Sunday, January 29, 2012

The Artist Replies

In his post complaining about John Cochrane, Brad DeLong says
The problem is that there are a lot of influential bullshit artists out there. Cochrane is at least willing to try to engage. Lucas, Fama, Prescott, Posner, etc., etc. are not even willing to do that.
Seems to indicate some desire to engage with people on discussions concerning serious economic questions of the time, right? Wrong. In response to my appeal for engagement (combined, you might add, with some mild admonishment), DeLong responds with this old news, from 17 months ago. So much for that. This is my family's favorite joke, actually. Second-stupidest man alive. Always gets a good belly laugh around the dinner table.

Speaking of jokes. It's a little late for college admission essay-writing, but here's an essay assignment. Suppose your plane crashes in the mountains. You're trapped in the snow and have been waiting months for help. You have eaten all the food, and have long since abandoned the taboo on cannibalism. Brad DeLong and Newt Gingrich are on the plane, and both alive and well. Which one do you eat first? 200 words or less.*

Addendum: Seriously, though. Krugman in particular wants to propagate the view that what he calls "freshwater macroeconomics" (which has actually ceased to exist, but whatever) is hermetically sealed and unwilling to engage. DeLong seems to feel the same way. Thoma fancies himself to be an open-minded individual, but goes along. Why am I singling those three out? They seem to lead the Old Keynesian blogosphere. If you are an economist and interested in blogging, in a way that might be controversial from the point of view of those three people, don't think they want to engage. They do not. Their interest is in reverse-engineering policy recommendations, not in thinking seriously about new ideas. Their arguments consist of calling people stupid and/or making out that their opponents are somehow morally reprehensible. They are engaged in political journalism, not economic discussion.

*Let me explain further, in case you don't get it. The whole situation is totally disgusting, in many ways, just like this blog exchange. But you're faced with a quandary, and have to weigh the costs and benefits. There are the costs and benefits to society. There are personal costs involved. You're going to have to sit in the snow for a long time with the one who lives, and they are both REALLY hard to be around.

73 comments:

  1. This is getting ridiculously petty (and I don't really blame you, he is the one that escalates in virtually every case).

    Here's something I want to know. Lucas and Prescott, two people that DeLong and co frequently trash, are easily some of the most respected people in the profession. I mean it's not even close. You can quibble over where in the top 10 they fall, but they're definitely there. Most would likely have them in their top 5. How the f*** do you sit in on a presentation at a conference or seminar after you say nonsense like that? Unless you stick exclusively to fringie heterodox orchestrated events there is going to be a sizable minority of people that think you're a raging washed up jackass. With the rest of the people, of course, either not knowing who you are or not knowing about your blog.

    The only thing I can come up with is "well they don't go to those things...". Which gives me a fantastic excuse to reprint for the umpteenth time my favorite exchange of all time (of all time):


    Rolnick: What was Paul Krugman’s opinion about those Princeton macro seminar presentations that advocated modern macro?

    Sargent: He did not attend the macro seminar at Princeton when I was there.

    Rolnick: Oh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "How the f*** do you sit in on a presentation at a conference or seminar after you say nonsense like that? Unless you stick exclusively to fringie heterodox orchestrated events there is going to be a sizable minority of people that think you're a raging washed up jackass. With the rest of the people, of course, either not knowing who you are or not knowing about your blog."

      You're talking about DeLong, right? I'm not sure what conferences he goes to, if any. I had a conversation, though, with an economist who will remain nameless, who actually tried to have an exchange with DeLong over some issue in a paper that Mr. Nameless had written. Mr. Nameless is a very nice person and easy to talk to, even for people who disagree with him. He came away from the exchange mystified. The conclusion was: "Brad is a very weird guy."

      Watch this, and you'll see what I mean:

      http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/03/debate-at-uc-davis-between-brad-delong-and-michele-boldrin.html

      Delete
    2. This is the second time I've watched it, and I don't see the weirdness. Can you point it out for us?

      Delete
    3. Hi Greg,

      Well, we are all weird in our own ways I guess. I have my own weirdness, as I'm sure you do too. Maybe I shouldn't make fun of him, as it looks like he can't help it.

