As luck would have it, while I have been looking at arguments from the New Republic Brad has been looking into the economic reasoning capacity of the writers on the National Review, in the end his conclusions are really not so very different different from my own ones about tnr. Since the political affiliations are, on the face of it, rather different, I can only draw one conclusion ideoligical thinking and science don't mix, and when an attempt is made to couple the two together, the result is mediocrity. These publications appear to have more in common than their initials:
The third lowest point is the paragraph: "Newspaper writers, listening carefully as Fed staffers whisper in their sensitive ears, are blaming deflation on subpar economic growth, and they say the lagging economy has created a growing 'output gap' between potential and actual economic activity. But we learned painfully in the 1970s that inflation can coexist with recession. Milton Friedman coined the term 'inflationary recession,' which then became known in the media as stagflation." Other than I don't like the Fed staff, this paragraph of Kudlow's carries no possible coherent and consistent meaning at all.
I could go on. But why bother? The National Review's economics coverage is by and large several standard deviations in quality below what the magazine should be able to muster. The puzzling question is "Why?"
Source: Semi Daily Journal