Saturday, August 6, 2011

Repy to Krugman Part II

A few more words on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 fracas associated with this, before we move on to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 serious problems facing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 world. I was mulling over Krugman's comments, in particular this one:
It’s funny in this case, because Quiggin is in fact a prominent economist, Williamson not so much.
So, it seems that, in Krugman's mind, prominence is a good thing, I have not so much of this thing, and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365refore I must be some kind of lesser being, who should not be so uppity.

Now, prominence actually might be bad. I could have a prominent zit on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 end of my nose, in which case I'm just hoping it will go away quickly. Prominence can also be good. Ed Prescott is a prominent person in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 profession in part because of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 students he has trained, and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 students that were trained by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 students of students, etc. On that dimension, Prescott is prominent, Krugman not so much.

Lady Gaga is prominent. A few weeks ago I actually shared an airplane with this person, on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 way back from Sydney. The security guy at cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Sydney airport clued us into this fact, though he seemed to be somewhat embarrassed by what she had on. Lady Gaga cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n left my mind, until we landed in LA. My wife and I were walking cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 20 miles to US immigration, and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re she was. Conservatively dressed, this time (for Lady Gaga), but with 5-inch heels and a funny hat. Not sure how she walked cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 20 miles without breaking an ankle. Now, you might think being prominent in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 sense of Lady Gaga would be a bad thing (for her) in an airport, but she actually seemed to be quite into it. Even cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 walk to immigration was a performance, and she seemed to like cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 attention.

Now, Lady-Gaga-prominence is a particular kind of prominence. Many people know her name, but most of us could not say much about her music or what ideas are floating around in her head. Krugman has some Lady-Gaga-prominence, but of course cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re's more depth to it than that. People who know who he is are aware of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 ideas in his head, and he has followers. We can say that he is influential. But what of that influence? People can be prominent and propagate bad ideas, as Krugman does on a regular basis. John Quiggin is apparently prominent - he has written many words, and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is obviously a market for that stuff. On cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 basis of my reading of "Zombie Economics," I would argue that he is also propagating bad ideas. So much for prominence.

Now, here's cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 core of Krugman's idea here:
...if you look at how many freshwater macroeconomists have responded to Keynesian arguments in this crisis, you find over and over again that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y resort to assertions of privilege — basically, I am a famous macroeconomic expert and you aren’t — racá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r than really addressing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 issues...But in any case, this is never an appropriate way to argue — least of all at a time like this, when events have strongly suggested that a lot of work in economics cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se past few decades, very much including cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 work on which cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se guys’ reputations are based, was on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 wrong track.
The problem with this, as with Quiggin's book, is that it is so vague and general as to be vacuous. There was "a lot of work," done by "cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se guys." It was on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 "wrong track." "These guys" are apparently "freshwater economists," but guys like that are very hard to identify cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se days. 1970s ideas have evolved to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 point where cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 labels "fresh" and "salt" don't apply to anyone in particular.

Krugman is badly confused. The ideas of some of "those guys" are in fact in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 core of some of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 work that he is so proud of. His liquidity trap paper uses a cash-in-advance construct, popularized by Lucas. His paper with Eggertsson is a direct descendant of Kydland and Prescott (1982), by way of Rotemberg and Woodford.

This kind of criticism is just misguided flailing-about, and it certainly can't accomplish anything useful.

38 comments:

  1. The context out of which you pulled cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 quote about prominence makes it clear Krugman's point was exactly that prominence is irrelevant to correctness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If that is your idea of a rebuttal, you should be happy Krugman bocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365red to write about you at all. You seem wounded! Did Krugman's "not so much" get under your skin? So now your last hope of salvaging some dignity is to imagine that you amd he are going at it. Two big guys in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 field. But cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 best you can come up with is exactly why Krugman thinks you are a lightweight:

    Krugman is confused ... His papers borrow from cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 people he critques.

    One has nothing to do with 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. He doesn't like cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 way cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se guys throw cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir weight around. He mever said he didnt lik

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who cares whecá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r Krugman has used concepts that Lucas or Prescott originated?

    He claims that "a lot" of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir work is misguided, not all of it.

    More to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 point, it's possible for a cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365orist to develop a useful snippet of a model, but cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n builds on it or applies it poorly. Right?

    To use an anlogy, a car can have a great transmission but a lousy engine and chassis. Anocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r car marker can come along, use cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 same transmission but pair it with a good engine and chassis. Only cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 second guy has a good car. You're arguing that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 second guy shouldn't criticize cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 first guy's car because he used its transmission. That doesn't make any sense.

