I’ve honestly never heard of her but despite this, I can’t figure out why it is you would think you labeling her “a liberal” would somehow be relevant as it relates to the definition found in the Cambridge Dictionary. Could you please point to exactly where in the definition’s entry this is mentioned. Thanks.
EConned: Seems to me anybody above a person who’s got a 1000 followers on twitter is “eminent”…
Menzie – seems to me you’re quite the capricious fellow wrt how you interpret a set definition from a respected dictionary. It also seems very naive to think a set follower count on a social media account is a sufficient condition for this but it’s crystal clear that you deem Judy Shelton, Stephen Moore, and David Irving “eminent”.
Also, I think 1,000 followers is quite low… as I write this I can’t help but feel that the bar should be no lower than 3,984 followers (note this is an ever- variable target) 😉 This would take out Irving with just under 1,200 followers but leaves Shelton with 26k followers and Moore with nearly 40k followers – I hope dropping Irving won’t upset you too much. Cheers!
“So you’re saying Tanden is eminent based on the definition of the word? That’s fine. ”
no. the three words you seem to be so obsessed about.
neera tanden was nominated for a position that requires senate approval, the same process as a cabinet member or a bog member-like shelton. she checks the same boxes as you require of shelton. but i do not see you supporting her as being eminent. the difference between her and shelton is one is a liberal and one is a conservative. so i can only assume you apply the characterization of eminent in a partisan hack manner. prove me wrong.
econned, the game you are playing is taking a subjective metric and applying a binary choice. that is really a dishonest approach, and lacks integrity. i hope that is not how you play in your professional life.
And neera tanden has over 390,000 followers, so i imagine by such a metric econned would consider her uber eminent.
Baffling – like I said I’m okay with you saying Tanden is eminent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ despite your assumptions, note that I’m not the arbiter of definitions – I leave that to Cambridge University Press and the like.
You state “the difference between her and shelton is one is a liberal and one is a conservative. so i can only assume you apply the characterization of eminent in a partisan hack manner. prove me wrong.”
Well guess what????? You’re wrong. If you’re saying she fulfills the definition for eminent then I’m okay with that. What more do you want? You’re your assumption is based on your own partisan hackery and/or lack of reading comprehension. Not once have I suggested I’m “conservative” or “liberal”. In fact, I’ve been clear in numerous comments that I do not support Shelton’s views as it relates to economic policy.
You state “ the game you are playing is taking a subjective metric and applying a binary choice” but this is false. There’s nothing subjective about applying the definition as it is clearly written by the folks at Cambridge University Press. On the other hand it is clearly you who is acting in “ really a dishonest approach, and lacks integrity” when implying my applying a definition is based off of political views. Especially as I’ve been clear that I am not a supporter of Shelton’s policy views. Give it up.
Baffling – please note that it was Menzie Chinn, PhD who created the Twitter-eminence-threshold. I only adjusted it for comedic value. Keep up. Please.
“ If you’re saying she fulfills the definition for eminent then I’m okay with that. ”
I dont consider either of them eminent. Neither satisfy YOUR definition.
“ There’s nothing subjective about applying the definition as it is clearly written by the folks at Cambridge University Press.“
The definition is subjective. How do you determine famous? But you know this econned. And yet you still try to make a disingenuous argument. As i said, hope you dont do this in your professional life, as you will lose all your integrity. Not that you seem to worried about that.
Baffling / please note that by your criteria, Menzie has lost integrity because he unambiguously agreed Shelton to be “important” which is a sufficient condition to meet Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of eminent.
Using econned’s criteria, we need to consider mike brown of fema fame as eminent. Wow econned, your system for identifying eminent people is truly baffling! You may be the only person in the free world who would consider shelton, tanden and brown eminent. Bravo.
Baffling: Look, let’s just say we describe some people as “eminent” and some others as “EConned eminent”.
Menzie – you obviously meant to say “Cambridge eminent” as you have acknowledged thatShelton meets the Cambridge Dictionary definition.
Over 200 comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love it.