      Delete
    4. By the way, the guy he's arguing with in the video is my boss. He's weird too, as he would be happy to admit.

      Delete
  2. This episode is shameful for all parties involved...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. These people need to be disciplined. All you can do is make fun of them when they behave this way.

      Delete
    2. People like your sorry self who say something like "DSGE says everything and nothing" which implies that it is unscientific should indeed be disciplined.

      Writing such crap from the safety of tenture while millions of people are unemployed and then getting into a fight with the few honest and moral economists like Krugman and Delong who actually do care about actual human suffering shows what a human being you are.

      Delete
  3. I don't call people stupid, etc., but I'm beginning to think you warrant an exception.

    Was it my presentation of Eggertsson's NK zero bound paper that upset you so? Or perhaps it was the recent posts blogging about papers from NBER meetings? Was it, perhaps, my posting of my colleague George Evans video commenting and disagreeing with your buddy at the Minnesota Fed that upset caused you to act so childish? George certainly showed -- in a very modern model -- that the assertion was wrong. Maybe it was all the Woodford papers and selections from his book over the years that got to you? Or was it the post "Farmer on Williamson on Farmer and Kocherlakota" where Farmer made you look like an idiot that set you off and made you want to trash me with falsities?

    I could go on, I've posted more than my share of "modern" research and endorsed it -- the charge about being a leader of the old Keynesian stuff to try to discredit me is a false accusation, but it's par for the course from you I suppose (please realize I've argued again and again it wasn't the models, it was the questions we asked of them -- I've told you this before, but you ignore it to make the point you want to make).

    Whatever your problem is, an over abundance of integrity is surely not among them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's mad at DeLong for being a complete jackass (he is- I know you agree with him and are thus ideologically inclined to defend him in spite of his personality deficiencies, but lord he simply IS and it's obvious). You were drawn in because you fondly linked to a guy who was in the process of making yet another ridiculous personal attack on another economist. You're not a jackass. Your blog is interesting. You're likable.

      Everyone needs to step back and cool the f*** down.

      Delete
    2. Mark, you disgrace yourself in advertising and defending these undefendable sewer dwelling economists.

      And the real nature of own character is revealed when you do so.

      Delete
    3. Mark, as Jay points out, DeLong's post was on your endorsement list, so I'm assuming you read it and agree with what was in it.

      Delete
  4. Please delete this whole post. I know you're angry (and have every reason to be), but this cannot help anything. Don't let him get to you, and don't let yourself be dragged to his level. Delete this post and go browse RED or something to cool down a bit. I'm quite serious. There are certain people that just aren't worth getting worked up over.

    You will never get into a sensible argument with a Paulbot, only vicious cultish insult laden nonsense. DeLong and company are cut from the exact same stock (at least these days), even if they disagree on virtually everything. Just not worth it.

    (my own change of opinion coming after thinking over it all for a bit)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jay,

      Really, I'm not angry at all. I've heard it all before. Have to go off and do recruiting now.

      Delete
  5. Brad DeLong and Michele.

    What a pair!

    At the risk of blasphemy: Jesus H. Kee-rist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jay: "You will never get into a sensible argument with a Paulbot, only vicious cultish insult laden nonsense."

    That is what the Israel-firsters would have you believe, Jay. You are probably a counterfeiting, currency-debasing, standard-of-living-reducing, taxpayer-sucking, central-planning, communist, Federal-Reserve-bankster.

    Did I get that right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say so, give or take a reference to the NWO

      Delete
  7. Mark Thoma--listen, you are not being "discredited," you buffoon. You have no credits in this system to take away.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "If you are an economist and interested in blogging, in a way that might be controversial from the point of view of those three people, don't think they want to engage."

    Actually as a 35-year old, female macro economist in the government, who got it in her head that the Internet could push forward the frontier and dissemination of economic thinking, I have pretty much decided that none of the older professor bloggers are really interested in engaging other people with different views. There's a lot of lecturing to their readers, hat tipping to their intellectual buddies, and cock fighting with their adversarial peers. But hey, progress is not linear. And there's certainly enough variety out there on the blogs that one can pick and choose arguments and learn something. I'd prefer to read you all online than sit in the snow debating with you. And I'll just read fast through the rhetorical jabs...I actually don't need to learn any more of those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been doing this for almost 2 years now, and it's actually one of the more interesting activities I have ever engaged in. I learn a lot about people, and it has helped me sharpen my ideas. You can see how it's dangerous though. I'm 57 and secure in a tenured job. I don't mind offending people in the course of what I do. This episode has a point to it, and I hope you see the humor, even if it's weird humor.

