From: Jude Wanniski email@example.com
To: James K. Galbraith <galbraith@* * * * *.edu>
Re: Jobless President
There is no real audience for a major currency reform because Jamie Galbraith does not want to take the risks that would involve making it happen. No other reason. I got an e-mail from a biggie on Wall Street who could write an oped on monetary reform telling me he dealy wishes I continue my campaign as it is the most important issue for the world economy.... but to leave him out of it. You cannot be more than a common scold if all you do is yap about the bad stuff other people are saying about the economy. That is Krugman's schtick. He never puts his neck out. I spend the time I do with you because I hope you would really want to be on the margin, leading the charge. Anything less is not worth very much. Know what I mean?
At 03:35 PM 1/27/2004 -0600, you wrote:
I am not mum. But having written on this in various obscure places (for instance, Le Monde Diplomatique and a Levy Institute paper, here, a year ago: http://www.levy.org/1/docs/pn/02-2.html I'm fairly sure there is no real audience for a major currency reform. Yet. Jamie
On the Fed, my view is basically that the less they try to do, the better. After the election they may generate an inflation crisis by raising interest rates, and then react to it by raising them some more.
At 2:06 PM 1/27/2004 -0600, you wrote:
Democrats are still hung up on supply-siders, not really knowing what it is all about. We'll never be able to fix the world unless we refix the dollar. But where are the academics on that issue. Even Mundell has given up on a gold/dollar and now runs around selling managed currencies or currency boards. And Jamie Galbraith stays mum, except he thinks targeting the funds rate at 1% is the right things to do. Why, I don't know. Why not 2%?