Response to Christina Romer

From The Economist, there is an entire symposium.  Here is my bit and it closes as follows:

I thought these sentences from Mrs Romer’s piece were excellent: "As
someone who has written somewhat critically of the short-sightedness of
policymakers in the late 1930s, I feel new humility. I can see that the
pressure they were under was probably enormous."

That's the
bottom line. With Mrs Romer's piece we have one of the world’s great
macroeconomists, yet not quite being allowed to play that role.

In part I was referring to this:

I am least happy with the sentence: "By coupling the expansion of
coverage with reforms that significantly slow the growth of health-care
costs, we can dramatically improve the long-run fiscal situation
without tightening prematurely." So far we have every reason to believe
that Congress–and indirectly the American voter–will not allow the
growth of health-care costs to be slowed. Mrs Romer's sentence could
have been rewritten: "Congress is unlikely to significantly slow the
growth of health-care costs, so we cannot dramatically improve the
long-run fiscal situation without tightening prematurely."

If you're wondering, all that talk of "Mrs Romer" is a Britishism added by The Economist (should I have offered her a "lovely biscuit" as well?).  I get a kick out of seeing myself having "written" that, but being from New Jersey what I sent in was simply "Romer"; next in line would have been "Professor Romer," "Ms. Romer," or even "Mrs. Romer."

Comments

Comments for this post are closed