The field of International Monetary Economics is not without its own cycles and fads.

In a speech at the European Central Bank over the summer, “On Global Currencies,” I identified eight concepts that I saw as having recently “peaked” and eight more that I saw as newly rising in relevance. Those that I viewed as losing traction were: the G-7, global savings glut, corners hypothesis, proliferating currency unions, inflation targeting (narrowly defined), exorbitant privilege, Bretton Woods II, and currency manipulation. Those that I saw as receiving increased emphasis now and in the future were: the G-20, the IMF, SDR, credit cycle, reserves, intermediate exchange rate regimes, commodity currencies, and multiple international currency system.

A condensed version appears this month in Finance and Development, from the IMF, titled “What’s ‘In’ and What’s ‘Out’ in Global Money.”  I boil the list down to five concepts that I pronounce “on the way out” and five more that I see as replacing them:

• The G-7 has been rendered largely obsolete by its lack of representation of developing countries, and thus in the course of 2009 has been overtaken by the G-20.

• The corners hypothesis had become conventional wisdom by the end of the 1990s. This was the idea that all countries were or should be abandoning intermediate exchange rate regimes (bands, baskets, crawling pegs, adjustable pegs, and heavily managed floats) in favor of either the floating corner or the institutionally fixed corner (currency boards, dollarization, or monetary union). Since 2001 the tide has turned against the corners hypothesis, and far fewer economists would now assert it as a sweeping generalization.  Certainly a huge fraction of the members of the IMF continue to follow intermediate regimes.

• The language of “unfair currency manipulation,” has been in US law since 1988 and the IMF Articles of Agreement for longer. China during the years 2004-2008 was pretty much the first large country to face charges of unfairly manipulating its currency to keep it undervalued. But US Congressmen who have for years urged China to abandon its link to the dollar could well live to regret it, if they were to get their way and the People’s Bank of China did in fact stop buying US treasury bills. It is finally beginning to sink in among Americans that having China as its largest creditor carries with it some new constraints.  What concept is “on its way in,” to replace the idea that intervening to prevent one’s currency from appreciating is anathema?   Reserves.  Two short years ago, Western economists were lecturing surplus countries that they were acquiring too many reserves.  Today we see that the developing countries that have weathered the 2007-09 crisis the best are countries that had previously piled up the most reserves, other things equal.

• Most controversially, I assert that Inflation Targeting — narrowly defined, I hasten to add — has seen its best days. The definition of IT I have in mind is the proposition that the monetary authorities should set a target range for the increase in the CPI each year, and then should focus all their efforts on hitting it. This orthodoxy says that the central bankers should pay no attention to asset prices, the exchange rate, or commodity prices, except to the extent that they carry implications for the CPI. For large rich countries, it has become clear since 2007 that Alan Greenspan was wrong when he (plausibly) abjured all attempts to identify or discourage bubbles in real estate and stock markets. As a result, the credit cycle view of monetary policy has been resurrected , after a long period when only inflation was thought to matter. For smaller and developing countries, I would also argue that volatility in commodity prices has made it clear that monetary policy should let currencies depreciate, at least somewhat, when the terms of trade worsen, rather than the opposite as is implied by a strict interpretation of CPI targeting. For them, I would propose replacing the CPI target with a more production-oriented price index, such as a target for the PPI or even an export price index.

• The United States has benefited throughout the post-war period by an unlimited ability to borrow in dollars. A popular view two years ago, supported by some of the best scholars, was that the US had earned the dollar privilege by establishing a unique comparative advantage in supplying a saving-glut world with high-quality assets. Then the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 revealed that US assets were not so high-quality after all. The dollar did retain the benefit of being the safe haven currency in 2008, as an exorbitant privilege — contrary to the predictions of those of us who had predicted that the unsustainable current account deficit would lead to a large depreciation. Nevertheless, some developments in the course of 2009 have suggested a global movement away from the unipolar dollar standard, and toward a new multiple international reserve system. These events include the gradual rise of the euro as an international currency to rival the dollar, the sudden and unexpected resurrection of the SDR from near-death, new interest in the yen and gold as safe haven assets (including among central banks), and the very first glimmerings of an international role for the RMB.

