I take up the second part of Ben Bernanke's analysis of why interest rates are so low. He rejects the "secular stagnation" hypothesis advanced, among other, by Larry Summers (see here for more contributions and here for Summers' counterpoint to Bernanke's post). Like Bernanke I do not find the secular stagnation hypothesis convincing at all. But I also find his analysis far from satisfactory, even incoherent sometimes. I do not see why "facts" that are not facts are being accepted as the starting point of analysis, and why the latter has to turn immediately into questions of policy framed in the most narrow format. If we are not even sure of what is going on, what is the point of debating policies?
LEGGI IL RESTO DELL'ARTICOLO »