tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post1668727620089535915..comments2024-03-22T22:37:02.639-07:00Comments on Stephen Williamson: New Monetarist Economics: Macroeconomic Thought is Driven by Politics?Stephen Williamsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-42725014282006076622012-09-25T04:00:21.728-07:002012-09-25T04:00:21.728-07:00"It is interesting. Why not? If its not the i..."It is interesting. Why not? If its not the inaccessible math -- or the incentives, which other fields share -- then what explains it? "<br /><br />Probably because once you begin to translate new monetarist macro into lay English, you realize how ridiculous the theory is. This of course would jeopardize the fun math games in a sandbox - best to stick with the advanced math and at least keep the appearance of respectability (ie., it looks like physics --must be important stuff!!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-47882848185299506072012-07-08T15:42:52.471-07:002012-07-08T15:42:52.471-07:00BTW the above July 8, 2012 3:40 PM
is by me - Mark...BTW the above July 8, 2012 3:40 PM<br />is by me - Mark. I am not the author of the 'parent'/original.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-2722556993736687732012-07-08T15:40:24.143-07:002012-07-08T15:40:24.143-07:00"Macroeconomics is not about predicting the f..."Macroeconomics is not about predicting the future. For those kind of things you should generally consult fortune tellers, not economists."<br /><br />Fine, but what about tendencies and potential processes rather than prediction? Surely that's better than claiming that the "...central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-38023157445228618872012-07-05T13:10:24.540-07:002012-07-05T13:10:24.540-07:00No problem. I realized after I re-read your post b...No problem. I realized after I re-read your post but it was too late! :)CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-74989721765624505392012-07-05T13:06:57.337-07:002012-07-05T13:06:57.337-07:00How do you call a person who cannot read properly ...How do you call a person who cannot read properly (or understand what they read)? The same passage from Lucas is posted on every other piece Prof. Williamson puts up, despite the fact that it has been discussed thoroughly. On topic, much of what the Fed has done is based on economic theory and helped prevent a meltdown. So although Lucas exaggerates when he says that the problem of depression-prevention has been solved, his comment is not that far off.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-64765792672672587022012-07-05T08:14:02.115-07:002012-07-05T08:14:02.115-07:00CA,
I was responding to Anon 11:47, not you. You...CA,<br /><br />I was responding to Anon 11:47, not you. You're the only one making sensible posts in this little section. Apologies if you thought I was attacking you instead of the dummy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-81875163080239993542012-07-05T06:21:02.637-07:002012-07-05T06:21:02.637-07:00I would agree with you if the massive bulge in the...I would agree with you if the massive bulge in the Fed's balance sheet had been a relatively short term event. But as far as I can tell, this bulge is going to stick around for many years to come. In other words, we are in uncharted territory. Also, don't call people illiterate when they obviously are not. That is not civil, and it will not win you any friends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-52356095874960243852012-07-05T06:16:52.402-07:002012-07-05T06:16:52.402-07:00Maybe not you, Buster, but I am. : )Maybe not you, Buster, but I am. : )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-20588561979438225212012-07-04T10:34:18.591-07:002012-07-04T10:34:18.591-07:00Yes, that's Mark kidding me.Yes, that's Mark kidding me.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-82445761238303169912012-07-03T18:38:06.236-07:002012-07-03T18:38:06.236-07:00JP makes a good point. There is no neoclassical co...JP makes a good point. There is no neoclassical counterpart to Krugman. At the same time, Krugman seems to be singularly ineffective at winning people in the middle over to his way of thinking. He keeps shooting himself in the foot by insulting anyone who doesn't agree with him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-62966058680200212822012-07-03T12:44:21.731-07:002012-07-03T12:44:21.731-07:00Thought you might be interested in Simon Wren-Lewi...Thought you might be interested in Simon Wren-Lewis' more thoughtful take on this issue:<br /><br />http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2012/07/ideology-and-falsification-in.htmlJSRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09614849295823728127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-33295945759816231192012-07-03T10:44:40.034-07:002012-07-03T10:44:40.034-07:00I found this post following a link from Mark Thoma...I found this post following a link from Mark Thoma.<br /><br />He's holding it up as one more example of KDS.<br /><br />(That's Krugman Derangement Syndrome, for those unfamiliar with this widespread pathology.)John Quickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-23496876176435745162012-07-03T10:30:24.137-07:002012-07-03T10:30:24.137-07:00"List his predictions..."
