tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post384942718390258619..comments2024-03-22T22:37:02.639-07:00Comments on Stephen Williamson: New Monetarist Economics: The Paul Krugman We Used to LoveStephen Williamsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-19743657213068639242012-03-18T10:58:12.107-07:002012-03-18T10:58:12.107-07:00First, I must disclose that my background is in Ph...First, I must disclose that my background is in Philosophy of social science, not strictly economics. As Williamson recomended, I read both articles of Krugman. What I found was a man who appreciated mathematical-based work in his 1996 article. Then, I found a man who was humbling himself and the rest of his colleagues by the recognition that his mathematics-based Economics was not complete and sometimes unhelpful in Macroeconomics as evidenced by the current crisis. I fail to see a contradiction in these ideas. A recognition of the incompleteness of one's work [of the nerds] is not an embrace of the literati. It should be seen as challenge to the nerds to come up with a more complete work that also could explain and hold up in the face great crisis as the one we are in. <br /><br />The discussion of Krugman's political evolution and George W. analogy was irrelevant and disrupting from sticking to the Economic discussions. Williamson'stement,<br /> <br /> "Read the 2012 Krugman, and we see a snarly dishonest guy intent on destruction ... a man with a lazy intellect, and little patience for the details of policymaking. Simple stories are best. No need for nuance. The world consists of evil people and good people who are easy to tell apart. It's George W again. Never mind what my mother would say. This just makes me feel ill" <br /><br /> is an unneccesary personal attack and even inaccurate because Krugman is precisely asking for nuances out of his colleagues that seem to him seduced by the beauty of equations from seeing certain flaws in their work. In other words, he is saying that it is not always elegant beauty vs. ugly and complex. The elegant beauty has sometimes flaws and the others are sometimes helpful. I think it is also beneath someone who holds Williamson's position to attack a man of Krugman's intellectual and scholarly calliber at a personal level. <br /><br />You (Economists) need to get over yourselves. Try to remember that your work is not just about you. In fact, when your older theories fail or are wrong, we need you to take your personalities out of the eqauation, and get back to work to come up with a better explanation and solution to our problems.<br /><br /> I know NASA engineers and Scientists would not have bickered when they messed up. Your work is too important to be a squabble of petty arguments.Robnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-46774097213590181342012-03-01T15:13:17.646-08:002012-03-01T15:13:17.646-08:00What happened between 1996 and 2009? Simple: The e...What happened between 1996 and 2009? Simple: The economy blew up and virtually nobody in the economics field predicted it. Krugman took stock and decided to admit that he had been in error. He got over his academic hubris and realized that guys like Reich and Kuttner might have been on to something back in 1996.<br /><br />I'm a nerd myself, but fortunately, I write computer code, so I have immediate feedback when my models don't reflect reality. Economists should be so lucky.Aaron M. Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15907210773409788131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-58281961676360026242012-02-27T19:42:55.585-08:002012-02-27T19:42:55.585-08:00great read. especially the comments. oh man, it ...great read. especially the comments. oh man, it is really entertaining to get high and and delve into the arguments of you intellects. i will bookmark this site and return tomorrow. i hope you guys will be duking it out in the comments of a fresh blog post.Spenhttp://www.streetsie.com/spinal-injury-wheelchair-sex/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-5263629699346551662012-02-24T03:22:48.316-08:002012-02-24T03:22:48.316-08:00Great post.Great post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-85536439120627938572012-02-23T12:52:16.021-08:002012-02-23T12:52:16.021-08:00You're absolutely correct about Krugman. He h...You're absolutely correct about Krugman. He hurls nothing but crass, inflammatory political rhetoric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-2846524783782014062012-02-21T07:58:06.718-08:002012-02-21T07:58:06.718-08:00Right.
