"She has also questioned whether the Fed should even exist." Set aside the question of Shelton's overall merits. I wonder why merely "questioning" the need for the Fed, or deposit insurance, or...whatever, should be considered unacceptable. 1/n https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-are-trying-to-jam-through-judy-shelton-she-has-no-business-working-at-the-fed/2020/11/16/449749c6-2840-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html

Academics routinely engage in such questioning, as do critical thinkers generally. The alternative is to treat existing arrangements as sacred cows, or as "the best of all possible" solutions. These are themselves very unhealthy attitudes. 2/n

Please, don't jump on me for ignoring other reasons for holding Shelton to be unqualified. Again, this isn't about her specifically. It's about whether even radical _questioning_ of the institutional status quo should be held to disqualify any candidate from any post. 3/n

How many great monetary thinkers haven't engaged in such radical questioning of existing monetary arrangements? My impression is that few haven't. That quacks also engage in it (of course they do!) doesn't itself mean that anyone who does must count as one of them! 4/n

So, my modest request: let's not treat mere _questioning_ of existing arrangements, however popular, as a _sufficient_ basis for dismissing anyone as a quack, or as otherwise unfit for any serious duty. There are better ways by which to judge whether someone is fit or not.