[Any readers wishing to post comments are referred to the Seeking Alpha version.]

The Queen of England during the summer asked economists why no one had predicted the credit crunch and recession.   Paul Krugman points out that, inasmuch as economists can almost never predict the timing of recessions (and don’t claim to be able to), the real questions are worse.  The real questions are, rather how macroeconomists (most) could have gotten it so wrong as to believe that:
(i) a severe recession was not even looming ahead as a potential danger, and
(ii) a breakdown of many of the world’s most liquid financial markets, in New York and London, was impossible to imagine.

To anyone wondering about these questions, I recommend Krugman’s essay in the New York Times Sunday magazine, September 6:  “How Did Economists Get it So Wrong?” .
I think his diagnosis of the state of macroeconomic theory for the last 30 years has it right. 

I would only add that he is modest in skipping over one point:  during Japan’s lost decade of growth in the 1990s Paul himself forcefully drew from the Japanese experience the implication that a severe economic breakdown was, after all, possible in a modern industrialized economy – a breakdown that both was reminiscent of the Great Depression and was outside the ken of modern macroeconomic theory.   But macroeconomics went on as before.   (Likewise with the stock market correction of 1987, the LTCM crisis of 1998, and the dotcom bust of 2000-01.   I do think, however, that our field did a better job with the emerging market crises of 1994-2001, in part because it was considered permissible to argue that financial markets in this case were highly imperfect.)

The list of scholarly economists who in my view deserve kudos for getting important parts of the crisis right ahead of time also includes, among others:

• Robert Shiller – for declaring most visibly that the housing boom was a bubble,
• Ned Gramlich — for pointing out most assiduously that families were being persuaded to take out mortgages that weren’t good for them,
• Ragu Rajan — for diagnosing most accurately the problems of excessive leverage in the financial system,
• Claudio Borio and Bill White at the BIS — for seeing most presciently the dangers of a monetary policy that ignored asset bubbles, and
• Nouriel Roubini – for warning most fortissimo how serious a future meltdown was likely to be.

Returning to Krugman’s NYT article, even the caricature drawings are good…  except that I have never seen Olivier Blanchard in a double-breasted suit.    But Robert Lucas definitely merits a place there as a leader of the orthodoxy:   When given one page in a recent  Economist essay to defend “freshwater” economic theorists regarding the crisis, he actually thought it was a useful rebuttal to point out that critics are repeating arguments they have made before.  And he also thought it was useful to explain:  “The term “efficient” as used here means that individuals use information in their own private interest. It has nothing to do with socially desirable pricing; people often confuse the two.”  — As if it is not the latter question that the public is wondering about.

(For other economists’ reactions to the Krugman piece, see the National Journal site.)

 [Any reader wishing to make comments on this post is referred to the RGE version.]

A year ago, it occurred to me that if the popular blood lust against the financial sector was to be given vent, one could do worse than adopt a small (but global) tax on financial transactions.    On August 27 it was reported that Adair Turner, head of the UK Financial Services Authority, had come out in support of just such an idea, arguing that the financial sector is too large.   The Financial Times editorializes against the proposal, pointing out the importance of the sector to Britain, and arguing that ”bonus-bashing is a distraction.”  Willem Buiter is with Turner in believing that the financial sector is too large, but views the transactions tax as the wrong policy tool for the job.