      Delete
  9. I have a great economist sense of humor...but humor is a very nuanced thing (tough online). I have seen humor used in a lot of ways some fun, some productive, and some destructive. I love the blogs (this one as well as the spectrum of top-quality ones with differing views) when they're about the economics and not so much when they're about the economists. My tastes are eclectic, but that doesn't stop me from offering my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...but humor is a very nuanced thing (tough online)."

      Yes, I agree. You can communicate much more information if you're doing it in person.

      Delete
  10. Can't really comment on their willingness to engage, but I find the general Krugman/Delong worldview -- their explanations for our economic situation and the failures of monetary and fiscal policy to properly address it -- quite convincing. The fact that they call people stupid doesn't mean their arguments are weak, and doesn't mean they aren't interested in new ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but the arguments are also weak, from my point of view. Not sure why you are convinced.

      Delete
    2. I'm convinced because, following their blogs for the past few years describing the "liquidity trap" and how to combat it, their arguments have been both logically consistent and reasonably predictive of future events. I'm thinking particularly of Krugman's writing predicting the ineffectiveness of the US stimulus, the destructiveness of european austerity, and low inflation despite a large monetary expansion.

      I've read economists with differing opinions try to offer other explanations for the outcomes, but the simplest and most logical explanation, to me, seems to be the lack of aggregate demand that Krugman/Delong describe. Why, may I ask, do you find their arguments weak?

      Delete
    3. Define aggregate demand please.

      Delete
    4. My understanding of 'aggregate demand' is the total demand for goods and services across all economic actors.

      Delete
    5. At what prices? The whole schedule? I'm confused.

      Delete
    6. Demand at current market prices ... if prices change, demand would change also, presumably. Are you going somewhere with this?

      Delete
    7. "My understanding of 'aggregate demand' is the total demand for goods and services across all economic actors."

      Your understanding is wrong. Aggregate demand, as used say by Krugman and derived from some nonsensical Keynesian cross diagram, is actually meaningless.

      Delete
    8. Can you elaborate on why you believe aggregate demand is meaningless? Are you arguing that you need to address demand for each market individually? That the total demand / propensity to spend has no bearing on the wider economy? I was hoping for a more substantive criticism.

      Delete
  11. Just to defend Mark's lists. I have followed Mark's blog for a number of years primary for the links. I do not follow Krugman or DeLong, but will occasionally read their posts through Mark's blog. I actually enjoy reading your posts especially the take downs of Ron Paul.

    As for Mark's blog, he posts a number of links that coincide with his view. At the same time he has linked a number of times to pieces by Feldstein, You, Cochrane, Sumner, Cowen/Tabarrok, and Mankiw which are completely opposite his views. For what its worth, it appears he has taken down the link, perhaps he is trying to be civil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I give him some credit. Maybe I'm needlessly provoking the guy. As you can see, I actually use his lists too, to find out what is going on in that part of the blogosphere. That's how I ran across DeLong's piece.

      Delete
  12. I do not understand what is not to be convinced. There are keynesian models and also neo-keynesian models, and for those models fiscal stimulus increases output. On the other hand, there are RBC models where fiscal stimulus ALSO increase output. Now there are economists, perhaps because they do not know first year graduate macro, perhaps because they are buffoons or both, who argue that models with Ricardian equivalence (which is a sorry ass modeling artifact with little bearing in reality) deliver the result that fiscal simulus have no effect on output. Except that it is not true. See the RBC model with full Ricardian equivalence. Now you come and tell me that someone like John Cochrane is not to be treated as a joke for the rest of his life. It came to the point that no macroeconomist who knows first year graduate macro and has read Lucas recently may come to the conclusion that Lucas argues honestly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is abundantly clear that you don't understand. Please keep your stupidity to yourself from now on.

      Delete
  13. Which one do I eat first....hmmmm,...the one that most tastes like chicken???