Hamilton Coll..."List his predictions..."<br /><br />Hamilton College has done that for you.<br /><br />http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/130485/claim-krugman-is-top-prognosticator-cal-thomas-is-the-worst/John Quickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00596103066078772531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-20554963492673212862012-07-02T19:16:21.049-07:002012-07-02T19:16:21.049-07:00For example, in the past to work as a warehouse ma...For example, in the past to work as a warehouse manager all you needed were basic literacy and people-management skills, and certain physical abilities. This means that an unemployed sub-contractor in construction could move to the warehousing sector relatively easily. Today warehousing is much more computerized than construction. Most ads list familiarity with computers and even experience with warehouse management systems as a requirement. The same sub-contractor would therefore have a harder time securing a job in warehousing. So what I have in mind is that the adoption of skill-specific IT by some sectors but not others makes the labor market more segmented, and amplifies the impact of random adverse shocks in some sectors on aggregate unemployment. The preliminary statistical results I have show that greater dispersion in the stock of software per worker across sectors coincides with drops in matching efficiency (outward shift of the Beveridge curve). Specifically, in the 1960s IT was used by only few sectors, so mismatch was unimportant. In the 1970s and early 1980s we see a greater diffusion of IT and greater dispersion across sectors. We also observe an outward shift of the Beveridge curve. In the mid 1990s, when IT has been adopted by most sectors and computer literacy has become the norm, the Beveridge curve shifts back in. Is this a big deal? I think so, but I guess it will be up to the referee to decide! :)CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-630994874408517362012-07-02T18:02:53.330-07:002012-07-02T18:02:53.330-07:00You're an exception, Steve ;)
Maybe you shoul...You're an exception, Steve ;)<br /><br />Maybe you should write a laybook on the subject.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-5382568365154400562012-07-02T14:23:52.222-07:002012-07-02T14:23:52.222-07:00So, use of IT in a sector says something about acq...So, use of IT in a sector says something about acquisition of some IT-specific human capital by people in that sector. Then, it's going to be hard for people to move from a low-IT sector to a high-IT sector while the technology diffusion is happening? Can you relate this to recent events, or do you not want to stick your neck out yet? Do you think this is a big deal?Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-38635758295124150112012-07-02T13:52:56.778-07:002012-07-02T13:52:56.778-07:00Earth to Anon 11:47,
I talked about interest rate...Earth to Anon 11:47,<br /><br />I talked about interest rates, not exchange rates! Who is the saddest one of all?CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-13426382035049666422012-07-02T13:49:49.630-07:002012-07-02T13:49:49.630-07:001) Krugman writes: "the absence of the techno...1) Krugman writes: "the absence of the technology shocks that were supposed to drive business cycles". He does not distinguish between booms and busts. And of course we do have the supply shocks of the 1970s, which can be viewed as adverse technology shocks. <br /><br />2) I have some ideas why a recession may not require a negative technology shock (once home production is taken into account), but am not ready to share them in full detail yet. I also have some preliminary results showing that higher dispersion in the use of IT across sectors is associated with lower matching efficiency in the US labor market, likely for the reasons highlighted by Acemoglu (1999). So the impact of sector-specific shocks on aggregate employment may depend on the stage of diffusion of a new technology. What I am trying to say is that the role of technology shocks is still under investigation, yet none of this fits Krugman's IS-LM view.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-26283532218612553032012-07-02T13:09:12.820-07:002012-07-02T13:09:12.820-07:00Huh?
