In which I join the ongoing debate on how much we should expect fiscal and monetary stimulus to accomplish.

Arnold Kling has proposed a "recalculation" theory of macroeconomics:

My claim (which is not original with me-- it is recognizably Austrian) is that a recession can be thought of as a recalculation. Imagine a central planner who decides to radically change plans. He has a huge recalculation to make in order to figure out where to allocate labor and capital. He says to some people, "Wait a minute. I am thinking. Some of you just have to stand idle while I figure this out."

The market economy is like that central planner. We are undergoing a Great Recalculation....

In conventional, hydraulic macro, we think in terms of this one good called GDP, and the output gap is the difference between how much of this GDP stuff we could produce if everybody were working and

...

Tim Duy worries that some FOMC members are overestimating the inflation risk.

Arnold Kling proposes a mackerel theory of value.

The discussion at Cato of monetary policy continues.

From Arnold Kling's entry yesterday:

Kwak goes on to endorse Chinn's ideological rant that the Bush tax cuts caused the financial crisis. Yes, I know that Chinn is speaking in the tone of economic analysis rather than a rant, but only a left-wing ideologue would take the thesis seriously. I bet Kwak cannot find a blog post of Chinn's where he made a policy point against Democrats/liberals or for Republicans/conservatives.

Where Kling is responding to James Kwak's assertion: "[Menzie] Chinn is not given to ideological ranting." (Thanks, James).

I don't find it very profitable to characterize anybody's posts as "rants", but I thought it useful to see what the definition is:

A rant or harangue is a speech or text that does not present a well-researched and calm argument; rather, it is typically an attack on an idea, a person or an institution, and very often lacks proven claims. Such attacks

...

In several past posts, I've been taken to task for using the CBO measure of the output gap (and the associated measure of potential GDP) [0] [1]. Some criticize the false sense of certainty that is provided by the official measures, since they are known to be revised as data comes in. Some criticize the measures on the basis the fact that the statistical methodologies (Hodrick-Prescott, Band-Pass) are divorced from a formal economic model. Some criticize the concept of potential GDP derived from a production function approach (i.e., thinking about the economy as one big production function associated with one big firm...). Arnold Kling's recent critique centers upon the idea that output is not homogenous, and we need different types of capital (and by extension labor) when the desired composition of output changes. Yet another -- not entirely unrelated -- perspective argues that when relative prices change

...

Or, how come you used to say that if consumers don’t save more, it will wreck the economy, and now you say, if consumers do save more, it will wreck the economy?

For the record, I am certainly among those who had been suggesting that America’s low saving rate was a significant problem. Let me begin by reviewing why I said that. Recall that we can separate the various components of GDP (Y) in terms of goods and services purchased by consumers (C), government purchases (G), investment spending (I), and net exports (X):

Y = C + I + G + X

Subtracting C and G from both sides of the equation,

Y – C – G = I + X

The two terms on the right-hand side are the critical determinants of what kind of economic future we’ll have. Investment in plant and equipment is the single most important variable

…

Article Source Arnold Kling poses a question for Paul Krugman. Here's how I would answer. Kling writes: Early in 2007, the price of oil was $60 a barrel. Recently, it has been above $130 a barrel. Which of the following does Paul Krugman believe: (a) market fundamentals justified $60 a barrel then, and they justify $130 a barrel now; or (b) market fundamentals justified a much higher price in 2007? ...We know that Krugman does not believe that today's oil price is out of line with fundamentals. Krugman's view, in effect, is that if speculators artificially boost the price of oil, then supply will exceed demand, and the excess has to go somewhere. Where are the inventories? This view ought to hold in reverse. If speculators artificially kept the price of oil too low early in 2007, then demand should have exceeded supply and inventories should have ...