Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The State of Macro

It's hard to tell who is more out-of-it, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 author of this WSJ article, or Paul Krugman. To cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 extent that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 WSJ guy talks to any serious economists, he gets reasonable answers. Lucas is quite polite, and Mark Gertler puts it nicely:
It strikes me as not productive to say that all we have done is a complete waste. The profession is extremely competitive. If you have a better idea, it's going to win out.
Krugman should take that to heart. As usual, here, he sees himself as cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 King of Prescience:
More specifically, we knew all about liquidity traps, and had at least thought about balance-sheet crises, a decade ago.
In fact, liquidity traps have been well-known to monetary economists for some time. Twenty years before Krugman thought about liquidity traps, Charles Wilson wrote this paper, which tells us most of what we need to know about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 phenomenon:
“An Infinite Horizon Model with Money,” in General Equilibrium, Growth and Trade, edited by Jerry Green and Jose Scheinkman, Academic Press, New York, 1979, pp.81-104.
Krugman also says this:
It’s true that if you bought completely into rational-expectations macroeconomics, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 crisis in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 economy should be causing a crisis in your faith —
Now, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 people who "bought completely into rational-expectations macroeconomics" would be essentially cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 whole profession. Krugman of course is stuck in 1978. He doesn't realize that Keynesians, new classicals, and whoever else, "bought in." This is what Woodford, Gertler, Gali, Kiyotaki, Lucas, Prescott, and all of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 rest of us, do. There is no crisis of faith, only pressing and interesting problems to work on.

The WSJ guy finishes with this:
Many economists think cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 next big idea will more likely come from cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 ranks of younger Ph.D candidates, who are producing reams of work examining cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 financial crisis. Established academics—such as Mr. Gertler, Nobuhiro Kiyotaki of Princeton, Marcus Brunnermeier of Princeton, Michael Woodford of Columbia and Robert Hall of Stanford—are making progress on including banks, financial markets and even a bit of irrationality in traditional models.
I'm glad to hear that we are finally making some progress in getting banks and financial markets into "traditional" models. Of course, Gertler, Bernanke, yours truly, and Bruce Smith started doing that in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 early 1980s.

34 comments:

  1. Stephen - when he says "we knew about liquidity traps" I did not interpret that to mean "I was cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 first one to think about it - nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah".

    Thinking about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se issues extended well before 1979 as well, of course! Isn't this exactly what Krugman was saying - that "we knew about this stuff".

    I think you're more on target when you criticize him for his reaction to RE. He probably caricatures this gang. There was a good interview of Tom Sargent - I believe up on one of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Fed websites - where he walks through what RE was meant to address and speak to and what it wasn't meant to address and speak to, and that if you used it thoughtfully, you shouldn't have any crisis of faith. This strikes me as cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 better way to look at it, but I do think Krugman is probably right that not everyone was as thoughtful in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir use of RE as Sargent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It strikes me as not productive to say that all we have done is a complete waste. The profession is extremely competitive. If you have a better idea, it's going to win out."

    Not at all necessarily true, especially over periods as short as decades.

    1) Huge issue, economics is not easily empirically tested with control like hard sciences. If you invent a stronger metal, you can easily win out over an orthodoxy by just demonstrating it's harder and better. It's very hard to precisely demonstrate to ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rs an economics is better. I think Krugman largely has with cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 unfolding events of recent years, but it's not nearly so persuasive and airtight as a controlled physical test of say tensile strength.

    2) If you have a better idea, but cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 journal gatekeepers don't want it published because it makes cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir paradigm a lot less important, it doesn't get published, and so, of course, doesn't win since publication in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 big journals is just about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 only thing in reward and advancement in academic economics. Economics is only competitive in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 things cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 journal gatekeepers want it to be competitive in. If cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y wanted alchemy to be cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 dominant paradigm, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 journals would be competitive in who could come up with cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 most creative, intricate, mathful explanations of how to turn lead into gold.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, it's just a tool. Of course you can use cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 tool well, or you can use it badly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Nick Rowe agrees with you:
    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/11/monetarism-cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365-hegemony-that-need-not-speak-its-name.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. The macroeconomists have no answer to Serlin.

    None.

    And cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 public should know it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Richard,

    1. I'm sorry that you have been taken in by Krugman. The reality is that practicing macroeconomists do not take Krugman seriously. His contributions to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 profession were in international trade. What he has been doing for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 last few years is political, and has nothing to do with advancing economics as a science.

    2. The science works imperfectly, but in general I think Mark Gertler is right - cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 cream rises to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 top. The grumbling you hear about academic journals comes mainly from people who do bad work and can't get it published. There's no ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r way to do it ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r than peer review. Research is sifted by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 editorial and refereeing process, and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 best work tends to end up in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 best journals. This is not always true of course. For example, Lucas's (1972) "Expectations and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Neutrality of Money" paper was rejected by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 top journals and ended up in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Journal of Economic Theory, at that time a new journal with no reputation. However, eventually we figured out that Lucas had written a pathbreaking piece of work, and we corrected cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 error by giving him a Nobel prize.