It is worth recalling that more of the original goals of the bailout packages of a year ago have been attained than most commentators expected.    First, the goal of preventing a depression in the general economy has apparently been accomplished — and without nationalization of the large banks.    The Administration and the Fed always said that helping some undeserving financiers would be an undesirable but necessary side effect of the rescue plan   You don’t punish someone who has been smoking in bed by allowing the resultant fire to burn down the block.   Second, the goal of recouping a substantial share of the bailout costs has also begun to be realized – contrary to many cynical predictions – as banks repay loans to the Treasury and to the Federal Reserve, often at a profit to the taxpayer.

Nevertheless, it is indeed irksome that the banks have continued to pay out huge bonuses to their top employees, and to oppose the creation of a new US agency for financial consumer protection.   So the public’s anger is understandable.   Perhaps the transactions tax is indeed the right way to go.  Our Treasury and others’ could really use the revenue, especially if they don’t recover full value on the money that has been put into rescuing financial institutions.  Furthermore, the idea of shrinking the volume of transactions in financial markets nowadays looks much less likely to damage economic efficiency than we once believed.    

[Anyone wishing to comment is referred to the Seeking Alpha  or RGE Monitor versions of this post.]

Friday marks 200 days in office for President Obama.   “How has he done?” asks Fortune.

The first thing to say is that Barack Obama took over the presidency at an extremely difficult time. A variety of analogies suggest themselves: He is Harry Houdini who has been thrown in the river, in a straitjacket, with chains wrapped around him. Or he has taken over as the captain of a ship with a rotting hull, while the ship is under attack in a hurricane. To capture the state of the economy, perhaps the best metaphor is that Obama took over as pilot of an airplane in the middle of a steep dive. For a president precedent, he is Lincoln, who takes office as the South secedes. Or he is Roosevelt, who takes office at the depth of the Great Depression.

In any case, in light of the difficult circumstances, I think Obama has done amazingly well.

The financial markets were in free-fall six months ago. Bank spreads were at historic highs (a good indicator of just how outside-the-box this financial crisis was). GDP contracted at an annual rate of about 6 % in the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year.

Since then, the airplane has begun to level off. Those bank spreads are down to more normal levels. GDP declined at an annual rate of “only” 1% according to last Friday’s advance estimate; if I had to guess, we will see a bottom in the second half of the year and could see some positive growth. I give a lot of credit to the fiscal stimulus, to the monetary stimulus, and to the financial repair measures, as messy as those inevitably were.

At the time our new president took office in January, there was a danger that this could be not only the worst of the post-war recessions, but as bad as Japan in the 1990s. I think we have now avoided that. We have learned from mistakes in the past, particularly the mistakes of the Depression – those made by the Federal Reserve, Hoover, and also Roosevelt. Obama has the advantage of the lessons of the 1930s to learn from.   But he has the disadvantage of having inherited an exploding path of debt (unnecessarily incurred by this predecessor).    The debt is the rotting hull of the ship of state.

Regarding February’s stimulus package, some commentators said it was too small, some said it was too large.  In truth, it was both.   It was too small by itself to return us to full employment, to knock out the recession.   In order to bring us back to full employment, we would  need a boost to spending several times as big.  And yet, at the same time, it was too large to guarantee that we avoid losing the confidence of our international creditors.   If they stop buying our bonds, US long-term interest rates could rise sharply.   (China — the largest holder of US Treasuiy securities — has already begun to ask questions about the value of US debt.)     But the Administration struck an appropriate balance between these two competing concerns. 

People are angry about the big bonuses that are still being paid to those in the financial sector who got us into this problem. Entirely understandable. But don’t forget that, from the beginning, the goal was to prevent a depression in the general economy. That has been accomplished. You don’t punish someone who has been smoking in bed by allowing the resultant fire to burn down the block. The Administration and the Fed always admitted freely that helping some undeserving financiers would be an undesirable but necessary side effect of the rescue plan. And do you remember all the pundits who warned that the rescue could not work unless the banks were temporarily nationalized? Or all the cynics who dismissed claims that the Treasury would recoup a share of the budget costs as firms like Goldman Sachs repaid their loans with interest?

