Daniel Sanchez takes umbrage at the fairly obvious point I was making in the last post. I respond in the comments:
"Well Daniel, that’s why I made sure to say it’s been that way “lately”.
Tell me honestly – were the same standards applied in selecting
Salerno, Cochrane, DiLorenzo, Vedder, Parks, Ebeling, and Klein as were
applied in selecting Mishkin, Meltzer, Taylor, and Meyer in the previous
Congress? The only one that comes close to being comparable is White.
Do these guys live up to the same standards of qualified commentators
on monetary policy – is that why so many of them are testifying – or is
it because they have a political connection?
Yes, as I said – the change has come “lately” – i.e., it’s only been in this Congress.
But no honest person can deny that the composition of the hearings
has been a function of political connections and friends in Washington –
not success in the field of monetary economics.
That’s the point and that’s very unfortunate."
I'm bolding after the fact the real point here. That bolded point is a sad one and not one that is easily refuted.
You simply cannot say that Mishkin, Meltzer, Taylor, and Meyer got in because of political connections. They got in because they are at the absolute pinnacle of the field. Their invitation was because of "no clique or party", to borrow from Longfellow. You had to invite them if you cared about having a well informed Congress.
Is anyone really willing to argue the same is true of Ron Paul's invitees, even if you may personally like them?
Tom Woods and I Talk About the Carrier Deal
3 hours ago