Tyler writes

I have noticed that right-wing public intellectuals are skeptical of more expansionary monetary policy for a few reasons:

1. There is a widespread belief that inflation helped cause the initial mess (not to mention centuries of other macroeconomic problems, plus the problems from the 1970s, plus the collapse of Zimbabwe), and that therefore inflation cannot be part of a preferred solution.  It feels like a move in the wrong direction, and like an affiliation with ideas that are dangerous.  I recall being fourteen years of age, being lectured about Andrew Dickson White’s work on assignats in Revolutionary France, and being bored because I already had heard the story.

2. There is a widespread belief that we have beat a lot of problems by “getting tough” with them.  Reagan got tough with the Soviet Union, soon enough we need to get tough with government spending, and perhaps therefore we also need to be “tough on inflation.”  The “turning on the spigot” metaphor feels like a move in the wrong direction.  Tough guys turn off spigots.

3. There is a widespread belief that central bank discretion always will be abused (by no means is this view totally implausible).  “Expansionary” monetary policy feels “more discretionary” than does “tight” monetary policy.  Run those two words through your mind: “expansionary,” and “tight.”  Which one sounds and feels more like “discretion”?  To ask such a question is to answer it.

Within these frameworks of beliefs, expansionary monetary policy just doesn’t feel right.

My tendency is to wave away (1) and (2) because I cannot place them in a narrative.

Suppose I have this disposition. What do I say when I read Scott Sumner?

This is important because people are constantly saying things, particularly when you address them. Rarely do you present someone with a hypothesis about some controversial policy issue, and they just stand there in silence.

So something must be happening in their mind. But, what? If I start from these points, were do I go next?

(3) more so. Because people have a hard time turning around the concept of a level target. If you present it to them they say something that assumes that you did not suggest a level target, like “So we should maximize NGDP” and then keep being confused when you return to the level.

That is an interaction that I can narrate.