David R. Henderson  

The Henderson Squawk Box Highlight Reel

PRINT
Are rising prices, interest ra... Final Reply to Dolan on the UB...

CNBC has posted a 3-minute version of my 4.7-minute video from earlier this morning. It's here.




COMMENTS (10 to date)

Great! Thank you. If you get a regular TV pundit job I may have to get cable.

David R. Henderson writes:

@Richard O. Hammer,
Aw shucks. Thanks, Richard.

Thaomas writes:

Too bad you did not get to discuss either more instruments for the Fed or their failure to use even the ones they a have to prevent departures from a stable NGDP growth path.

David R. Henderson writes:

@Thaomas,
Too bad you did not get to discuss either more instruments for the Fed or their failure to use even the ones they a have to prevent departures from a stable NGDP growth path.
I don’t agree. In the talking points I gave them, I advocating ending the Fed and allowing competing money supplies, pointing out that centrally controlling the money supply makes about as much sense as centrally controlling the steel supply. So where I wanted to go was to talk about that. Which is where I should have gone with their opening question. But at 3:30 a.m., I’m not as bright a bulb.

Nick Ronalds writes:

You come across as amiable, sensible, and admirably succinct for a TV pundit. Congrats!

AntiSchiff writes:

Dr. Henderson,

That was a very good appearance. I think roughly half of Trump's nominees are okay, if not better-than-expected, and the other half are, uh, deeply disturbing.

David R. Henderson writes:

@Nick Ronalds,
Thanks.
@AntiSchiff,
That was a very good appearance. I think roughly half of Trump's nominees are okay, if not better-than-expected, and the other half are, uh, deeply disturbing.
Thanks. I came prepared to talk about Trump on trade but when he asked me about cabinet members in general rather than about trade specifically (as in my talking points), I didn’t think to go there. Trump's trade 3, only one of whom will be a cabinet member, are bad, and I should have said so.

The Original CC writes:

Really great job. You really are at ease in front of the camera.

It's very sad to think that we've only had 0.5% productivity growth in recent years. So it'll take us 144 years to double our productivity at that rate?

AntiSchiff writes:

Dr. Henderson,

I find free banking to be very interesting, as Selgin discusses it, but I can't think of a way to run a pilot program in the US. Is our only hope to test such ideas to try to convince some smaller, less risk-averse country to try it?

I love the idea of natural NGDPLT. I think it's safe to say central banks have improved in monetary policy management overall, in that they now know how to avoid high inflation, but obviously many of them choose less than optimal policy when we need it most.

David R. Henderson writes:

@The Original CC,
Really great job. You really are at ease in front of the camera.
Thanks.
It's very sad to think that we've only had 0.5% productivity growth in recent years. So it'll take us 144 years to double our productivity at that rate?
I see you’re going by the rule of 72. That number was chosen because it makes a lot of calculations easier. So many one-digit integers--2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9--divide nicely into 72. A more-accurate rule, though, would be called “the rule of 70.” Try it with a few numbers. So that would make it 140 years, rather than 144.
So, you can see that your point remains. As I said on the show, though, a number of reforms could improve productivity. I could imagine moving to, say, 1.5% increase per year, in which case productivity would double in 47 years.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top