ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


Awesome post...!
I hope you'll expand a bit, because I didn't really follow.
"...awkward metaphors that only frustrate and annoy the reader."
I don't know, when done right they can go a long way.
While not a true metaphor, I use the comparison in the decision processes to purchase a color TV in the '60s versus the relative no-brainer to buy plasma today (or at least a few years ago) with a fair degree of success. In each case, chances are the purchaser is replacing a perfectly good set for an arguably marginal increase in technology.
After all, the improvement in viewing has no effect on the quality of the programming. (Perhaps you could argue that viewing has improved because programming has gotten worse or vice versa)
Digressing, I think it goes a long way in correctly ascribing the change in consumer attitudes over generations.
For sake of full disclosure, I still use a 13'' black & white my brother bought in college in the early 80s. Looking to get my hands on a converter box!
Okay, we get it. Japanese people are short. Ha, ha. Racist. ;)
Despite its weaknesses, I believe the Taylor Rule has its uses. Primarily, it takes the political fighting out of money supply decisions. Second, it's not a terrible monetary policy that will bankrupt a currency or destroy an economy. How many countries' currencies have imploded because of a politicized central bank? (That is not a rhetorical question, I just don't know the answer. I can think of a couple off the top of my head though.)
However, I readily admit that a developed country with an independent bank could outperform the Taylor Rule. Then again, there are supposedly mutual fund managers that can consistently outperform the market. :)
Wouldn't the Taylor Rule currently require a negative nominal fed funds rate? If this is so, how is the current rate lower than what the Taylor Rule would recommend?
The current situation is like waking up with a bad zit on your forehead.
Everyone can agree the blemish is a bad thing; what to do with it is another story.
What you should do is examine the cause of the problem; poor diet, poor hygiene, stress, etc...
Instead, most of us (me included), cannot resist the urge to pop that sucker all over the mirror.
Usually the end result is a bloody mess...
How's that for an awkward metaphor?