    I don't have any dog in this fight, and I'm not going to carry water for Paul Krugman. He doesn't need it. But you're really, really reaching here with this type of criticism.

    Also, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 salt and fresh labels absolutely do mean something. Just compare cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 curriculum at Chicago, Minnesota or Wash U with cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 curriculum at MIT, Princeton and Harvard. To say ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rwise is to assume your conclusion that Keynesians aren't doing real macro.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stephen

    I'm a new reader of your blog. I'm sorry you aren't as famous as Quiggin. On 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 hand, I'm willing to bet Krugman doesn't know what people in his own department are writing (e.g. Brunnermeier/Sannikov). But I must confess that I keep abreast of Krugman's blogging since he mentions something interesting every once in a while. On 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 hand, I do appreciate your blogging quite a bit more because it is deeper and I learn a few things too. So thanks.

    P.S. You mention in a previous blog that "cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 answers will come from understanding cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 barriers to mobility in labor across sectors, sectoral productivity, and links between cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 labor market and financial factors". Any progress along cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365se directions will be claimed as a "demand-side effect" by Krugman (who, of course, won't go into any details), so in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 long run, he will always be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're drawing some interesting critics in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 comments here.

    I'm probably a 'fringe' player of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 type that you've criticized elsewhere. But that said, most of your arguments consist of 'A doesn't necessarily follow B, so lets investigate that assumption'.

    This technique calls into question cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 prevailing assumptions in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 existing system of thought.

    Your criticism of Quiggin is quite accurate - his position could be used to argue that government in fact, cannot even solve privatization. There is nothing obtuse about that statement.

    Thank you for your work. personally I find it deep and engaging. Even if I am a 'fringe' player. :)

    Curt

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stephen:

    PS: We prefer cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 term Heterodox to 'fringe'. :)

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  7. SW,

    Take a brake from Krugman patrol for a while. I learn a lot from 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 posts and would love to see you expand on ideas like bitcoin or ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r topics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "So, it seems that, in Krugman's mind, prominence is a good thing, I have not so much of this thing, and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365refore I must be some kind of lesser being, who should not be so uppity."

    I don't see how this is anything ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r than an obvious misreading of what Krugman was saying. He's attacking what he sees as hypocrisy on your behalf; his interpretation of your post was that you were attacking Quiggin by attacking his professional credentials, but Krugman considers Quiggin more "prominent" than yourself.

    It's clearly not lack of intelligence or analytical rigour that caused you to misinterpret him so; I agree that you should let cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 whole ruckus die down, it's as unflattering for you as it is for Krugman.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "He's attacking what he sees as hypocrisy on your behalf..."

    No, he can't address cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 substance, so what does he have left?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 hell is Quiggin? I have been in Economics for 30 years and I have never heard of him. I am very familiar with your great work on financial systems and monetary economics. It's stunning to me that Krugman knows so little about you. Your work is very a propo for studying financial system problems. He should ask his colleague Nobu Kyotaki to explain your work to him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oddly enough, I've never heard of "Mr MIT" eicá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r, so we are even :-)

    Arguments from authority made by pseudonymous blog commenters ("I've been in econ for 30 years, so I should know who's who") are even more amusingly silly than 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 kind.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The problem with this, as with Quiggin's book, is that it is so vague and general as to be vacuous"

    I made a bunch of reasonably specific claims, all of which you ignored in your review, relying on a defense that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ories and modelling approaches I criticised had no implications and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365refore could not be false. The closest you got to a response was your unoriginal snark about privatisation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Quiggin, why are you here? You don't help your cause by slinging mud.

    You've apparently got a line of bloggers ready to carry your water, so let cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m. Nothing good can come from furcá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r trading cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 same barbs that have already been made.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What's silly on a claim "I've been in econ for 30 years, so I should know who's who"?
    In fact, if you look at reading lists in graduate courses at top US schools, you will not run across Quiggin's papers, not a single one. You will, however, run across some of Williamson's papers in graduate courses in monetary economics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi John,

    I think, if you were more specific, that we might find some common ground.

    1. If, by DSGE, you mean cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 DSGE models of Woodford and company, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re are some specific ways in which those guys missed cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 boat, i.e. by spending too much time thinking about sticky prices and wages, and not enough time on financial factors and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 details of how a central bank works. But you seem to have some Keynesian sympathies, so maybe you like Woodford. Or maybe you don't and you are a General-Theory Keynesian, or a coordination-failure Keynesian.