There is a 'cycle' in "business...Huh?<br /><br />There is a 'cycle' in "business cycle". That positive technology shocks can and do play an important role in booms is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the role of *negative* shocks in causing depressions and large scale involuntary unemployment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-44611534602329241172012-07-02T13:05:46.072-07:002012-07-02T13:05:46.072-07:00John D, your nonsense is getting tiresome. Nobody...John D, your nonsense is getting tiresome. Nobody is fooled by your snake oil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-75170498615846988972012-07-02T13:04:10.228-07:002012-07-02T13:04:10.228-07:00You cite exchange rates as if Krugman's view o...You cite exchange rates as if Krugman's view on them is accurate. We all know exchange rates are disconnected from the macroeconomy, and none of us (including St Paul) know why. Your "gotcha" post is only surpassed in its sadness by your understanding of the economy, Anon 11:47.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-63665337750642335112012-07-02T12:46:54.486-07:002012-07-02T12:46:54.486-07:00But there is absolutely no substance here, only a ...But there is absolutely no substance here, only a personal attack on Krugman. I have no problem with believing whatever Williamson says he believes in -- if it seems to work, that is -- but it doesnt and hasnt since GW Bush took office. In fact, growing income inequality accompanied by relative wage decline and weakening aggregate purchasing power, except for a few years during the Clinton administration, has been the story since Reagan took office and told us that government is the problem. The Williamson attacks on Krugman -- someone who actually seems to care about 15% real unemployment -- do nothing whatsoever to help us who are not professional economists understand what will get us out of this 1.6 generation mess. Unfortunately, Williamson seems to have no clue how clueless, weak and sophomoric he sounds.urban legendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-67803370236271324432012-07-02T12:35:34.005-07:002012-07-02T12:35:34.005-07:00I really don't know. Maybe they are just shy.I really don't know. Maybe they are just shy.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-74491181641156400962012-07-02T12:18:58.821-07:002012-07-02T12:18:58.821-07:00You mean specific lies. For example:
"the ev...You mean specific lies. For example:<br /><br />"the evident effectiveness of monetary policy"<br /><br />Does any modern macroeconomist anywhere deny the effectiveness of monetary policy?<br /><br />"the absence of the technology shocks that were supposed to drive business cycles"<br /><br />I know PK does not have much time to read scientific journals, but he should at least read the AER on occasion: "https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.4.1144"<br />My own research (currently under review) also finds that from 1963 to 2008 the behavior of the real rate of interest can in part be explained by an input and and output measure of technological progress (this one channel through which technology shocks are transmitted to the labor market). So it is not like the jury is out. Krugman is misinforming people.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-80318712850637014682012-07-02T11:47:10.115-07:002012-07-02T11:47:10.115-07:00Krugman's paragraphs on the "bad guys&quo...Krugman's paragraphs on the "bad guys" without ellipsis:<br /><br />"Recent events have been one empirical debacle after another for that view of the world – on interest rates, on inflation, on the effects of fiscal contraction. But the truth is that freshwater macro has been failing empirical tests for decades. Everywhere you turn there are anomalies that should have had that side of the profession questioning its premises, from the absence of the technology shocks that were supposed to drive business cycles, to the evident effectiveness of monetary policy, to the near-perfect correlation of nominal and real exchange rates.<br /><br />But rather than questioning its premises, that side of the field essentially turned its back on evidence, calibrating its models rather than testing them, and refusing even to teach alternative views."<br /><br />The ellipsis make it seem like Krugman is simply throwing out generalities, despite the fact that he explicitly mentions six empirical failings (interest rates, inflation, fiscal contraction, technology shocks, monetary policy, and exchange rates). Right or wrong on those points, the ellipsis (ellipsii?) make it sound like Krugman is engaged in generic bomb-throwing, as opposed to noting several specific overlooked empirical anomlies. Poor form.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com