    ReplyDelete
  14. In the basic RBC model, with full Ricardian equivalence, fiscal stymulus - defined as an increase in government consumption -increases output. That is a statement of fact. If you do not know that, you should have failed first year graduate macro.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "stymulus"

      Oh boy. Something tells me you know what you're talking about.

      Delete
    2. Unlike you the guy knows what he is talking about, his point is correct.

      That people like Williamson are eager to defend people like Cochrane who make errors which would have made me fail my undergraduate macro courses (and eager to attack people like DeLong who point out these basic errors) reveals a lot.

      Delete
    3. Just to be clear. It is true that output increases with G in a standard RBC. But it increases because the government is throwing part of production in the water and people feel they need to work harder in order to get a similar level of consumption. Basically, households are working harder to make up for government waste.

      So, factually, the statement is correct. But it hardly sounds like a good ground for policy.

      Another way of putting it is that increase in G requires a mix of decrease in C and decrease in leisure. So even if measured GDP is up, any reasonable measure of welfare is down.

      Does that make more sense now?

      Delete
    4. But an increase in transfers financed by debt does not increase output, it does nothing due to Ricardian equivalence. And you are assuming that the increase in G is financed by debt/lump-sum taxes. If financed by distortionary taxation, output could go up or down.

      Anonimo seems as dim as JLD or Greg Ransom or Richard Serlin or the rest of the crackpots that Steve unfortunately attracts.

      Delete
    5. "In the basic RBC model, with full Ricardian equivalence, fiscal stymulus - defined as an increase in government consumption -increases output. That is a statement of fact. If you do not know that, you should have failed first year graduate macro."

      Exactly. That's something my undergrads know. It's in my intermediate macro book. Even if the government is throwing the output away, aggregate output will go up when the government spends more, due to a wealth effect. Maybe some of these people think the wealth effect is insignificant. I'm not sure. Someone should ask them.

      Delete
    6. You can see how some of this discussion may not be so useful. We're not going to learn much by speculating about what is going on in Cochrane's mind, or Lucas's mind, or by condemning them for faulty reasoning in contexts where they are not arguing formally.

      Delete
    7. You now admit that Lucas, Cochrane etc. exhibited faulty reasoning. But not long ago it was, "No, it makes perfect sense if you squint". Same with Kocherlakota's flub. What's all of this about, then, really?

      Delete
  15. For Pete's sake, Steve, force these people take nom de plumes.

    They can stay anonymous but make them choose a name.

    I cannot follow one anonymous criticizing another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just pretend that all anonymous comments come from one person talking to himself. More entertaining that way.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You claim great confidence in your models. However, they are not public and are not constructed with NKS principles.

    Your models, you concede, didn't predict 2007/08.

    Thus, why should people believe you now?

    Would your models predict a new 2007/08, today or tomorrow? And, why all this randomness in your models in the first place? Shouldn't macroeconomics explain that first?

    If so, what did you change from your 2007/08 models and how has such been tested? And, why should anyone believe you?

    Fiscal Stimulus: You say you are against fiscal stimulus but what is fiscal stimulous? Is it people digging and refilling holes, per Keynes? How do you classify permanent government like Homeland Security, DEA, BOP, or much of DOD? What "science" tells you an activity is sufficiently like digging holes to be stimulus?

    Delong: You pick a fight but not on the obvious. Why? How can a historian take up writing papers with Summers, who for the next 50 years will be a central historical figure? Who, tomottow, would believe Delong?

    Inflation/Wray:

    Your comments on these two paragraphs by Wray:

    "Since WWII we have had the longest depression-free period in the nation’s history. However, we have had nine recessions, each of which was preceded by a reduction of deficits relative to GDP. The deficit fell rapidly toward the end of the Carter presidency, preceding the deepest recession since the Great Depression. In spite of President Reagan's pledge to balance the budget, he presided over the largest deficits we had seen since World War II. To some extent, the deficits grew because of the economic slowdown; however, tax cuts and spending increases (primarily for defense) caused a discretionary increase of the deficit. The "Reagan boom" lasted from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest expansion in the postwar period (until it was surpassed by the Clinton expansion). Predictably, this reduced the deficit relative to GDP and preceded the Bush recession. In the early years of the Clinton presidency, the deficit grew again and was projected to continue. However, as a result of the long expansion and budget agreements, the deficit was entirely eliminated, and we experienced our first budget surplus in a generation.