    2. On "efficient markets cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ory" cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is a standard class of models we work with, starting with Lucas's (Econometrica 1978) construct, that don't fit cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 data very well. The financial crisis highlights how trade in financial assets is important for prices, which obviously takes you out of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 representative agent construct. There is work by myself and ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r people in my field where we think about liquidity and what it means for market prices, open market operations, etc. Maybe this is some of what you have in mind.

    3. Maybe this comes from your background in decision cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ory, but you seem to want to load everything into preferences. Maybe you think cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 way to go is alternatives to standard time-seperable expected utility. Some macroeconomists do some of that, though cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is a tendency to concentrate on ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r features of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 environment, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 idea being that one could manipulate preferences to explain anything.

    In any case, no harm intended. I'm interested in ideas, not some reputational contest.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Quiggin: I don't understand why kind Steve Williamson wastes his time writing a reasonable reply to you. You know everything. What could you learn? Why not read Kahn and Thomas for an example of debt problems can be put into a DSGE. Buera and Moll is anocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r example. You sound like an out-of-touch geezer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ps Steve: Please post your review of Quiggin's book on your website. Some of us may like to give you comments. Its time for those of us interested in ECONOMIC SCIENCE to fight back.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mr MIT,

    Give him a chance. He may in fact be willing to learn, as we all should be. Treat cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 guests in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 house nicely, even if cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y walk in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 door unhappy. The review is already sent off, so I'll let you look for it in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 JEL. What I wrote in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 post is just a condensed version.

    ReplyDelete
  19. First things first, i'm going to be "that guy". This is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 repec rankings limited to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 various measures of citation count. I take that to equate in a rough way with influence.

    For Quiggin:
    http://i.imgur.com/9etbr.jpg
    For Williamson:
    http://i.imgur.com/d7KHP.jpg

    Feel free to do it yourself, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 tool is here:
    http://ideas.repec.org/cgi-bin/newrank.cgi

    As I said I limited mine to citation counts, since I find it more sensible than giving credit to mounds of published but not noteworthy work and certainly more sensible than giving a rankings boost for things like number of journal pages or download clicks from cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 repec database. Eliminate citation counts completely and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y both jump higher, with Quiggin bounding ahead.

    Now cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 point of that isn't "STEPHEN WINS QED", this is a silly and juvenile aspect of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 debate and I blame both Stephen for poor initial word choice and Krugman for... well, being his normal ass self. The point is that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y're both prominent economists using any sensible definition of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 term prominent. It's not easy to land in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 top 5% of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 REPEC rankings and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y both do it using any specification of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 search engine, with some specifications putting Stephen out ahead and ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rs putting Quiggin out ahead.


    So to summarize this whole thing...

    Deadwood non-macro/finance guy #13214545654 writes popular book number #23546546546 on how those gosh darned macroeconomists and financial economists got everything wrong, wrong wrong. This one has a unique added twist in that it also implies that those gosh darned empirical micro and IO guys got everything wrong about privatization. All of this, of course, is because EVIL RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.

    It's all just extremely difficult to take seriously. There are some unorthodox (but not kooky) folks that I really love and intently listen to. When Dani Rodrik says that he thinks
    cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 economic consensus on import substitution and globalization is wrong he doesn't rush off to get a
    pop-econ book stuck on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 shelves of Barnes and Noble (he might occasionally do that as well, but cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y're certainly not his focus), he writes down his ideas in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 form of a paper, provides evidence for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n gets cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED. It's easy to try and backdoor your ideas into cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 limelight by convincing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 public- a group that is largely ignorant- to accept cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m. But you're not doing serious economics in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 same way that Kent Hovind isn't doing serious biology when he tries to convince a Soucá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rn Baptist church that
    cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 earth is 6000 years old and to say ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rwise is an evil darwinist anti-Jesus conspiracy.

    Popular books contribute absolutely nothing to economic discourse. I adore Milton Friedman (who doesn't?) and am by and large sympacá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365tic to a lot of his political views. Free to Choose contributed nothing, nothing, nothing to economic discourse. Neicá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r did Capitalism and Freedom.

    If you think everyone has it wrong, publish a goddamn paper and show us why.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Like every economic debate, this will run and run. I understand why Williamson gets frustrated. He wants everyone to use his rule book: everybody play cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 game using cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 rules as laid down by Lucas and Prescott. Write everything down in a dsge model, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n we can see exactly where we differ.
    But cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Krugman axis won't play ball. They don't like cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 rules, so like William Webb Ellis, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y invent different rules and thumb cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir noses at cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 perceived idiocy of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 kids playing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 silly boring confining dsge game.

