tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post3491282841531606192..comments2024-03-22T22:37:02.639-07:00Comments on Stephen Williamson: New Monetarist Economics: Taking Mike's AdviceStephen Williamsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-7661803524225617412011-03-26T16:15:31.962-07:002011-03-26T16:15:31.962-07:00Hilarious.
There are no "complicated ideas&...Hilarious. <br /><br />There are no "complicated ideas" in economics. It's just a case of simple ideas being made more complicated in order to keep the illusion of scientific rigor. You should learn the difference between natural sciences and social sciences in showing causation before you claim to work towards gaining knowledge.Epistemology of Economicshttp://tinyurl.com/6949awmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-2053765627672367662011-03-19T19:51:51.461-07:002011-03-19T19:51:51.461-07:00I'm not an economist.
The man with a bag over...I'm not an economist.<br /><br />The man with a bag over his head writes,<br /><br />"The point is, they are getting on and doing research and increasing our scientific knowledge, not endlessly blathering on about what some dead economists said 80 years ago."Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-67463599241226008942011-03-19T19:50:19.266-07:002011-03-19T19:50:19.266-07:00Look who the "Hayekian" is:
"Macro...Look who the "Hayekian" is:<br /><br />"Macroeconomics is about coordination of plans."<br /><br />You might want to read Gerald O'Driscoll's _Economics as a Coordination Problem_ written as a dissertation for Alex Leijonhufvud, whose own book on macro as a science of the coordination of plans was deeply influenced by Hayek.<br /><br />But if you are a typical modern economist, you are utterly innocent of the history of economic thought, isn't that true?Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-88609712628611732562011-03-19T19:44:58.008-07:002011-03-19T19:44:58.008-07:00Decentralized search models -- i.e. catching up to...Decentralized search models -- i.e. catching up to and working out formal aspects of the Hayekian research agenda -- i.e. doing "normal science" in the paradigm of economics laid out by Hayek.<br /><br />It was 25 years ago when Bruce Caldwell pointed out how contemporary economists kept re-discovering and attempting to advance aspects of the Hayekian paradigm which could not but be in a successful science of economics.<br /><br />Another brave economists who is too much of a coward to use his actual name writes,<br /><br />"So now the people doing real econ are trying to build models with financial frictions, or decentralized search models."Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-17633294799315490412011-03-19T16:40:13.858-07:002011-03-19T16:40:13.858-07:00Macroeconomics is about coordination of plans.
Mai...Macroeconomics is about coordination of plans.<br />Mainstream econ of the type favored by the real business cycle school tried to solve that issue by methodological fiat. Unsurprisingly, It didn't work, so enter the New Keynesians who tried to model the coordination failure by sticky wages/prices. That didn't really get to the heart of the matter either. So now the people doing real econ are trying to build models with financial frictions, or decentralized search models.<br />The point is, they are getting on and doing research and increasing our scientific knowledge, not endlessly blathering on about what some dead economists said 80 years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-14217781094648390602011-03-19T16:16:58.716-07:002011-03-19T16:16:58.716-07:00I continually see Nobel winners and top guys going...I continually see Nobel winners and top guys going back to Hayek<br />-----------------<br /><br />Meaning what? Social evolution, heterogenous capital, time to build capital models (roundaboutness), neural nets? <br /><br />Hayek had a broad career so why don't you just lay it out for us?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-28875079935025622012011-03-19T15:43:07.850-07:002011-03-19T15:43:07.850-07:00"one of them could develop a quantitative mod..."one of them could develop a quantitative model of the Hayekian theory of business cycles"<br /><br />"Anonymous", if you're a rocket scientist, you do it. I'd be pleased to post your work on my Hayek blog. And it should be easy, Stephen Williamson has told me the elements of Hayekian macro have already been modeled.<br /><br />In fact, Williamson recently told me the elements of Hayekian macro are already existing versions of the DSGE / New Neoclassical Synthesis. So, evidently, the job has already been done.<br /><br />Willianson needs merely to direct me to the relevant articles in the literature.Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-6107273335100956472011-03-19T15:34:47.529-07:002011-03-19T15:34:47.529-07:00"Nevermind" is essentially Blanchard'..."Nevermind" is essentially Blanchard's report of the consensus view among leaders in the field of the macro of the last decades.<br /><br />So how's that "progressive research program" working for you?Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-77649728582840865492011-03-19T15:29:47.129-07:002011-03-19T15:29:47.129-07:00"Anonymous" -- I continually see Nobel w..."Anonymous" -- I continually see Nobel winners and top guys going back to Hayek -- Frydman, Bhide, and Caballero are just the most recent examples. Nobel winners like Lucas, Phelps, Smith, Hurwicz, Ostrom, North, and Williamson are perhaps better known.<br /><br />If you are not sharp enough or too poorly educated to get why, I can't help you.<br /><br />Lefty economists like DeLong and others edit and censor and ban professional peers with rival perspectives and data all the time -- they are rather famous for their intolerance of dialogue with those who don't tow the line.Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-87803948203610155422011-03-19T14:53:39.007-07:002011-03-19T14:53:39.007-07:00I think Mark Thoma eventually had enough of you-kn...I think Mark Thoma eventually had enough of you-know-who and banned him. Like all the modern followers of the Austrian sect, they have nothing to contribute that hasn't already been said far more elegantly by Hayek, Mises, Menger many decades ago. <br />It is depressing to look at the blogs of the so-called Austrians, like ThinkMarkets or austrianeconomists or takinghayekseriously.<br />There is no sense of a progressive research program going on there, just a boring meandering philosophy seminar.<br />It would be a genuine contribution for example, if one of them could develop a quantitative model of the Hayekian theory of business cycles. But as was said above, they are only interested in jibber jabber.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-11698420699170073512011-03-19T12:43:00.894-07:002011-03-19T12:43:00.894-07:00DSGE / New Keynesian econ = cold fusion = science....DSGE / New Keynesian econ = cold fusion = science.<br /><br />Hey, go with it, dude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-20155237103485626752011-03-19T12:34:54.613-07:002011-03-19T12:34:54.613-07:00Greg,
Then how should economics proceed? What ma...Greg,<br /><br />Then how should economics proceed? What mathematics is okay to use?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-85890480450699598362011-03-19T11:47:08.106-07:002011-03-19T11:47:08.106-07:00Who cares what Alex Rosenberg thinks, whoever he i...Who cares what Alex Rosenberg thinks, whoever he is?<br /><br />"Stuff that fails to provide sound and successful explanations isn't science."<br /><br />False. It may be science, just unsuccessful (cold fusion was science, it was just wrong).<br /><br />Greg, you seem bitter, probably because the economics profession does not value the mathless jibber-jabber you prefer to use to justify your political position. I recommend finding a nice soothing hobby, because that situation isn't changing. The battle over methodology is long over, buddy, you might as well get comfortable with the state of the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-37996069267635273872011-03-19T11:21:27.946-07:002011-03-19T11:21:27.946-07:00Greg is useless. He doesn't actually argue a p...Greg is useless. He doesn't actually argue a point, he asks sweeping questions and he rants a bit. He makes vague references to other people's work. He doesn't answer questions about what he proposes or thinks would be better. <br /><br />Greg's posts are marvels of vacuousness.The Masked Economisthttp://greghasnocontent.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-80607842872641497182011-03-19T11:01:29.762-07:002011-03-19T11:01:29.762-07:00"I've shown how economics IS a science.&q..."I've shown how economics IS a science."<br /><br />The literature on the "scientific" status of economics produced by "mainstreamers" or folks attempting to vindicate the scientific status of "mainstream" economics is a massive stack of failure, it should be emphasized.<br /><br />Alex Rosenberg has judged economics not to be a science -- taking for granted the ground of what "science" must be AS STIPULATED by the "mainstreamers".<br /><br />One reason economists avoid talking about the anomalies and failures racked up by their version of "science".Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-67578650595490213832011-03-19T10:56:39.209-07:002011-03-19T10:56:39.209-07:00I've shown how economics IS a science.