    Last anonymous,

    There's your answer. Not sure what it is you want cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 public to know.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Didn't Krugman do a lot of work in International Macro? Macro folks in my department take him pretty seriously (Stanford) even if cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y don't admit to it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A student of Gertler told me a few weeks ago that Gertler himself thinks high of Krugman... I don't know if its true, but that's what he told me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "If you have a better idea, but cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 journal gatekeepers don't want it published because it makes cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir paradigm a lot less important, it doesn't get published, and so, of course, doesn't win since publication in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 big journals is just about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 only thing in reward and advancement in academic economics."

    Nonsense. If this was true, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n Prescott and Lucas should have never been able to publish cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir work and become famous. At cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 time cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y were doing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir pathbreaking research cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 profession was dominated by Keyensians. They were cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 "gatekeepers" (to use Richard's language) at major journals. And shift of paradigm was exactly against cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m.

    You cannot argue, on one hand that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re was a shift of paradigm which was unproductive for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 profession and in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 next paragraph cry about how cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 "gatekeepers" don't allow a change in paradigm!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 WSJ article reflects cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 popular perception that economists failed to predict, had no adequate explanation for, and provide no useful prescription for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 current economic crisis. I'm afraid this post, which tells us that all cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 economists you know agree that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 state of economics is fine and dandy, will not be effective in countering that perception. But it will probably be popular among people who already agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. Read cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 beginning of this interview with Tom Sargent:

    http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4526

    This account of Krugman's macro seminar attendance is indicative of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 extent to which Krugman is engaged in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 science of macroeconomics. I've been to plenty of economics conferences in my life, and have never seen Krugman at one.

    2. Last anonymous: Something tells me you are not very interested in learning what macroeconomists are up to. (i) You don't blame cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 seismologists whenever an earthquake happens. (ii) We actually have a good grip, I think, on what cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 financial crisis was about.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Krugman has 2438 citations (google scholar) for "A Model of balance-of-payments crises" and 923 cites for "Target zones and exchange rate dynamics" and 779 cites for "Balance sheets, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 transfer problem, and financial crises". I think in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 "currency crisis" literature his contribution is well established and is discussed in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 "ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r contributions" section of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 nobel prize scientific background.
    -Henry

    ReplyDelete
  13. The idea that Krugman is not a distinguished macroeconomist should be self-evidently silly. Thank you to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 previous person who documented what Prof. Williamson should already know. Both of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 papers that were cited in his post started vast, important literatures.

    It may be true that Prof. Williamson doesn't respect Krugman. He has that right. But lots of people do. Just asserting something to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 contrary does not make it true.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To be fair to Williamson, he at least engages in Krugman's ideas. The standard offense from Chicago etc. is to simply dismiss Krugman as "not really an (or former) economist, just a political hack". Williamson at least documents everything he thinks is wrong with Krugmans argument. Though I'm not frequently convinced, its a useful contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You can't argue with citations and publications. Krugman certainly had something to say about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 economics of exchange rates, and people obviously read cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 stuff. However, it's hard to argue that he contributed anything important to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 core of macroeconomic cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ory and policy. If cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re had been no Krugman, we would not be doing macro any differently today. Krugman's writings from 12 to 15 years ago make sense, and have useful things to say about important issues. When I read what he has to say today in his blog and in his NYT column, I think: Here is a guy who is out of touch with what macroeconomists are up to. That would be fine, if he didn't use his perch to dump on working macroeconomists who are actually trying to make some sense of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 world. That's why I write cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se things. People like me understand this anyway, but maybe ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rs might get cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 idea that Krugman is not representing us well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is plenty of reasons to dump on practicing macroeconomists. When you say things like "You don't blame cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 seismologists whenever an earthquake happens", you are missing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 point. Seismologists didn't promise wonderful things like cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 great seismological moderation or write opinions in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 wall street journals and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 new york times. Ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r sciences strive to under-promise and over-deliver. Macroeconomists do cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 opposite. Krugman just pointed that out. It probably upsets ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r economists because it was a "you too Brutus" moment, not because a whole lot of what K said was off base.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Seismologists didn't promise wonderful things like cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 great seismological moderation or write opinions in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 wall street journals and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 new york times.

    OK, so, indeed, it is about critizing economists, not economics, isn´t it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Krugman's currency crisis model is pretty cool. Salant's model to some extent though, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Well, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is plenty of reasons to dump on practicing macroeconomists."