    And so econ can never be a science like chemistry, where everyone plays by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 same rules.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Scuttlefish,

    Very good. That about does it. Much ado about nothing. If we wind this back to when cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 JEL sent me cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 book, do you think I should have told cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m to find someone else and spent my time working on my research instead? Writing this blog doesn't do much for my repec ranking. No one will remember this next week, let alone 20 years on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Scuttlefish, I couldn't disagree with you more. There is tremendous value in writing books for public consumption. The public needs to learn more about economics, not less. They need economists to be make cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365mselves more accessible, not less. Ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365rwise, every public policy debate ends up as Monty Python's Argument sketpch on a split screen on CNN, Holtz-Eakin and Goolsbee carrying on: "No it isn't," "Yes it is" etc.

    Of course, it's also important that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 books for public consumption be informative and good. We have enough Michael Moores and Casey Mulligans, and if Quiggan falls into that category, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365n nothing good will come from that.

    But surely cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re is a way of responding that is better than "you don't know what you're talking about," especially when that line is so frequently and absurdly deployed against folks like Krugman. You lose a lot credibility with that sort of thing, and ironically boost Quiggan's in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 process. People are more willing to believe that "modern macro" is a bunch of useless nonsense if its best response to a Nobel Prize winner who happens to be on a hot streak right now in terms of predictions (remember: in addition to his more recent work, Krugman was a Euro skeptic back in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 90s).

    None of that makes Krugman "right" in an epistemic sense, but it does mean he enters public discourse with a lot more credibility than Gene Fama or John Cochrane. Again, that doesn't mean cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y are "wrong." But as I said elsewhere, an argument based on your own authority is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 weakest one around, and I'm not cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 only one seeing a lot of that from cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 freshwater folks and a lot less of it from cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Krugman team. At least in public.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Scuttlefish says:
    "Writing this blog doesn't do much for my repec ranking."

    Do you mean as good researchers we shoud focus on activities that boost our REPEC's ranking? Working for REPEC ranking is like working for your prominence, and you can certainly improve your REPEC ranking by uploading lots of superficial and useless stuff, just like Lady Gaga with her provocative apparels, but at least she is sexy! lol

    ReplyDelete
  24. "...Nobel Prize winner who happens to be on a hot streak right now in terms of predictions..."

    So he says. Don't get me started on that. The guy is a very skilled at rhetoric, but I think you're being fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Prof W says "cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 guy is very skilled at rhetoric". Professor McCloskey argues that all economic arguments are a form of rhetoric, see Journal of Econ Literature, June 1983. Where rhetoric is defined as probing through argument and discourse what we should believe.
    Economics is all about persuasion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I would honestly put McCloskey in Stephen's rabblerouser classification too. You can agree with me politically and still be a rabblerouser. :) Though to be fair she's always been like that, didn't just jump on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 bandwagon when cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 great recession hit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. McCloskey is my ex-colleague, so I know her well, from both before and after. We always got along fine, and she was quite helpful on a few occasions. This is not quite in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 rabblerouser category, but she keeps company with some of those.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I should add that cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365re are some things McCloskey talks about that sound like Ed Prescott - i.e. cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 importance quantitative economics. McCloskey might also say that proving cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365orems is a waste of time, which is definitely not a Prescott view. Ed would say that it's important to get cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ory down before you do cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 quantitative work.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ed would say that it's important to get cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ory down before you do cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 quantitative work

    Tjalling Koopmans made cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 same argument in 1947 in criticizing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 NBER. He of course was arguing for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 use of rigorous econometric models of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Cowles type. Ray Fair is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 last keeper of this particular flame.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Cowles people were pushing structure, long before Lucas wrote his critique paper. It's odd you mention Ray Fair. I haven't taken a close look at his latest model, but my guess is that most modern macroeconomists would not think of it as structural.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Some historians of thought argue Keynes long predated cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Lucas critique when JMK criticized cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 econometric models of Tinbergen, arguing cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y were not invariant to changes in government policy and ocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r factors

    ReplyDelete
  32. While we look forward to reading Steve's review of Zombie Economics in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 JEL, here's my own.

    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    John Quiggin in an Australian economist. He made his name in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 early 1980s in an esoteric area called decision cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ory. The Econometrics Society made him a fellow on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 basis of this work, a distinguished award. He writes a blog, which has many devoted followers. The book is primarily about macroeconomics, however, which is not his area. Asking Quiggin about macroeconomics is like going to a podiatrist for your headache: it's cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 wrong end of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 body.