Scient...I've shown how economics IS a science.<br /><br />Scientism and fake science isn't science.<br /><br />Stuff that fails to provide sound and successful explanations isn't science.<br /><br />Somebody wrote,<br /><br />"The only people who argue for economics not being a science"Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-24721755762918789172011-03-19T10:54:02.222-07:002011-03-19T10:54:02.222-07:00This has always been my advice to the young -- mak...This has always been my advice to the young -- make sure you are the biggest swinging math stick in room, if you're desire is to be a player in the economics profession.<br /><br />"I only found a Woodford interview saying undergrads interested in economics need to study math."Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-80712365978329723952011-03-19T10:48:10.250-07:002011-03-19T10:48:10.250-07:00I have to add that Ransom's blog is a real pie...I have to add that Ransom's blog is a real piece of crap. Not a single useful statement there.<br /><br />You go Greggy, keep fighting to reinterpret what some old dead guy said. I think the Post-Keynesians are having a pity-party, maybe you can come and join their bus to Irrelevant Town.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-47411028769364918652011-03-19T10:44:41.982-07:002011-03-19T10:44:41.982-07:00The only people who argue for economics not being ...The only people who argue for economics not being a science are those who do not want it to be, those who have a vested interest in a chatty, philosophical form of economics that has no falsifiable content and, additionally, no math. Deuce and Greg Ransom are two examples of this creature -- they have a political bias that says "markets good, government bad" but can't find or use a model that makes these points (stupid incomplete markets and OLG, always messing up the welfare theorems).<br /><br />Steve, I'd ban-hammer these guys. Next time I see you, in fact, I'll suggest it again. But I won't put my name on this post, because I don't want the shitstorm that came down on Kartik and David.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-19354999172395900832011-03-19T09:36:48.365-07:002011-03-19T09:36:48.365-07:00Hahaha whose blog is this Greg's or Stephen...Hahaha whose blog is this Greg's or Stephen's. Clearly the most compelling dialogue is coming from Greg. Stephen meanwhile is getting used while he postures that he's above it all but clearly isn't. And is venturing dangerously far into the realm of pathetic by commenting so heavily on his own posts. A clear indication that he feels he is losing face despite the posturing. JD Salinger would be most unimpressed.<br /><br />Fact is Greg is right. Economics is absolutely NOT science. And economists are DEFINITELY not scientists. In economics causation is not repeatable across all cases. The so-called laws do not meet the criteria of laws on science, and most of all failed theories are recycled over and over rather than scrapped. The Fed is clearly a failed experiment, yet the only guy in the room calling for it's end is getting bashed by the phony scientists.<br /><br />Oooooh wow. You did some algebra and some calculus! This doesn't make you a scientist it makes you a high school senior. As do all the petty insults. For adults you are all pathetic AND wrong about everything. So you all shoot the messenger Greg. You must all lead very sad lives.Deucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-90021612980527541312011-03-19T09:08:53.680-07:002011-03-19T09:08:53.680-07:00Greg,
A link to these supposebly devestating crit...Greg,<br /><br />A link to these supposebly devestating critique of the use of mathematics in economics would be helpful. I tried googling the names you listed plus several variants of your description and could not locate anything. In fact, I only found a Woodford interview saying undergrads interested in economics need to study math. <br /><br />I can't speak for Stephen, but I think most economists will recognize the limitations of formal models. But, taking that admission and extrapolating towards the end of saying mathematical models are useless is absurd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-7261817257101398212011-03-19T09:07:12.263-07:002011-03-19T09:07:12.263-07:00"Anonymous" -- this is simple.
Pointing..."Anonymous" -- this is simple.<br /><br />Pointing out what math can do and what it can't do is different that "rejecting all math"<br /><br />I don't reject "all math". <br /><br />This is a straw man used to avoid centrally important issues -- and to avoid the difficult task of think hard by rethinking things. No one likes to work hard or think hard, if they can instead remain on autopilot, turning the same old crank.Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-9859662624836865392011-03-19T01:05:43.518-07:002011-03-19T01:05:43.518-07:00Greg,
I posed this question to you before, but yo...Greg,<br /><br />I posed this question to you before, but you ignored it. Do you accept the diagrams in The Pure Theory of Capital, and hayekian triangles as valid models? And if so why is geometry allowed but not analysis? <br /><br />Dude you just seem to dislike math, and have a serious Hayek fetish. (Which actually comes off as really creepy.) I think you are seriously misreading modern economics if you believe that something like GE theory is inconsistent with Hayek.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-37105098666209649652011-03-18T22:39:10.926-07:002011-03-18T22:39:10.926-07:00Maskedmen, whatever, dude.
I'm not here to ho...Maskedmen, whatever, dude.<br /><br />I'm not here to hold your hand or help you read.Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-7721262151813477452011-03-18T20:30:45.446-07:002011-03-18T20:30:45.446-07:00Christian, you don't need to use FR notes exce...Christian, you don't need to use FR notes except for a fraction of a second before tax time. Keep your savings in yen or euros. Use a credit card from a yen or euro account to pay your taxes in dollars. Feel free to barter with your neighbors. You really don't need to expose yourself to the terrible dollar if you just think a little. <br /><br />Lots of people in other countries use the domestic currency very sparingly. They barter; keep assets in foreign currency, etc. Oddly, Americans--except for the Unabomber, perhaps-- simply don't do this, despite the many terrible flaws of the US central bank.The Masked Economisthttp://phantomoftheopera.comnoreply@blogger.com