Everybody agrees that the DSGE models are c...Right.<br />Everybody agrees that the DSGE models are completely at odds with the data - but hey, they use fancy math, so they are very serious.neminoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-28207202582746186932012-02-19T15:32:04.346-08:002012-02-19T15:32:04.346-08:00Actually I think neoclassical economics - the domi...Actually I think neoclassical economics - the dominant paradigm in economics - <i>is</i> a PR-job for the right.<br /><br />RBC and EMH, for example, are both incorrect but provide intellectual cover for truly atrocious (non-)policy.<br /><br />http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue55/Hudson255.pdfDannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-46580745447875776152012-02-19T15:19:54.374-08:002012-02-19T15:19:54.374-08:00I'm just wondering why the complexity of the m...I'm just wondering why the complexity of the math has to be what matters here. PK made a big prediction re: US interest rates a couple of years ago, using a very basic model. Others - nerdier types? - predicted the opposite. So far, PK is right. Surely that counts for something intellectually?Jonathan Hopkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03957119720206563131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-7660148366159875782012-02-17T13:34:41.495-08:002012-02-17T13:34:41.495-08:00Stephen you know that DSGE models in their current...Stephen you know that DSGE models in their current form; that is the "Dynamic Equilibrium" part with micro foundations haven't been around since Walras. Show us the Difference Equations....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-65520636805889520862012-02-17T13:16:44.317-08:002012-02-17T13:16:44.317-08:00Stephen Williamson wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...Stephen Williamson wrote:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse<br /><br />And he compares the pushback to getting tortured in Abu Gharaib. <br /><br />He just gets classier and classier.<br /><br />Why don't you give it up and just go work at Fox News where blowhard wastes of time and negativity without any ability or desire to make a contribution to society go, eh?RNhttp://www.ft.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-27854706515152902482012-02-17T13:12:49.136-08:002012-02-17T13:12:49.136-08:00Well there's a classy response.Well there's a classy response.RNhttp://www.ft.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-30831470569071216832012-02-17T13:02:36.221-08:002012-02-17T13:02:36.221-08:00No, you wrote this people for the same reason 95% ...No, you wrote this people for the same reason 95% of your ilk write about Krugman. To try to leech off his popularity. <br /><br />Not a bad business tactic. Hell, Scott Sumner would be invisible but for his relentless attacks on Krugman.<br /><br />But you all econ-blog-leeches don't get what Krugman's about. <br /><br />People are his fans because he's:<br /><br />1) as angry about the bullshit going on out there as they are,<br /><br />2) willing to call a spade a spade, while most of you leeches hide behind your little tenured "don't rock the boat" acacdeme-speak,<br /><br />3) been right about nearly everything through one of the most complicated and serious economic crises in American history. <br /><br />He's a Martin Luther King of our age for the economically disrespected. <br /><br />So hate away. You're worthless, as far as the public is concerned.<br /><br />He, on the other hand, is trying to make a real difference.RNhttp://www.ft.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-83681638644207577562012-02-17T11:16:07.510-08:002012-02-17T11:16:07.510-08:00Huzzah, Noah! Someone who isn't a sea cucumber...Huzzah, Noah! Someone who isn't a sea cucumber that briefly comments on this blog. Thanks! Oh and don't go away too quickly - we need more of you.<br /><br />Steve, looks like there is an emanation of positive, constructive criticism occurring.<br /><br />Huzzah!<br /><br />PS: Thanks, Steve, for the link to Bullard's paper.Andrew from U of Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-23180771864145409372012-02-16T12:02:04.622-08:002012-02-16T12:02:04.622-08:00Sorry for the double post, but the html limitation...Sorry for the double post, but the html limitation on my novella left some of it unpublished! Accordingly, and more to the point, there are a couple things Stephen wrote which interested me:<br />1. Just out of curiosity - has Krugman in fact been wrong in his assertions? Where has he been dishonest? What makes you say he is 'bent on destruction'? (I'll pass on the "snarly" bit, since that's a matter of opinion, and opinions are notoriously subjective.) I'm genuinely curious, because I seem to have missed all that, and having read a few papers in the literature of the my fields of interest, I thought I could recognize vicious, irresponsible ad hominem reasoning.<br />Incidentally, I'm confused by your use of "mainstream"; does "mainstream" work out as "people I like and trust", or as "accurate and correct"? A beautiful hypothesis killed by an ugly fact should be allowed to die, no matter how elegant the model. Perhaps economics is intended to be only of purpose in the abstract, but if it is to be used (however unwillingly) to guide policy, I would hope that the theoretical underpinnings' accuracy and 'real-world' effectiveness (stuff like correctness of predictions, cause-and-effect connections that match what we see in Nature, that sort of thing) would be valued over genteel, tea-and-biscuits chit-chat at the Club. Or, conversely, religiously-based "it's true because it must be true" table-pounding argumentation.<br />No offense intended, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-26093688775825902702012-02-16T11:44:08.137-08:002012-02-16T11:44:08.137-08:00@Phil 2/12/12 04:19:
This is an interesting discus...@Phil 2/12/12 04:19:<br />This is an interesting discussion, although perhaps a bit far afield from the presumed sins of Paul Krugman. However, what you wrote stirred a couple of thoughts. While I'm a little way past middle school, perhaps I may respond to your points.<br />I'm not following your argument here, unless perhaps you're responding to something other than the criticism of GW Bush. It seems to me that you are attempting to compare/contrast FD Roosevelt to GW Bush in some way; am I incorrect?<br />1. While it is true that spies/saboteurs have traditionally and generally been treated differently from POWs, I'm not sure how this particular case applies here. Are you suggesting that (a) the individuals in the 'Pastorious case' were not spies or saboteurs, or that (b) some or all of the captured individuals were tortured, whether or not on the orders of the President of the US, or that (c) accusations of terrorist activity are the equivalent of conviction by a military tribunal, or that (d) allowing the death sentence of such a tribunal to be carried out is the equivalent of ordering torture, or that (e) saboteurs captured on American soil are equivalent to people who have been captured, rounded up or turned in in other parts of the world, or that (f) indefinite detention, extra-judicial murder and torture of unconvicted and unindicted individuals (potentially including American citizens) is equivalent to anything in the 'Pastorius' case? Or even that I'm missing the point entirely, and there is something else involved in the 'Pastorius' case which makes FD Roosevelt's actions immoral, if not illegal. Please explain, if you will, how this makes Roosevelt an "unethical scumbag"?<br />2. Assuming that your Sicily information is correct, murder of unarmed captives on the battlefield is one of the 'horrors of war'. That was not the only time such behavior has been documented for American soldiers, althogh one would suspect it was far more rare in the Pacific ToO, for obvious reasons. This is clearly a Bad Thing, and may be considered a War Crime, no matter how you slice it, and despite the fact that to the best of my knowledge every party involved in WW2 (and probably every other war ever fought) has done this. What you did not do was indicate that this was an official policy of the US military, and condoned, if not ordered, by FD Roosevelt. Occasional action by troops engaged in active combat should not necessarily reflect on GW Bush or FD Roosevelt alike; officially-condoned or ordered methods should be regarded as abhorrent, just as the "anti-infrastructure" actions of Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman in Georgia are still held by many citizens of those regions of the US to the account of Abraham Lincoln as War Crimes.<br />Again, we come back to my previous question: how does this make FD Roosevelt an "unethical scumbag"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-52929094357152567602012-02-16T08:01:24.776-08:002012-02-16T08:01:24.776-08:00"I really don't get whats so difficult to..."I really don't get whats so difficult to comprehend. He isn't attacking you guys because you use tough math that is hard to follow. He is basically saying that the models constructed and employed in some quarters might be elegant math but don't correspond to the real world even fleetingly. "<br /><br />They real Krugman-haters know that; they're pissed that somebody is pointing out that their theories aren't right. (they don't mind that their theories aren't right, but they really hate having somebody shine a light on this).Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-36069765911459535792012-02-16T04:42:19.361-08:002012-02-16T04:42:19.361-08:00Anon you’re embarrassing yourself. Democracy has ...Anon you’re embarrassing yourself. Democracy has got nothing to do with ‘kill ratios’. Military success has got everything to do with things like strategy+tactics, logistics, resources, etc. etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-2199013759784950002012-02-16T04:31:00.724-08:002012-02-16T04:31:00.724-08:00Stop trying to be ironic.Stop trying to be ironic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-36792988222262069642012-02-14T05:46:24.960-08:002012-02-14T05:46:24.960-08:00Williamson says to leave you alone but . . . reca...Williamson says to leave you alone but . . . recalling Patton: the object of War is to make the other guy die for his country.<br /><br />Compare our kill to "be killed" ratios. We were far far more lethal, but I know, this involves math, critical thinking, etc.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties<br /><br />Germany and Russia mastered killing their own soldiers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-40540974680891312722012-02-13T18:55:26.444-08:002012-02-13T18:55:26.444-08:00@ Anon Feb 5:53 AM: Phil Rothman is a friend and ...@ Anon Feb 5:53 AM: Phil Rothman is a friend and I know him to be a serious scholar, and an open-minded one at that. So you're rather far off in questioning his ability to think through matters. What he is not is foolishly partisan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-60958616266208096432012-02-13T12:28:14.506-08:002012-02-13T12:28:14.506-08:00@ Anon 5:53,
I could comment on your self-contra...@ Anon 5:53, <br /><br />I could comment on your self-contradictory statements -- an unstated official policy? -- or the grandiose claims made with no evidence or your terrible prose but I prefer to take issue with your silly, ad hominem attack on Phil Rothman. <br /><br />I did a little research on Phil. He has 967 Google Scholar citations, which is about 967 more than you, I am guessing. Phil has published in REStat, the JMCB, JBES, IER and other very good journals. In short, Phil is a good scholar and deserves whatever titles he has.<br /><br />You, on the other hand, are a juvenile twit.Chris the regression runnerhttp://counterattackingtrolls.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-26797596617566636512012-02-13T10:40:40.366-08:002012-02-13T10:40:40.366-08:00"Now, sophisticated students of history under..."Now, sophisticated students of history understand that this is the great strength of being a democracy; it means that you will be the most lethal of killing machines."<br /><br />Presumably they know: the logical relevance of counter-examples; that the scrimmage in Stalingrad was not fought by two bastions of democracy; and that ad hominem churlishness paired with affected analysis doesn't get you very far. Casual empiricism suggests that Anon 5:53AM doesn't know these simple things.Phil Rothmanhttp://personal.ecu.edu/rothmanp/rothman.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-38051332282228097382012-02-13T10:31:13.484-08:002012-02-13T10:31:13.484-08:00DSGE has been around since Walras.DSGE has been around since Walras.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-84808020819385757622012-02-13T10:29:56.349-08:002012-02-13T10:29:56.349-08:00Don't be nasty to Phil. I like him.Don't be nasty to Phil. I like him.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-16823067574069680612012-02-13T08:24:15.852-08:002012-02-13T08:24:15.852-08:00@Anon 5:33
Go back to the playroom. The grownups...@Anon 5:33<br /><br />Go back to the playroom. The grownups are talking in here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com