In my view, overall, Obama has gotten far more things right than wrong. He has bravely proposed things that most sensible economists — whether Republican or Democrat — have long favored. Proposing is not always the same as enacting; there is the matter of Congress. But he has tried to get them passed, and has tried to do it in a bipartisan way.  (That bipartisanship constraint is one of the Houdini chains.)

Washington has always been stymied by the political constraints of what can pass Congress.  Often presidents figure that special interest groups will block sensible reforms, so why waste political capital trying? But an example, which I find extremely encouraging, including symbolically, is that (with the help of Defense Secretary Robert Gates), Obama proposed to end spending on the F22 fighter. The F22 is probably the most egregious example in the defense budget of spending on hugely expensive weapons systems that the Pentagon doesn’t want because they are not useful for today’s national security needs. To my surprise, Obama actually prevailed  on this.

I can also name two areas where he proposed very sensible legislation that a heavy majority of economists of both parties would support, and yet where he has lost in Congress (at least so far). One is cutting agricultural subsidies to agribusiness and rich farmers. Another is auctioning off most of the greenhouse gas emission permits in any plan like the Waxman-Markey Bill, rather than giving them away to industry.  (Obama’s proposal was to use the proceeds of the auctions to reduce the marginal tax rate on low-income workers, to “Make Work Pay,” which would have been an excellent use of the funds.)

But the fact that he is trying, and that he is winning some of the battles, is important.  He is willing to fight the fight, while yet compromising when politically necessary. It is tremendously important that the public take notice of these details. There are always particular interest groups that stand to lose from any given reform such as farm supports,  military procurement or emission permit auctions; if the general public pays no attention to the details and does not support the President on them, it means special interests will triumph over the general good as so often in the past.

If I had to find one mistake that the White House has made, the initial economic forecasts were too optimistic, at least with respect to the unemployment rate. It was an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless… not just with respect to the economics: politically, Obama would have been better to recognize the severity of the recession from day one.

Regarding the health plan, we as yet have no idea what the outcome will be. The big questions, of course, are how to reduce costs and how to pay for getting everybody insured. Instead of proposing an income surcharge on the wealthy, I would have preferred eliminating non-taxability of employer-provided health benefits— that’s what McCain was for in the campaign, and most economists as well. The non-taxability could have been retained for workers in lower income brackets if the White House felt this was essential.  At the least, Senator Kerry’s astute version, which is aimed at curbing the effective taxpayer subsidy in the cases of the most egregiously expensive health care insurers, should be politically saleable.   You can call Obama’s failure, so far, to move in this direction a second mistake. But, since Fortune asked my opinion of how much the President has done right versus wrong, I put the score at 98 to 2. 

[Any readers wishing to comment on this post are encouraged to go to Seeking Alpha.]

Most international summit meetings are long on photo-opportunities and short on substance.   There was a great danger that last Thursday’s G-20 meeting in London would be merit comparison to the failed World Economic Conference of 1933, which was also held in London.   This one, however, did have genuine substance.   

Nobody reads the communiques, or listens to the press conferences of leaders or finance ministers. But here is the substance:

Top of the list of accomplishments was expansion of IMF resources. The new SDR allocation was perhaps the most noteworthy and unexpected decision: those observers who have proposed such a step in the current international crisis, or in past international crises, have usually been dismissed as pipe-dreamers (John Williamson, Dani Rodrik, George Soros, Joe Stiglitz…). In addition, there seems to have been some forward movement on international regulation of the financial sector, as the Europeans wanted. Although President Obama acquitted himself well overall, the failure to achieve agreement for coordinated additional fiscal stimulus, as the Americans wanted, was probably the greatest shortcoming of the meeting.

I believe the G-20 meeting will be remembered historically, but not primarily for the above reasons. It will be remembered as the occasion on which primary emphasis shifted from the G-7, the global steering group that until now has had a monopoly on real economic decision-making power, to the G-20. Of the various substantive ways in which developing countries could and should have been given more representation in recent years, the shift to the G-20 is the first one to have actually taken place.