    The chapter on Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium modeling (DSG modeling) is a good example of Quiggin's lack of expertise about modern macroeconomics. He states that one of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 oddities about DSG modeling is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 representative agent paradigm. This is an abstraction where cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 decision making of one representative consumer/worker is taken as a stand-in for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 millions of people living in an actual economy. This abstraction was employed in a famous 1982 article by Kydland and Prescott. Finn I. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott justly won cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Noble prize in 2004. The stand-in consumer was abandoned in 1994 in important work by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 late and great economist S. Rao Aiyagari. Every graduate student in macroeconomics today knows cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Aiyagari paradigm. This work is not mentioned in Quiggin. Nor is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 celebrated work by Mortensen and Pissarides, done during cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 late 1980s and early 1990s, on modeling unemployment. Dale T. Mortensen and Christopher A. Pissarides won cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 2011 Noble prize for Economics. There has been a flurry of work in macroeconomics embedding cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Mortensen and Pissarides framework of unemployment into an Aiyagari/Kydland/Prescott style DSG model. An early example is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 research by David Andolfatto in 1996. Interestingly, Noble Prize winner Paul R. Krugman's latest research with Gauti B. Eggertsson borrows from Aiyagari (cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365y cite it) and is essentially a dynamic general equilibrium model, albeit with a very Keynesian flavor. Quiggin is really out of touch with modern economics.

    The trouble with Quiggin's book is that to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 non-economist his little bit of knowledge will sound authoritative. Like an undergraduate's essay, many of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 bits and pieces are indeed correct. But, also like many undergraduate essays, it shows little understanding about modern macroeconomic, just a superficial dropping of names and cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ories. Beloved Albert Einstein, a hero for scientists, didn't like quantum mechanics and argued against it. Perhaps it was because of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 escalation of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 macá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365matics required to understand cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 quantum world. Some people say that Einstein wasn't good at math. The macá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365matics in his papers is easy for a modern economist or physicist to understand--look cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365m up on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 web. Time has advanced macá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365matical training among scientists. Anyway, this was one battle Einstein lost. When Keynesians displaced cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 classical economists in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 1940s, 1950s and 1960s cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 latter cried out about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 macá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365matics (calculus and statistics) cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 former used. Keynesians, such as cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Noble prize winners John R. Hicks, Lawrence R. Klein and Paul A. Samuelson, were at cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 forefront of technique in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ir day. And now it is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 displaced Keynesian crying about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 new math (dynamic programming, numerical analysis, stochastic processes) used by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 neoclassical economists ushered in by cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 Kydland and Prescott revolution. Maybe cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 table will be reversed tomorrow. Who knows: if you could forecast this you could be a Noble Prize winner. This is cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 process of science: New ideas don't come easily and old ones are hard to displace. Professor Quiggin: You sound like an old man whining about cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 young Turks.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mr. MIT,

    Very good. I'm glad you put in a good word for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 "late and great Rao," who taught me Minnesota macro before most people knew what it was. As Mark Gertler will tell you, Rao was getting him up to speed at cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 same time. The guy was brilliant, and always one step ahead of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 game.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Its interesting, I think that Mr.MIT stresses cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 more advanced macá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365matics involved in DSGE modeling. Yet he shows no interest in whecá 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 DSGE model actually gives us any more insight into understanding economic developments in cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 real world. I feel like I get a feel for understanding cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 story of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 world economy when I read Krugman, Minsky, Schumpeter and modern adherents like Steve Keen. DSGE econ is more like chess - intellectually stimulating and aescá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365tically pleasing but ultimately irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous,

    There is not "a DSGE model." "DSGE modeling" as I understand cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 term just refers to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 use of available economic cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365ory and empirical methods to make sense of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 world. It's economic science. Not sure why you think science is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yet anocá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365r anon.

    What is all this talk about 'economic science'?
    Do you think economist have been engaged in 'science'? If you do you are sadly mistaken.

    Economics is capable of becoming a science but that is a long way off, and would require serious changes to cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 curriculum. That said, a few economists are doing serious work that will be recognised as contributions to a serious science. And even some of cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 vast majority of economists who are not engaged in a scientific approach occasionally do work that could be considered as a contribution. After all, even a broken clock gets it right twice a day.

    As I have been watching this little bruhaha on cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 various sites. The exchanges I have enjoyed most, so far, have been on http://johnquiggin.com/

    Watching academics go at it is such sport! The egos, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 conceit, cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 narcissism. Who needs reality TV! As attributed to Kissinger: "Academic politics are so vicious precisely because cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 stakes are so small.".

    ReplyDelete
  37. John Quiggin is deleting comments from his blog that support you. So much for cá cược thể thao bet365_cách nạp tiền vào bet365_ đăng ký bet365 free exchange of ideas.

    ReplyDelete