I’m still relying on my iPad, hence this will have to be short. I’ll have more to say on both issues when I return home.
1. Evan Soltas has a very important post on unemployment comp in North Carolina. Unlike Soltas, I am not surprised that the reduction from 73 weeks to 19 weeks has reduced the number new claims. However I am surprised by the size of the decrease. If it persists I’ll have to reexamine my priors. I strongly recommend that people follow this issue over the next few weeks; it won’t take long to know whether the current data is a fluke.
2. Paul Krugman has a new post that is mostly accurate, but seems very misleading to me. You can read it for yourself and see what you think. He begins by praising a Matthew Klein post that is highly critical of a Robert Hall paper. I think most readers would assume that he agrees with at least some of Klein’s criticisms of Hall. But I very much doubt that. For instance, Klein criticizes Hall for talking about banks “lending out reserves.” But of course Krugman does the same, and gets (rightly) outraged when MMTers criticize him for doing so. As an aside, it would be better if people said “banks sell off unwanted reserves.” In Klein’s other criticisms of Hall I think he simply misunderstands what Hall is claiming, although I haven’t had time yet to read the Hall paper, so I can’t be sure. I’ll read it when I get back home and apologize to Klein if he got it right.
Some might argue that I did the same thing to Cullen Roche that I’m accusing Krugman of doing to Hall. But here’s the difference. Krugman leads off by thanking Klein for a post criticizing Hall. It sure looks like Hall made an error. On the other hand I never mentioned Roche’s name. Most Krugman readers don’t follow up the links, and would never suspect that Krugman agrees with Hall. Krugman should not have mentioned Hall’s name. That’s why many economists get upset with Krugman’s style. Or maybe I’m being unfair to Krugman, and readers would not draw that inference. What do you think?
BTW, Krugman’s right that there’s nothing special about banks, so I agree with the main point of his post. But I believe there might be a typo—didn’t Krugman mean “inside money”, not outside money?
The main story however is Soltas, who has what might become the post of the year.