“ but it doesn’t look like we will reach 200 comments.”
Looks like econned is wrong yet AGAIN!
baffling – why don’t you look directly above you.
at the end of the day, econned has not made a strong argument at all. in fact, out of the over 200 comments, he is the ONLY one who considers shelton eminent. i give the little critter credit, he likes to dig his holes deep. but i just got the answer from the final arbiter. i asked siri if judy shelton was eminent. her response was “judy who? you must be joking”.
baffling – you haven’t made a single coherent or defensible argument as to why you disagree that Cambridge Dictionary’s definition for the word “eminent” holds for Shelton. I’ve been clear about why Shelton is eminent as based on the definition. And it’s the definition itself. You’ve only made emotionally-driven insinuations including that I based it on her being conservative which is baseless and completely false.
Moreover, you must have forgot (or simply ignored) that Menzie Chinn agreed, without qualifications, that Shelton is “important”. And the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition for eminent is as follows: “famous, respected, or important”. Note that there is not an “an” in the definition that they provide. We all know that Menzie is a partisan analyst who can’t help but be subjective when choosing to ignore the definition of a respected dictionary. You don’t have to stoop to that same lowly level. How can she be “important” and not “eminent” GIVEN the definition. The logic that you and Menzie have(n’t) provided is sophomoric and lacking the most basic interpretation of written word.
But hey, 200+ comments is hilarious!!!!
Econned, I do not think she is important, nor respected or famous. Therefore she is not eminent. You may disagree, but that is simply your opinion. Since your criteria is subjective, you will simply have to accept that most people simply disagree with you. Shelton is not eminent
baffling – I think she is eminent according to the definition given by the Cambridge Dictionary and the facts seem to agree with me.
-She could easily be deemed important given that she was elected as a candidate to BOG. The BOG is one of if not THE most important institution responsible for this nation’s monetary policymaking and regulatory aspects of financial institutions. Ergo, it’s no large leap to view the policymaking members (and potential members) of the BOG as important. Moreover, it should be noted that the time our press has devoted to covering her nomination and policy views clearly demonstrates that she could be important. Most publications (NYTimes, CNBC, WaPo, etc…) do not publish articles extensively on subjects for merely amusement or attempts at trolling (I say this as a point of comparison to Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser who is a troll seeking amusement to disparage Shelton’s recent appointment because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. This is the same Menzie Chinn who has agreed, without qualification, that Shelton is indeed important – which is why he has devoted so much of his time and energy to her. Let’s be honest, it would be ridiculous for an academic economist to care about a wannabe economist’s position at a think tank if they were unimportant unless said academic economist has a desire to trash her within his echo-chamber for yet another ego boost).
-She is certainly respected by lawmakers and a non-negligible swath of (even if rather fringe) observers of economic policy. Shelton’s nomination had 47 “yeas” (however it should have been 48 as McConnell voted “nay” for technicality/procedural reason) in the Senate which represents nearly half of the legislative body. While it isn’t the same magnitude, for comparison purposes, I don’t think you would venture to say DJT isn’t respected even despite how much people don’t respect him because we know a large swath of Americans do respect him. Is anyone is 100% respected?
-She is famous in many circles of those interested in economic policy including US policymakers. How could she be nominated to BOG, and have numerous publications (NY Times, WSJ, Bloomberg, Vox, WaPo, The Economist, etc…) devote time to covering her economic views and BOG nomination if she weren’t at all famous? Even when articles devote time to dispute her views, she’s famous enough to be covered.
LMK if any of the above is unclear. Cheers!
econned, i disagree with your OPINION on what constitutes famous, respected or important. you have applied a pretty big curve, most people seem to be getting A’s. but you are entitled to your OPINION. at any rate, seems you also feel that neera tanden is eminent, by similar arguments. i would disagree with that as well, but again, it’s just your opinion. glad to know you think so highly of ms. tanden. at least you are trying to be consistent. but you arguments for shelton are still not convincing. i suppose you also believe that stephen moore is eminent as well, following your logic.