tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post5206937561768246075..comments2024-03-09T02:22:57.289-08:00Comments on Stephen Williamson: New Monetarist Economics: What the Economics Profession Looks Like to YglesiasStephen Williamsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-13137633984560272812012-11-30T07:14:50.959-08:002012-11-30T07:14:50.959-08:00You're over-thinking here. I'm just trying...You're over-thinking here. I'm just trying to figure this out, like you are. I'm throwing around some ideas, and haven't come to any specific conclusions.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-72192465719932602312012-11-29T08:33:40.586-08:002012-11-29T08:33:40.586-08:00You're letting yourself off way too lightly. ...You're letting yourself off way too lightly. It's fine to say that you think is reasoning was bad economics. But in the comment sections of various posts you have said things like his change of position involved "ambition colliding with economic science", and that he "sold out, and that's a fact". To me you responded that the most logical explanation was that NK let his ambition overcome his good judgement, and not that he simply disagrees with your interpretation of the data.<br /><br />Those statements clearly imply intellectual dishonesty, and it is those type of statements Yglesias was responding to in his post. If you hadn't buried them in the comments section I'd assume you were just making provocative statements to angle for more page hits. As it is I find your behavior much more puzzling than NKs.JSRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09614849295823728127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-80081385095605339112012-11-28T12:19:52.743-08:002012-11-28T12:19:52.743-08:00No accusation of dishonesty intended. I just think...No accusation of dishonesty intended. I just think his reasoning was bad economics, which was the point of this post:<br /><br />http://www.newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2012/10/kocherlakota-joins-cogcb.html<br /><br />Why a guy who proved himself perfectly capable of doing sound economics indulges in unsound economics is the puzzle, don't you think?Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-70763684322856426152012-11-27T15:07:29.218-08:002012-11-27T15:07:29.218-08:00Yes, I am completely aware that this is a blog. I ...Yes, I am completely aware that this is a blog. I appreciate very much the time you take in writing posts and answering to comments.<br /><br />Nonethless, I think you should be very sure about what you say (and have that formal model at the back of your head) when you implictly accuse Kocherlakota of beeing intellectually dishonest. The null should be that he thought about it hard ("a serious allocation of time") and advocates what he thinks is in the best interest of the country. He might be wrong. And that's where building a formal model would be useful to convince him (rather that questioning his intentions.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-6756405843034736742012-11-27T10:20:59.861-08:002012-11-27T10:20:59.861-08:00You understand this is a blog, right? To answer a ...You understand this is a blog, right? To answer a question like that requires a formal model, and a serious allocation of time. Anyone who tells you they can answer the question off the top of his/her head should not be trusted.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-70563888931738991322012-11-27T02:39:28.501-08:002012-11-27T02:39:28.501-08:00Regarding : Given current and planned monetary pol...Regarding : Given current and planned monetary policy actions, and how I think the Fed will behave in the future, I can see an equilibrium path on which the inflation rate is higher than it should be. I can't say anything sensible about "likely."<br /><br />Isn't that a bit too easy? How "Likely" high inflation is, is very important, not whether high inflation is a theoretical possibility. If we can't say how likely high inflation is, it' hard to give advice to the FED!<br /><br />It would be intersting what kind of missing information or theoretically unresolved question prevents you from making a statment on the probability of high inflation.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-56324471523670623742012-11-26T15:50:14.762-08:002012-11-26T15:50:14.762-08:00Yes, exactly. Whenever your colleagues tell you to...Yes, exactly. Whenever your colleagues tell you to hire someone because they are smart, don't pay any attention.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-68214221280981764122012-11-26T13:29:33.326-08:002012-11-26T13:29:33.326-08:00Actually, on "smartness" and "nicen...Actually, on "smartness" and "niceness" the best piece by far has been written by Deidre (back then Donald) McCloskey:<br />http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume21/V21N1P109_112.pdf<br />CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-43791641997254350942012-11-26T13:07:09.519-08:002012-11-26T13:07:09.519-08:00Truth and smart are words we should not be using. ...Truth and smart are words we should not be using. Everyone is smart, and we will never find truth. As for communication, I'm doing the best I can with the time available. Obviously you're getting something, or you wouldn't keep coming back.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-26272205344744703292012-11-26T10:41:29.055-08:002012-11-26T10:41:29.055-08:00Since I'm the one who first the word dumb, let...Since I'm the one who first the word dumb, let me clarify what I mean.<br /><br />Assuming Steve has truth on its side, if the lay audience (Yglesias, myself, others) doesn't understand Steve, it's either because we're dumb, busy, or Steve (and his buddies) aren't communicating properly. I think a lot of it is the latter. I also think Steve and his buddies have a lot of good things to say. Lastly, I'm sure Yglesias is a smart guy. JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-72664915887773625352012-11-26T09:43:31.037-08:002012-11-26T09:43:31.037-08:00Matt Yglesias is many things, and dumb is only one...Matt Yglesias is many things, and dumb is only one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-30459414307863294422012-11-26T06:37:56.534-08:002012-11-26T06:37:56.534-08:00This Coase essay makes a similar point:
http://hb...This Coase essay makes a similar point:<br /><br />http://hbr.org/2012/12/saving-economics-from-the-economists/ar/1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-70528336666447679672012-11-26T06:19:58.505-08:002012-11-26T06:19:58.505-08:00"It's no disrespect to say that dsge macr..."It's no disrespect to say that dsge macro models at the moment are primitive. we dont understand monetary economies, we don't have good theories of money."<br /><br />1. Primitive? Simplicity is a virtue.<br />2. Don't understand? We actually understand a lot, I think. Science advances of course.<br />3. Don't have "good" theories of money? Fighting words.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-53653579762275871332012-11-26T06:15:46.359-08:002012-11-26T06:15:46.359-08:00I'm sure he would take the job if someone offe...I'm sure he would take the job if someone offered it to him. Your question was about "angling."Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-703250238804923232012-11-25T17:44:43.397-08:002012-11-25T17:44:43.397-08:00" money has value because it is more efficien..." money has value because it is more efficient than not having money"<br /><br />The question is what specific features in the manner in which people or firms can trade give rise to the willingness of people to accept intrinsically worthless objects. This is what anyone sensible might ask, include Ronald coase. <br /><br />For example, how dependent is monetary trade on record keeping capabilities ? on their ability to default on agreements?metc.<br /><br />It is imperfections in the latter types of features that are called frictions.<br /><br />For anyone to assert, as you do, that saying that money is used because it is useful constitutes some sort of explanation is not coherent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-80064726727313167102012-11-25T15:44:45.844-08:002012-11-25T15:44:45.844-08:00what a waste of Steve's time. we should be doi...what a waste of Steve's time. we should be doing economic theory. this is why Sargent doesnt blog, he's too busy rolling up his sleeves trying to figure out new math tools that can represent the way the world works. It's no disrespect to say that dsge macro models at the moment are primitive. we dont understand monetary economies, we don't have good theories of money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-52980955550793256042012-11-25T13:26:40.282-08:002012-11-25T13:26:40.282-08:00Well, he's the president of the Minneapolis Fe...Well, he's the president of the Minneapolis Fed...other than Fed chairman, what higher office is there for a monetary policy guy?Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-42788443197220269632012-11-25T12:15:22.061-08:002012-11-25T12:15:22.061-08:00JP Koning asserts, "They're trying to fig...JP Koning asserts, "They're trying to figure out what sort of frictions lead to the use of mediums of exchange and ask questions like why collateral is important to banking."<br /><br />JP, we learn the answer to the second question on the first day of law school. Some people are not honest and no one lives forever. Collateral is important to banking because it permits one to better task risks in light of these and other uncertainties.<br /><br />It would be better is SW would attend to something he could handle. Should we even permit lenders to make secured or recourse loans? SW never tackles such a concrete but useful question.<br /><br />The answer to the first question is only slightly harder. You have it backwards. Frictions do not lead to the use of money. Money reduces frictions. <br /><br />SW's fundamental problem is that he really doesn't understand money or its value, which is entirely Coarsean. I hate to point the reader back to Prof. DeLong, but he has often explained this point, probably even to SW. Money has value because it is more efficient than not having money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-40597224337793818112012-11-25T12:14:55.403-08:002012-11-25T12:14:55.403-08:00Jeffrey,
What a lot of chatter about nothing impo...Jeffrey,<br /><br />What a lot of chatter about nothing important. You could discuss this. It has more content.<br /><br />http://www.newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2012/10/kocherlakota-joins-cogcb.htmlStephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-38909920443000241592012-11-25T12:06:27.733-08:002012-11-25T12:06:27.733-08:00I read the "Hero of Rigor" post, and whi...I read the "Hero of Rigor" post, and while I can agree the word "hero" may be hyperbolic, the point is that Kocherlakota has shown intellectual courage by changing his position based on considering the data over time, and based on persuasive arguments made by colleagues.<br /><br />There is room for argument over whether this is courageous, honest, and based on sound economics, or whether it's a politicized sellout, as Mr. Williamson seems to imply.<br /><br />But I didn't see Matt Yglesias write anything derogatory directed personally at Stephen Williamson. It was Williamson who first felt compelled, as I see it, to take a personal shot at Yglesias.<br /><br />I'm not qualified to comment on the economics, or to know who is correct, whether fed policy will bring inflation or growth or simply be ineffective. That isn't exactly relevant to what is going on here, which has diverged to something beyond economics.