Helicopter money
Sky-High Monetary Policy
Economist Stefan Gerlach examines the promise and limitations of “helicopter money,” and considers arguments for and against advanced by Project Syndicate commentators.
The economist demurred. He said he didn’t really disagree with any of the analysis, but worried that my book would provide “ammunition for the barbarians.” Protectionists would latch on to the book’s arguments about the downsides of globalization to provide cover for their narrow, selfish agenda.
It’s a reaction I still get from my fellow economists. One of them will hesitantly raise his hand following a talk and ask: Don’t you worry that your arguments will be abused and serve the demagogues and populists you are decrying?
Great article.
The idea of a trade commission monitoring our international trading partners for human rights abuses is a great one. Is there any federal agency or other mechanism to prevent a US company from trading with a foreign company or state that, for example, creates goods with slave labor? Or is the only thing stopping such immoral or unethical business the disincentive caused by the bad media?
This all reminds me of the first two paragraphs of Economics in One Lesson:
In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.