Well, I figured that we’d get to this point. Since I joined the World Bank last fall, we’ve had a few internal conversations that involved what the diplomats would call “a full and frank exchange of views.” It is no surprise that the Bank has its own homegrown insurgents ready to wage their version of asymmetric warfare. One of those ways is via rumors. Apparently the word is out that when I asked people to write more clearly, I wasn’t nice.

For more that 20 years, October has been the time when the eager beavers in the university PR department get a little too excited as they drill in preparation for the possibility that I might receive a Nobel prize. I used to try to explain how low the odds are, but found that this was like talking to someone who has just been given a ticket for the upcoming $100 million lottery.

In an interview I gave to a Swedish newspaper last week, I said that Sweden could consider new responses to the refugee crisis. My comments were prompted by conversations with several Swedes who remain committed to the principle of helping people in need but are convinced that familiar strategies are not working. They said that some of the refugees who have been admitted into Sweden are frustrated by life on the margin of society.

Dear Professor Romer, I am writing you about your recent working paper The Trouble with Macroeconomics that generated lots of reactions. I have simple question. I am a graduate student in economics. I am going to begin a PhD program in economics next year. I always loved macro, and I will probably specialize myself in this field. My question is: Shall I see all the critics made to the macro field as a signal that there will be massive developments and evolutions, which makes it pretty exciting?

My new working paper, The Trouble with Macroeconomics, has generated some interesting reactions. Here are a few responses: Why Name Names? One suggestion is that it would have been better if I had written one of those passive-voice “mistakes were made” documents that firms issue after a PR disaster. I name names because this is how science works. The standard practice calls for an individual to put his or her reputation behind a claim; to listen to the claims that others make; and to admit that the claim is false when this is what the evidence shows.