I'm all for a healthy ego, but Farmer is really out on a limb here by claiming that Krugman's recent questioning of his own intellectual heritage in the Neoclassical synthesis was somehow brought on by Farmer himself and that Krugman by not telling the world that Farmer led him to this revelation has taken a 'bridge to far.'
In his open letter to Krugman it seems that Farmer
1. Admires Krugman
2. Wants him to just admit that he owes almost everything to Farmer
"I enjoy reading your column in the New York Times, although I do feel that you might be a little more balanced from time to time. Politeness and respect for those who disagree with our positions are underrated virtues."
"Until now I have been content to keep my intellectual disagreements with you private. We have much in common. However, your most recent attempt to distance yourself from your own heritage, the neoclassical synthesis, without reference to my recent NBER paper, here, is a step too far."
http://www.rogerfarmer.com/NewWeb/WebPages/letter%20to%20paul.htm
Farmer basically contradicts himself claiming both that he and Krugman have serious differences and then accuses him of getting all of his ideas from Farmer without attribution. These are two quite different claims.
Krugman answers that it's not that he's cribbed his work from Farmer but that he hasn't read him at all.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/communicating-economics/?_r=0
Lars Christensen in a basically uncharitable piece on Krugman accuses him of giving us 'reality tv economics.' One thing he says that is true, however, is that for people who want more attention a good way to get it is to knock Krugman. It seems that this is what Farmer has done.
"What I, however, think is more critical about this is the emergence of a Krugman-industry. Hence, it is unquestionable that Krugman’s New York Times blog is the most popular economics blog in the world (mainly because it is about American political tribalism rather than economics). No economist in the world has more followers on Twitter (he is, however, nobody compared to Kim Kardashian who has 18 million followers on Twitter). The popularity of Krugman means that you can get some of that popularity – in the blogosphere measured by hits on your blog – if Krugman says you are a great guy and or that you are an idiot. In fact there is a large industry providing services to Krugman haters."
Since Farmer's accusing Krugman of using his ideas without attribution-because no one could ever possibly think of questioning the Neoclassical Synthesis unless they're read Farmer extensively first-maybe he ought to give credit to Scott Sumner who certainly did the 'Open Letter to Paul Krugman' bit long before Farmer ever thought of it.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=349
I think you have to give credit where credit is do and say that Sumner's 'Dear Krugman' letter was a lot more reality-based than Farmer's even if you didn't buy Sumner's premise.
I have some familiarity with Farmer-I remember reading about him on Noah Smith's blog regarding the notion of multiple equilibria-this position is to be differentiated from either no equilibrium or even disequilibrium. I found it interesting-though I certainly hadn't decided whether he was right or not. Still, I did call him 'definitely worth reading.' I think my interest was about finding an alternative to perfect equilibrium.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/04/roger-farmer-definitely-worth-reading.html
I"'ve seen his name resurface lately. Actually Morgan Warstler was raving about him the other day to Sumner who took an attitude very similar to Krugman's-'I just didn't much care for the trailer so why watch the movie/' Warstler. however seems to believe:
"I think this stuff would give PK fits:
Of course, that's the kind of payoff Morgan is always looking for-somehow giving Krugman fits. Again, Farmer doesn't so much show Krugman wrong as claim he's copied him. However, his case at least in this Open Letter is not very plausible-Krugman says there might be limits to the Neoclassical Synthesis and there's just no way in the world he could have come to that conclusion if he hadn't read Farmer's paper first.
Of course, Stephen Williamson had to get into the act here. He writes about Krugman so much mostly because he is obsessed with him.
http://newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2013/08/farmer-on-krugman.html
Farmer might want to say thank you to Krugman at this point. For even mentioning Farmer and linking to his site is a big shot in the arm, it greatly raises his profile.
Overall I guess this is what has happened. Krugman-being a nice guy-has given him a link which will exponentially raise his profile. Farmer's work is interesting but it hasn't influenced Krugman and claiming so was just about raising his profile.
In his open letter to Krugman it seems that Farmer
1. Admires Krugman
2. Wants him to just admit that he owes almost everything to Farmer
"I enjoy reading your column in the New York Times, although I do feel that you might be a little more balanced from time to time. Politeness and respect for those who disagree with our positions are underrated virtues."
"Until now I have been content to keep my intellectual disagreements with you private. We have much in common. However, your most recent attempt to distance yourself from your own heritage, the neoclassical synthesis, without reference to my recent NBER paper, here, is a step too far."
http://www.rogerfarmer.com/NewWeb/WebPages/letter%20to%20paul.htm
Farmer basically contradicts himself claiming both that he and Krugman have serious differences and then accuses him of getting all of his ideas from Farmer without attribution. These are two quite different claims.