Secretary Tim Geithner announced today the long-awaited details on the financial repair plan that he promised on February 10.   Some reactions have been negative, both from the left and the right.  Paul Krugman, for example, argues that the plan does not go far enough in forcing banks to recognize the fallen value of their assets.  

But the stock market was “dazzled“ by Geithner’s explanation of the PPIP proposal, with prices up strongly.    The  plan has no shortage of defenders.  Brad DeLong makes some good points, and responds to Krugman.   The Geithner Plan is an improvement over the Paulson plan in that when ”toxic assets,” now called “legacy assets,” are bought from the banks, their prices are set by private bidding (from hedge funds and private equity companies), rather than by an overworked Treasury official pulling a number out of the air and risking that the taxpayer grossly overpays for the assets.   On similar grounds, Nouriel Roubini has surprised the cynics by giving (qualified) support for the plan, and points out that its design appears to follow a recent proposal by my Harvard colleage Lucien Bebchuk.  

Joe Stiglitz, who attacks the Administration’s proposal, offhandedly mentions “It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress” to ask for more money “and it provided a way to avoid nationalization,” as if these were not key advantages for those who have to work in the real political world.  It is true that we might end up with some form of temporary bank nationalization before we are done.  And it is also true that the lesson from Roosevelt’s strategy in 1933, from the slower response to the Saving and Loan problems in the late 1980s, and from Japan’s much more delayed response to its banking disaster of the 1990s, is that biting the bullet early saves even greater expense later.  But as Alan Blinder says, it matters which bullet you bite.  He points out some neglected counter-arguments to the nationalization strategy that is newly beloved of academic critics.  It would be hard to enforce a clear drawing of the line as to which banks would be taken over.   Furthermore — even with the necessary wiping out of bank shareholders — (i) the word “nationalization” would likely violate a political constraint, while (ii) making good on the banks’ outstanding obligations would likely violate the government’s budget constraint.

My feeling is: the Geithner plan deserves to be given a chance.  I discussed it on NPR’s On Point this morning.   Some of the callers evinced the anger that the American public understandably feels against the financial sector and the understandable pain of the recession.   I made an analogy with 9/11/01, when understandable anger and pain led the American public to support presidential policies that made things worse rather then better — the invasion of an irrelevant country, plus big tax cuts for the rich — consequences that we are still living with today.   In the current crisis,it is important that the anger be channeled in directions that will make things better rather than worse.

[Readers wishing to post comments should go to the RGE Monitor version.]

     It is ironic that the dollar has strengthened rather than weakened over the last year.

· The sub-prime mortgage crisis originated in the United States;

· The crisis has severely undermined the credibility of American financial institutions – both in the narrower sense that leading investment banks have now disappeared and in the broader sense that American modes of corporate governance have lost value as role models (rating agencies, accounting systems, executive compensation, and so on)

· The response in Washington has included further acceleration in the already-rising national debt plus an expansion of the US money supply and reduction in policy interest rates that, though appropriate, are unprecedented.

Under normal conditions, any country on the receiving end of three such bullet-points would see its currency go down in flames. Yet the dollar has appreciated.

The explanation is not a mystery. The world’s investors have in two years gone from inordinately low perceptions of (and aversion to) risk and illiquidity, to inordinately higher perceptions of (and aversion to) risk and illiquidity. Virtually all assets other than US Treasury bills look risky and illiquid. That there has been a flight to quality is not surprising. What is perhaps surprising is that US Treasury bills continue to be perceived as the safest of safe havens and the US dollar continues to be the preferred international currency. The flight to the dollar shows up in both the strength of the dollar and the low level of US interest rates. For those of us who warned that the unsustainable current account deficit could eventually lead to a decline in the international role of the dollar at the hands of the euro… that day is not today.

