I don't mean to use this as a follow-up to my last three posts. I think Steve Roth is right: something interesting is going on with Market Monetarists lately.
Just think of this post as a reminder of how empty economics can be.
Market monetarists like Beckworth and Sumner are smart guys, but their reasoning is flawed. They define monetary policy not in terms of either money or policy, but as GDP growth, which is a resultant. This is either circular reasoning or assuming the conclusion.
That reminded me of something Daniel Kuehn said:
...for market monetarists like Scott Sumner, who seem interested in going beyond decision rules and actually offering an analytic claim, there seems to be no way to logically make the statement "we have done the market monetarist policy rule and the goal was not achieved". Why? Because if NGDP level targets have not been reached then by definition you haven't been doing market monetarist policy.
Fair criticism, I think.