I appreciate you answering the question even though you don't like the premise. I think it's a helpful way to be, when people have good intentions, at least.
I've always wondered at the argument. Before Gromen, you used to hear a similar thing said of Ronald Reagan, that it was his great genius to run the Soviets into the ground with this economic strategy. That always seemed quite convenient, to do the thing you wanted to do anyway and then claim the results for your side at the end, if they happened to be good; and not to mention it, if they weren't.
I think the "compounding errors" is a nice way to frame it. The question, then and now, is: how long can you wait for compounding to solve the problem for you? Not just wrt monetary policy, but in life in general. I have a prompt for later in the day that gets at this idea, hopefully you'll come back for it :)
how long can you wait for compounding to solve the problem for you?
I'm not old enough to have been wrong in real time, but I probably would have expected the Soviet Union to fail much faster.
It's reminiscent of "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
reply