The most noteworthy flows into the dollar and into US treasury securities have for some years been coming in the form of purchases by foreign central banks. The People’s Bank of China reached $ 2 trillion in international reserves at the end of 2008 (actually 1.95 trillion), which it continues to hold predominantly in dollars. Other central banks among Asian exporters of manufactures and Gulf exporters of oil have been behaving similarly.     China’s leaders are beginning to worry that the debt is growing too large, and President Obama recently had to reassure them about the safety of US Treasury securities.  The American public is increasingly being made aware that the United States has grown dependent on the Chinese for its funding, that our interest rates will go up if they stop buying our treasury bills.  

     There is another irony, however. Even while the US has grown increasingly dependent on holdings of dollars by the People’s Bank of China, US politicians maintain their demands that the People’s Bank of China abandon its purchases of dollars. They don’t usually phrase it this way, because the logical contradiction would be too glaring. Instead the US policy has been, and apparently still is, that China should allow its currency to appreciate. But it is elementary economics that PBoC purchases of dollars over the last six years are the force that has prevented the Renminbi from appreciating. The American insistence that the RMB appreciate is an insistence that the PBoC should stop buying dollars.   Be careful what you wish for !

(The accompanying cartoon captures the idea… except that, as Shang-Jin Wei points out, the sign should really say “Float the Yuan” instead of “Fix the Yuan.”   And in fact the danger is that the dragon will at our request stop flooding us with liquidity.)

[Source: KAL’s cartoon From The Economist print edition - Aug 9th 2007 - Illustration by Kevin Kallaugher

http://media.economist.com/images/20070811/D3207WW0.jpg]

     The authorities in Beijing have in various ways taken some steps in the direction that Americans have demanded, allowing the RMB to appreciate against the dollar. I have written in the past on the details of what exchange rate policy the Chinese have actually followed over the last four years, and I plan to update that analysis in a successor post in two days.

     My position on what policy the Chinese should follow regarding the Renminbi has been roughly in the middle of a contentious range of commentators over the last few years:

 On the one hand, I have argued:

(i) that it is foolish for American politicians to place so much emphasis on this issue in our bilateral relations

(ii) that it is dangerous to ignore the flip-side implications for funding of US deficits, and

(iii) that it is unwise to use language such as “unfair manipulation” or “violation of international rules.”

On the other hand, I have argued that an appreciation was both

(i) in the interest of China, for a number of reasons, and

(ii) in the interest of the world, to help address the global imbalances problem.

The balance of arguments has now shifted. Overheating is no longer the problem for the Chinese economy that it was as recently as a year ago, having been pushed aside by an abrupt fall in exports. Global imbalances are no longer the most important problem for the world macroeconomy, having been supplanted by the inadequacy of demand. If American politicians are still inclined to make demands on China, it would be more logical to ask for increased fiscal stimulus. Given that China often reacts adversely to foreign pressure, however, perhaps it is just as well that American politicians have been asking for the wrong thing.

[If you wish to post a comment, please go to the versions at Seeking Alpha  or RGE Monitor.]

          We often hear the question “isn’t this economic crisis becoming as bad as the Great Depression?” Economists can offer a variety of reassurances, but each of them is quite circumscribed:
(more…)

Some observations on the plan announced by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner yesterday:

Clearly we need to hear more details.   I  sympathize with Geithner, who has only been in office a couple of weeks.    He has had to take over in the middle of the worst financial crisis in 77 years, at the same time that he must personally fill out the reams of forms that it takes to get confirmed by the Senate (like all such new appointees)  and to fill lots of positions throughout the upper levels of the Treasury.    But the American public will demand further elaboration  on his plan soon.

