scottsumnerngdp

1. The one's I enjoyed most were the off topic articles, like the NYT assuring us not to worry too much about Hitler, as he would have to moderate his outlandish views as he got closer to power. Where else do we hear that? Others I liked would be too long to summarize here. I also loved the sophistication of the market analysis, which often anticipated rational expectations (and EMH) thinking.

2. I don't know enough to comment, but I find Kocherlakota's discussion of TIPS spreads to be persuasive---even if they are falling due to a change in the risk premium, that's bearish for growth.

3. I think there should be a clearly defined policy rule, perhaps an instrument rule. But I prefer using NGDP futures prices to a Taylor Rule approach.

People like Mankiw and I have certainly been highly critical of Trump, who in terms of economic irrationality is the closest to Sanders. Audit the Fed is mostly harmless. I do agree that the so-called mainstream Republicans have very unrealistic tax plans. But Sanders is at an entirely different level of unrealistic. Indeed the Democratic economists greatly underestimated the problems with his policies, as we know that European welfare states have GDP/person 25% lower than the US, if not more. So the problem is not Sander's unrealistic claim that growth would speed up to 5.3%, it's that GDP would plunge massively lower if his plans were implemented. That's a disaster on an entirely different scale from the GOP plans, (or the Reagan/W. Bush tax cuts)

Just to be fair, I think the GOP has huge problems in other areas, such as nationalism, militarism, etc. I'd support Sanders over Trump. But their tax cut plans are the least of my concerns right now.

I'm not a fan of mathematical macro models, except perhaps to establish a few key implications of theory. I don't think we know enough about the microfoundations to establish which models are the most useful. In my view there are many factors involved, and each model tends to isolate just one or two. Thus there might be 10 different types of price stickiness, each with different implications.

I prefer an eclectic approach, combining theory, history and market responses to policy shocks. What I did with my Depression book, or Friedman and Schwartz.

But people are building formal models with NGDP targeting implications, Bullard recently did one, and there are numerous others.

Friedman is my favorite. I really like Coase, but since I'm a macro guy I'd say I've also been influenced by Lucas, McCallum, Hall, Irving Fisher, Hetzel. I've left out many names here. On NGDP specifically it's been McCallum and Selgin.

I suppose even Krugman to some extent, since I read his blog so much. Not so much by his specific views, but his way of thinking, which is really sharp when he stays away from politics.

If you are thinking more broadly about influence, then people like McCloskey and Cowen have influenced how I approach intellectual issues in general.

Is that the one with 50 prominent economists? I'm not a fan of that approach.