The Brookings Institution is bringing a new player into Washington’s think tank arena, launching a center to study fiscal and monetary policy that will be led by The Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel.
In recent weeks, I have been struck by how firm the Insiders have become about their narrative of the financial crisis:
–it was caused by markets run amok
–the economy was saved by bailouts and stimulus
–the public does not appreciate the good that the interventions achieved
–in fact, it turns out that the “secular stagnation” is so stubborn that we need even more interventions
I am not saying that this narrative is necessarily wrong. I just don’t like the sense that I get that the Insiders are determined to bully us into suppressing any doubts.
I hope that this is truly a think tank, and not a narrative tank. But it looks pretty Insiderish to me.
If you aren’t sure, may I ask why you might consider it correct? You have put forth alternative explanations that sound a lot more plausible. (Not a criticism just a request for an explanation of how this viewpoint can hold water)
In defense of the doubts: The issue will be whether there is study to determine facts of actions and then analyze their effects; or to examine those and analyze only those facts of actions that may support particular conclusions as to effects. From much of the writings, those particular conclusions have become “settled science.”
I don’t sense there there was any thought or intelligence applied to this post. It is snarky and shallow. Summers and Krugman are smarter than you are.