For now, one must guess what is going to be the precise shape of the new Private Public Investment Fund (PPIF).    (more…)

The Yale Book of Quotations provides a useful service: It tabulates well-known sound-bites, but tries to get the exact quote and citation right, which is rare.    (P.T. Barnum in fact never said “There is a sucker born every minute.”    Richard Nixon never said “But it would be wrong.” Etc.)  The editor also compiles an annual list of Top Ten Quotes of the Year.   In the second week of December he released the list for 2008.  Number 1, for example, is “I can see Russia from my house” (carefully attributed to the Tina Fey parody rather than precisely what Sarah Palin originally said).

The good news is that the title line in my blogpost of July 17 was chosen as one of the top ten quotes of 2008 (tied for tenth place, it is true).    The sentence is: “If there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in financial crises.”     The bad news is that the quote was attributed to Paul Krugman, who had used it subsequently on the Bill Maher Show.   I had originally written it in 2007 as the first line of an article in a Cato Journal issue devoted to financial crises.  Among the others who picked up on the line after my blogpost were Ben Bernanke,  Mark Shields, Bloomberg,  WSJ.com, Brad deLong, and Tom Keene – generally with attribution, when the format permitted.

The list of Top Ten Quotations of 2008 went out over AP on December 15 as it was, and appeared in lots of newspaper stories and TV broadcasts.  Krugman immediately set the record straight on his blog, as I knew he would.   AP sent out a correction on December 22.    It should be obvious that this is not a scandal of any sort and that Krugman is just as quotable as he ever was.
  

But there are some other, more interesting, aspects.

One is an illustration of how tough is the world in which highly visible columnists like Krugman live.   There are lots of Krugman-haters out there.  Of course the phenomenon originates in the fact that he consistently has been liberal and anti-Bush (not precisely the same thing).  But the antipathy goes very deep.    The Yale/AP list was originally called to my attention by one Joel West.   I told him I was indebted to him for pointing out the misattribution.   But I also told him that I was sure that there had been no desire on Paul’s part to steal my line:  TV shows like Bill Maher don’t customarily allow their guests to display footnotes.     But Mr.West must be one of the Krugman-haters, because his subsequent blogpost accused Krugman of dishonesty.   As had another Krugman-hating blogpost before that.   These people are eager for ammunition against someone of a different ideological persuasion and are not sufficiently discriminating about what they use.

Ironically, of the other two soundbites that share tenth place on the Yale/AP list with the atheists-libertarians quote, one is something else attributed to Krugman (“Cash for trash”), and the third is from the all-time champion Krugman-hater, Donald Luskin.   Luskin earned the Top Ten honor when quoted as saying “Anyone who says we’re in a recession, or heading into one — especially the worst one since the Great Depression — is making up his own private definition of “`recession’”  in the Washington Post, September 14.    This was of course after a huge fraction of economic commentators and the public had already decided that the country was probably in recession, as now turns out indeed to have been the case.   (I myself took a bit of grief on various blogs both for saying the “R word” too early and also for saying it too late.  But I have also gotten credit.)

The atheists-and-libertarians line itself has also drawn some grief from some atheists and libertarians, on various blogsites.   I don’t mean to put these two philosophies together (although that would be an interesting essay question on some exam).  Nor is it the case that either group is objecting to being associated with the other.   But both have pointed out that the statement is not literally true.   They are entirely correct:  There are plenty of atheists in the military;  and there are plenty of libertarians in a financial crisis.  But of course the statement did not literally mean there are no atheists in foxholes or libertarians in financial crises.  The claims are, rather, that on average:  (i) soldiers under fire tend suddenly to grow more religious in outlook, and (ii) policy-makers facing a financial crisis tend suddenly to grow more interventionist in outlook.    But, yes, there really are conscientious atheists in foxholes.   They are a minority, but a substantial one.   And yes there really are thoughtful libertarians in financial crises.  Again a minority, but not to be dismissed.   If anything, I admire the intellectual consistency of those who have thought through their views well enough ahead of time that they do not change them under pressure from events that, even if calamitous, were predictable.