John Taylor writes:
"I completely agree with John Cochrane when he writes in his review of my book First Principles that
the “preference for rules is one of the most important lessons of
modern macroeconomics” and that it is still the major point of
disagreement among those writing about economic policy today. As John
nicely puts it, the disagreement is about “rules vs. discretion,
commitment vs. shooting from the hip, and more deeply about whether our
economy and our society should be governed by rules, laws and
institutions vs. trusting in the wisdom of men and women, given great
power to run affairs as they see fit.”"
So who, exactly, is on the side that thinks "trusting in the wisdom of men and women, given great power to run affairs as they see fit"? Clearly not me (not that I'd expect Taylor to have me in mind anyway). Not Paul Krugman - his biggest concern has been such men and women in authority with lots of discretion but no wisdom. Not Brad DeLong. Not Mark Thoma.
This reminds me of the post-ACA claims that the pro-health-reform-constitutionality side did not believe in a Constitution that limited the power of the state.
It's what several years ago I called the "assumption of ideological orthogonality". The assumption that because I believe X, and I don't agree with those guys, then those guys believe not-X. It's a really bad way to view the marketplace of ideas and it can lead you into saying really dumb things.