"Dr. Cook is one of the country’s most esteemed macroeconomists as well as an international authority on banking systems, economic growth, innovation, markets and global finance."
Is this description remotely correct in the macro community?
This is how the Fed describes LC
-
"Dr. Cook is one of the country’s most esteemed macroeconomists as well as an international authority on banking systems, economic growth, innovation, markets and global finance."
Is this description remotely correct in the macro community?Errrrr, what? Did they add the wrong name to that description?
-
Lisa Cook is an accomplished economist and creative thinker.
Having read many of her papers and had numerous opportunities to interact with her, I am certain she will be an outstanding member of the Federal Reserve Board, assuming bad faith attacks do not prevail.
A small number of economists have bizarrely argued she is not qualified.
I find the complaints as silly as suggesting that Earl Warren was unqualified to be Chief Justice as he had no scholarly record on constitutional law.
LC was appointed for advice/judgment/evaluation/guidance, not to write monetary theory papers.
Her totality of scholarship, policy work and advocacy define her, not the number of papers she has published that one calls "macro."
It is true, IMO, that LC will take seriously the distributional effects of monetary policy in ways that are foreign to the mindsets of old guard macroeconomists and conservatives of any vintage.
For me, that is an argument for the nomination
-
Lisa Cook is an accomplished economist and creative thinker.
Having read many of her papers and had numerous opportunities to interact with her, I am certain she will be an outstanding member of the Federal Reserve Board, assuming bad faith attacks do not prevail.
A small number of economists have bizarrely argued she is not qualified.
I find the complaints as silly as suggesting that Earl Warren was unqualified to be Chief Justice as he had no scholarly record on constitutional law.
LC was appointed for advice/judgment/evaluation/guidance, not to write monetary theory papers.
Her totality of scholarship, policy work and advocacy define her, not the number of papers she has published that one calls "macro."
It is true, IMO, that LC will take seriously the distributional effects of monetary policy in ways that are foreign to the mindsets of old guard macroeconomists and conservatives of any vintage.
For me, that is an argument for the nominationYour standards must be EXTREMELY l0w.
-
"Dr. Cook is one of the country’s most esteemed macroeconomists as well as an international authority on banking systems, economic growth, innovation, markets and global finance."
Is this description remotely correct in the macro community?This is propaganda. She isn’t even a macroeconomist. Shebdoesn’t work on innovation and growth. Just l1es.
-
"Dr. Cook is one of the country’s most esteemed macroeconomists as well as an international authority on banking systems, economic growth, innovation, markets and global finance."
Is this description remotely correct in the macro community?This is propaganda. She isn’t even a macroeconomist. Shebdoesn’t work on innovation and growth. Just l1es.
What’s her fields?