Krugman answers that it's not that he's cribbed his work from Farmer but that he hasn't read him at all.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/communicating-economics/?_r=0
Lars Christensen in a basically uncharitable piece on Krugman accuses him of giving us 'reality tv economics.' One thing he says that is true, however, is that for people who want more attention a good way to get it is to knock Krugman. It seems that this is what Farmer has done.
"What I, however, think is more critical about this is the emergence of a Krugman-industry. Hence, it is unquestionable that Krugman’s New York Times blog is the most popular economics blog in the world (mainly because it is about American political tribalism rather than economics). No economist in the world has more followers on Twitter (he is, however, nobody compared to Kim Kardashian who has 18 million followers on Twitter). The popularity of Krugman means that you can get some of that popularity – in the blogosphere measured by hits on your blog – if Krugman says you are a great guy and or that you are an idiot. In fact there is a large industry providing services to Krugman haters."
"This means that if you want to greatly increase the traffic on your blog you try to be mentioned by Krugman on his blog (and no that is not what I am trying to do here…). This is what makes Krugman interesting to his fellow bloggers – whether Keynesian, socialist, Marxist, Monetarist, Conservative or Austrian – and I guess this is the reason why so many bloggers like to write about Krugman. For some it has become their business model to cheerlead for Krugman and for others the business model is to badmouth him. No matter what they are generally not contributing to economic discourse, but are rather becoming part of the ever increasing industry of ‘reality TV economics’."
Since Farmer's accusing Krugman of using his ideas without attribution-because no one could ever possibly think of questioning the Neoclassical Synthesis unless they're read Farmer extensively first-maybe he ought to give credit to Scott Sumner who certainly did the 'Open Letter to Paul Krugman' bit long before Farmer ever thought of it.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=349
I think you have to give credit where credit is do and say that Sumner's 'Dear Krugman' letter was a lot more reality-based than Farmer's even if you didn't buy Sumner's premise.
I have some familiarity with Farmer-I remember reading about him on Noah Smith's blog regarding the notion of multiple equilibria-this position is to be differentiated from either no equilibrium or even disequilibrium. I found it interesting-though I certainly hadn't decided whether he was right or not. Still, I did call him 'definitely worth reading.' I think my interest was about finding an alternative to perfect equilibrium.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/04/roger-farmer-definitely-worth-reading.html
I"'ve seen his name resurface lately. Actually Morgan Warstler was raving about him the other day to Sumner who took an attitude very similar to Krugman's-'I just didn't much care for the trailer so why watch the movie/' Warstler. however seems to believe:
"I think this stuff would give PK fits:
"In the winter of 2009, as the world economy spirals into a deep recession, Keynesian economics has once more become fashionable. Some, but not all of this resurgence in Keynesian ideas is positive. The positive part of the Keynesian revival is the recognition that sometimes markets fail and that, when this occurs, there is a potential for government policy to improve human welfare. The negative part of the revival is the rush for policy economists throughout the world to dust off their copy of Samuelson’s introductory textbook1 and blindly apply fiscal policies that do not have a distinguished history of success. As economists, we need to get the economics right before we rush in as saviors."
"The General Theory had two important messages for economists. First, the labor market is different from most other markets and, as a consequence, there may be may different labor market equilibria and many different equilibrium unemployment rates. Second, the unemployment rate we end up with is selected by the confidence of market participants. Keynes did not try to reconcile these ideas with Walrasian economics and the attempt to do so by post-war economists was, in my view, a failure. It led to the bastard Keynesianism of the neoclassical synthesis which castrated the main message of the General Theory: Persistent high unemployment is an equilibrium phenomenon. This paper makes this idea precise, in a way that the General Theory did not, by explaining the market failure that leads to multiple steady state equilibria."
Of course, that's the kind of payoff Morgan is always looking for-somehow giving Krugman fits. Again, Farmer doesn't so much show Krugman wrong as claim he's copied him. However, his case at least in this Open Letter is not very plausible-Krugman says there might be limits to the Neoclassical Synthesis and there's just no way in the world he could have come to that conclusion if he hadn't read Farmer's paper first.
Of course, Stephen Williamson had to get into the act here. He writes about Krugman so much mostly because he is obsessed with him.
http://newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2013/08/farmer-on-krugman.html
Farmer might want to say thank you to Krugman at this point. For even mentioning Farmer and linking to his site is a big shot in the arm, it greatly raises his profile.
Overall I guess this is what has happened. Krugman-being a nice guy-has given him a link which will exponentially raise his profile. Farmer's work is interesting but it hasn't influenced Krugman and claiming so was just about raising his profile.
No comments:
Post a Comment