    "Indeed, as Godley (1999) has demonstrated, the turn-around of the budget from deficit to surplus was the sharpest in the postwar period. The budget now seems to be so biased toward restraint that economic growth will generate continued surpluses. Given a US trade account deficit and a government budget surplus, economic growth is made possible only by a domestic private sector deficit—that is, by private expenditures exceeding private income.[xiv] Godley has demonstrated that the gap between private income and spending had reached entirely unprecedented levels by 1998—and that gap continues to increase each year in which GDP grows. Continued private sector deficits also mean growing private sector indebtedness—which by 1999 had also reached record levels. While it is impossible to say with certainty when the private sector will finally decide to retrench, it is simply not conceivable that private sector deficits and debts will grow without limit. Returning to our discussion above, there is no “deep” accounting necessity that sets a strict limit to the private sector’s ability to spend more than its income. By the same token, neither theory nor evidence would suggest that households and firms would deficit spend at an increasing rate forever. It is curious that those who would deny that the government can deficit spend in perpetuity would argue that the private sector will deficit spend for the next two decades in order to allow the government to retire all its debt."

    Wolfram

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have a new crackpot! Welcome Wolfram, Serlin, Ransom, and JLD needed a fourth horseman of the crackpocalypse.

      Delete
    2. "fourth horseman of the crackpocalypse."

      Very good.

      Delete
    3. Actually, according to his followers Ron Paul has been predicting a monetary/financial crisis since the mid-1980s. By your standards I guess he is just as good an economist as Krugman/DeLong.

      Delete
  19. You now admit that Lucas, Cochrane etc. exhibited faulty reasoning. But not long ago it was, "No, it makes perfect sense if you squint". Same with Kocherlakota's flub. What's all of this about, then, really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I posted this in the wrong place - I've since copied in the right place, above. Apologies for that (don't see how to delete it).

      Delete
    2. "You now admit that Lucas, Cochrane etc. exhibited faulty reasoning."

      Where did I "admit" that? Don't play games with me.

      Delete
    3. No games. You wrote in a comment: "We're not going to learn much by speculating about what is going on in Cochrane's mind, or Lucas's mind, or by condemning them for faulty reasoning in contexts where they are not arguing formally." I understood this to mean that you regard their reasoning (in the contexts at issue) as faulty. Since this seemed to be a large part of what the dispute back then was about, I was surprised. But maybe you mispoke...or there's another way to interpret your comment.

      Delete
    4. Here's how I interpret the comment. There are two main possibilities for how we're not going to learn much. 1: Speculating about what's going on in their minds. 2: Condemning them for faulty reasoning in informal contexts. 2 is really just 1 rephrased, due to the informal nature of the argument not all premises are explicit and there's not much to dig into. What's left to do is to ask Lucas/Cochrane to elaborate in a more specific manner. Since the spat rose up Cochrane started a blog of his own and has spoken a bit more in Keynesian fiscal stimulus, leading some of his critics to conclude that he actually agreed with them the whole time but just hadn't made fully explicit what he meant by certain terms. If there had been dualing articles in econ journals, everything would have been explicit and such confusion would not have occurred.

      Delete
  20. I think the greatest difference between deLong/Krugman and you is that deLong/Krugman writes in a way that non-economists can understand, while you don´t. Is economics reallly so complicated it can´t be explained to well-educated persons who don’t have a degree in economics? I don’t think so.

    Cochrane writes in a more accesible language, and that makes his value judgements and his generalizations about how humans behave easier to understand. I disagree with a lot of what he is saying, but I get a bit wiser. (Include John Taylor and Tyler Cowen). Your posts tell me to stay away from economics because it’s too complicated for someonce without a economics degree.

    I read your posts as saying the following: “DeLong is doing old and obsolete economics that non-economitss can understand. I’m doing modern economics that is so sophisticated it can’t be explained to non-economists.”

    I think that if this kind of modern economics can´t propose economic policies regarding what to do in the current situation in a manner that is posible to understand, it is a sign that it is not as sophisticated as it pretends to be.