<br /><br />Why Yglesias thinks Kocherlakota is a hero of rigor is outlined in Yglesias' post. Williamson didn't respond to the content of that, but instead made a personal attack on Yglesias. Evidently there is some kind of smoldering resentment there that came bursting out.<br /><br />Some commenters above seemed to have been encouraged by the chum in the water to circle and snipe at Yglesias, going as far in at least one case to call him "dumb". Some people perhaps don't care if what they write agrees with reality, and they just say what makes them feel good. I find Matt's writing to be thought provoking, and anybody who tries to claim he is dumb ought to feel embarrassed, because he certainly isn't dumb. He is very confident in stating his opinions, and I can imagine that might rub some people who disagree with him the wrong way. Still I think Williamson took this debate to a place that is not entirely honorable.<br /><br />As to whether Matt's point about ambition in the economics field has any validity, perhaps one should consider some of the output of Hubbard, Mankiw, Taylor, and Hasset during the Romney campaign. It certainly seemed to me these were some professional economists willing on at least a few occasions to compromise themselves intellectually for political reasons and for personal career gains, i.e. cabinet positions.<br /><br />http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/29630504620/kevin-hassett-glenn-hubbard-greg-mankiw-and-johnJeffrey Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07097567850607367929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-23030400320975846942012-11-24T17:35:35.905-08:002012-11-24T17:35:35.905-08:00I think you have it the wrong way around. This be...I think you have it the wrong way around. This began with Matt Yglesias calling NK a "hero of rigor" (mortis?). For a few weeks now SW has been posting about NK's earlier speeches and thoughts on policy and how his recent actions don't seem to comport with said earlier views. Moreover, NK's earlier views seemed to be based on models, economic theory, and such. SW is merely wondering aloud how to rationalise NK's recent actions with his previously stated views on models. <br /><br />So perhaps you should really ask Yglesias why he thinks NK is a "hero of rigor"? Are NK's comments in consonance with his earlier views? Has there been a change? If so, what is the justification, and how do these justifications that guided NK's earlier positions? <br /><br />And to understand SW's point of view, read his earlier blog posts. (Of course, you can take issue with those, but I suspect you're not really doing that.)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-72127762946196364702012-11-24T17:08:50.008-08:002012-11-24T17:08:50.008-08:00To the layman, the subject of economics is of inte...To the layman, the subject of economics is of intense interest (to suggest otherwise is, with respect, bizarre). Its not news that the layman sees little intersection between his concerns and the research output of the discipline. <br /><br />You are being way too easy on your colleagues. They are not autistic savants. They are intelligent, articulate academics capable of communicating publicly with clarity and rigor. Just like Pinker, Gould, Feyman, Hawking, and Stephen Williamson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-810419626030880712012-11-24T13:07:44.511-08:002012-11-24T13:07:44.511-08:00I see a lot of appeal to authority here being used...I see a lot of appeal to authority here being used against Matt Yglesias, as if his not being a professional economist alone renders his point invalid. Any honest person knows this is not true. His original point remains unanswered amidst the flurry of ad hominem insinuations.<br /><br />The original accusation against Mr. Kocherlakota by Mr. Williamson was that he had changed his positions not based on economic science and sound reasoning, but rather for some more subjective personal reasons. It seems to me quite a shoddy way to engage in debate over economic policies that indirectly have the potential to really matter to hundreds of millions of people. It's more akin to politicized brawling.<br /><br />I think Matt Yglesias was right to question that. The manner in which he chose to respond may have wounded Mr. Williams vanity in some way, which is understandable since we are all human. But none of this unfortunate emotional overtone changes the fact that the original point has not been answered, which is how Mr. Williamson can justify his claim that Kocherlakota's adjusted position is not based on sound economic reasoning and a clear eyed view of new data?<br /><br />The comparison of Mr. Yglesias to Lady Gaga isn't encouraging. It is an obvious fallacy that fame necessarily implies one can not be seriously in pursuit of truth. I think Mr. Williamson should either retract his original comments directed at Mr. Kocherlakota, or else provide his reasons for assuming that Kocherlakota's change of heart can't possibly qualify as valid economic reasoning based on current evidence.Jeffrey Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07097567850607367929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-22962133390779427192012-11-24T12:38:30.249-08:002012-11-24T12:38:30.249-08:00Steve: Do you think NK is angling to be Fed chairm...Steve: Do you think NK is angling to be Fed chairman?Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-8149687120290698182012-11-24T12:19:29.212-08:002012-11-24T12:19:29.212-08:00Steve, if only you were better at communicating yo...Steve, if only you were better at communicating your ideas to the lay public... ;)Andrewnoreply@blogger.com