    You're confused. Go back and read my blog entries.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Stephen,

    Could you add a search function (no pun intended) to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 site?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r thought for confused:

    For Krugman cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re are good people and bad people. The odd thing is that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 good people (cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Keynesians) were cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 ones who were so proud of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Great Moderation, believing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y had solved cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 problem through wise policy. Krugman's good people were cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 ones moving cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 gears of policy, but Krugman chooses to dump on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 bad people. Furcá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 bad people he has in mind seem to be cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 bad people of anocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r era - i.e. James Tobin's bad people from 1978. The conflict between cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 good people and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 bad people of 1978 was resolved long ago, unbeknownst to Krugman, apparently. Where does that leave us? Krugman's confused, and it's no wonder you are confused as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. vimothy,

    I'm using a basic Google template here and, as far as I can tell cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re isn't a search function in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re to add. If someone knows how to do this, please let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stephen,

    Okay, no worries. Thanks for trying. It's a right pain having to trawl through cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 archives at times, but I'm confess that I have no idea how to do this eicá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r, sad technoloser that I am.

    Anyone reading this under cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 age of twenty-one? Old people need your help.

    ReplyDelete
  24. There is a search bar in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 top left corner, at least for me cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is.

    ReplyDelete
  25. [\Embarrassed\]

    So cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is! I guess we fail to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 reject cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 sad technoloser null with a high degree of confidence cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, we are both old and sad technolosers.

    ReplyDelete
  27. vimothy,

    See cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 top of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 page now. Andolfatto showed me how to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry, I posted to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 wrong entry so I re-post here.

    All I want to say is:

    (1) Economists are hard-cord scientists (vs. [looked-down by economists] soft-core ones such as sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc. who, despite of sometimes heated debates among cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir profession, are compromised, reserved,and weak: readily willing to admit cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir profession's ignorance, limited knowledge of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir own field, not to be 100% sure and proud of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir research tools and techniques and methodology).

    (2)Real economists are never wrong. Real world is.

    http://www.amazon.com/Economyths-Ways-Economics-Gets-Wrong/dp/0470677937/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

    http://www.amazon.com/Mean-Markets-Lizard-Brains-Irrationality/dp/0470343761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291333224&sr=8-1

    The list can go on. But, as old economists always told young ones, no matter how absurd your cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ories are, when people point it out, Just say "it's not me", "cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 data are controversial". There's no shortage of mantras for economists.

    Full disclosure:I have an advanced degree in economics. One has no choice but believe in his own religion. [Sigh]

    But hey, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

    Six-figure salary, lifelong tenure, lavish conference, consulting projects, and Wall Street checks. Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I forgot "research grants" (public and private), "invited talks" (It specially feels so good to lecture perplexed dignitaries, ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r less macá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365matically divined mortals about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 universe's mechanism, get paid, and respect).

    ReplyDelete
  30. . . .and column in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 NYT, trips, conferences, prestige power. . .

    We can go on and on accusing people of conflict of interest. Probably everyone who does something sustainably gets paid to do it. As we well know since Adam Smith, this doesn't mean what we are producing is bad.

    Economists get a bad rep because what non-economists have in mind are people like Keynes, Friedman, Galbraith Krugman. These are people who are engaged in public debate and who make a point of saying out loud things that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y believe are right without giving much margin for doubt (and in extreme accusing ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rs of being dishonest, compromised etc.) In academia you get cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se loud types of course, but this is a matter of personality. Mostly you see people who are just trying cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir best to make sense of a very complicated object all cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 while being careful about what cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y assume and what cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y say. If you are honest about how you do it (as most academics are), it will be hard to shout out louder than Krugman.

    On a more structural level, macroeconomists are in a really tough spot. Their science is not amenable to experimental work which makes it hard to be certain about much but, unlike sociologists and anthropologists, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y are called to give policy advice in real time. Then, when cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 advice turns out not to work as expected, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y get blamed for giving cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 advice in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 first place.

    No wonder so many freshwater types retreated to academia and let non-economists to fend for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365mselves.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "No wonder so many freshwater types retreated to academia..."

    1. Why is academia a retreat? I think of this as serious work, pushing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 frontiers of knowledge, etc. We need specialization. You don't want everyone doing policy.

    2. There are now plenty of "freshwater" (an obsolete term, by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 way) types now doing policy. The Federal Reserve System is well-populated with cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m, though of course cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re are more in Minneapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, Phildelphia, and Richmond, than elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It is a retreat from cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 daily grind of policy debate. Didn't mean to imply this is bad in anyway, but it is probably true that since cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 70's cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 typical macroeconomist with an academic job is much furcá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r from this kind of debate.

    Also, as with any generalization, it is faulty and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re are exceptions all around (Kocherlakota being cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 most prominent right now). But I stand my point: The vast majority of fed economists and in ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r policy institutions subscribe to a more keynesian view of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 world.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Macro will never progress unless it is allowed to conclude things that are contrary to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 liberal consensus. Right now it is stuck on apologetics against Marxism.

    ReplyDelete