> First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it
> is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant;
> finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries
> claim that they themselves discovered it.
Michael Pollak wrote:
> Perhaps that's exactly what we have here: regulation's biggest
> adversary acting like he discovered it.
Good point. Economists have an obnoxious habit of praising each other as brilliant, but Summers is a seriously sharp guy*. Having seen him speak in person, he's impressive. If an ideological shift is occurring, it'd be no surprise for him to respond deftly. It seems he has done it before. When Reagan entered the White House, Summers wasn't far behind.
Of course, his uncles are more than Nobel laureates. They are two of the founding fathers of modern (read: post-war) economics. Some sense of entitlement is almost given.
Shane
* - list alum Daniel Davies has a dissent:
Being extremely intelligent is rather like fucking sheep - once you've got a reputation for either, it's extremely difficult to get rid of it. If someone was, at some long gone time in the past, a boy genius or an academic superstar, then they're "incredibly smart" for life, no matter how many stupid things they actually say or do.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/thewisestfoolsinchristendo>