    DeLong/Krugman say do this, don’t do that. You’re saying “It’s complicated”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to play the sucker and let people sell you snake oil, be my guest.

      Delete
    2. Toribio,

      Read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33654737/Economics-is-Hard

      Delete
    3. Yes, I am very familiar with it. Kartik and I go way back.

      Delete
  21. "Is economics reallly so complicated it can´t be explained to well-educated persons who don’t have a degree in economics? I don’t think so."

    Many, many useful economic concepts can be explained, yes.

    Some concepts are too complex to be really explained to a non-economist in a 500 word blog post. Yes.

    Wouldn't you be a little disapointed if several hundred years of study by tens of thousands of scholars had produced knowledge that you could understand any topic in 2 minutes study? Really?

    Of course, one can simplify any concept down so that anyone can claim to understand it. (I know that because I read pop books on physics.) But that doesn't mean that the reader actually fully understands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on most of what you wrote. But:

      There’s a difference between what anyone can understand in 2 minutes, and what a person with a university degree in another social science can understand when he’s reading stuff related to economics on a regular basis.

      I have read some history of economic thought and the economic models and ideas that have prevailed in the past do make sense when explained to a lay person. Of course that don’t mean I fully understand them, especially not all the methodological issues and the math.

      Krugman/deLong et. al. are supplying understandable explanations, policy proposals and predictions in a situation where there is a big demand for this among educated people interested in economic issues.

      Economists can relate to this in two ways;
      1. Participate in the competition to supply economic reasoning expressed in plain english.
      2. Conclude that economic reasoning can’t be expressed in common language and keep on communicating exclusively in academic fora.

      Delete
    2. "Krugman/deLong et. al. are supplying understandable explanations, policy proposals and predictions in a situation where there is a big demand for this among educated people interested in economic issues."

      But how do you know it's right?

      Delete
    3. The data fits their Old Keynesian (Hicksian would actually be more precise) story pretty closely.
      About your theory, where are those soaring inflation rates?

      Delete
    4. Professor Williamson

      You hit the nail on the head when you write, "But how do you know it's right?"

      WTF should anyone pay attention to you, your models or "ideas," since your missed the Lesser Depression and claim you couldn't have seen it?

      How can you "see" inflation but not depression?

      Answer please!!!!!!

      Delete
    5. Don't expect an answer, the guy is embarassed that his Cassandra warnings about hyperinflation around the corner did not come true whereas Krugman's prediction that inflation will remain low has been right.

      Lot of talk about economics being a science, little empirical tests of his own theories.

      Delete
  22. "Economists can relate to this in two ways;
    1. Participate in the competition to supply economic reasoning expressed in plain english.
    2. Conclude that economic reasoning can’t be expressed in common language and keep on communicating exclusively in academic fora."

    I think that there are many economists who pursue route #1.
    * Some of them are called "campaign advisors." They communicate in 15 second soundbites. NTTAWWT. Greg Mankiw and Austan Goolsbee belong to this group.
    * Another subset wears tweedy jackets and are usually addressed as "professor" by young adults. They communicate in 50 minute lectures. Steve is one of these, he even has a textbook.
    * Yet another subset works for think tanks and govt agencies and central banks. Some of their work is for public consumption. See the St. Louis Fed's economic synopsis series or the SF Fed economic letters or the Cleveland Fed's economic commentary.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/
    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/index.php
    http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/research_publication.cfm?id=25

    There are some economists who belong to group #2, as well. But neither Steve nor I belong to that group.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fantastic goods from you, man. Ive study your stuff ahead of and youre just as well amazing. I enjoy what youve got right here, adore what youre stating and the way you say it. You make it entertaining and you even now manage to help keep it wise. I cant wait to go through additional from you. That is really an incredible weblog.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve,

    Are you already hard on the preparation of the 5th edition of your textbook?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, 4th edition Canadian book actually. 5th edition US will be later this year.

      Delete
    2. this is too funny

      even high school students know that people, like Cochrane, who are associated with Cato are BS artists

      http://esoltas.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    3. I do not think of him that way at all. Sometimes I disagree with him, but he's making genuine economic arguments, and it's possible to engage with him.

      Delete