Why Sumner Claims I'm Ignorant of Economics

     Don't get me wrong I don't let it worry me, I just consider the source. Greg, had a nice, elegant reply for Sumner's snark:

    "Sumner is a first class dick! I guess he fancies himself as some sort of "Internet Monetary Discussion Nazi". If you want to participate in monetary discussions you have to be cleared by Mr Sumner. To qualify you must"

1) Know that the Fed has super duper expectation setting powers (if they just use them properly!)
2) Expectations are the driver of everything, as long as its the expectations of VSPs
3) Chuck Norris would be the ideal Fed chair
4) Banks are unimportant
5) Things priced in pennies are 100x higher than things priced in dollars

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/10/scott-sumner-on-gops-cunning-plan.html?showComment=1381447682310#c9069566013547798413

   Greg has a point. I mean, supposing I was as ignorant as Sumner wants to claim. Well at the least I'm clearly eager to learn. Isn't Sumner allegedly an educator? Why would an alleged educator from an elite academic background deliberately try to discourage someone with an interest in the field? I gave it back to Sumner but predictably he had nothing to say when I pointed out that a number of economists even some of his MM friends read my blog-Marcus Nunes and Nick Rowe have both read it regularly; though Marcus got ticked off with some of my posts; hopefully he still reads. I think Nick still does-for the most part he seems not to take it personally. This is probably because Nick has the spirit of a real educator in him. 

    Still, more generally what does Sumner actually mean by saying that I-and others he doesn't care for-know nothing about economics? First of all, it goes without saying that by economics he means neoclassical economics, the only kind of econ that exists. 

    I'm reminded of what a an economist who believes in DSGE said in testimony before Congress-back in 2009 the Dems actually demanded that economists explain themselves about DSGE. 

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg57604/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg57604.pdf

    He said that if you make a claim about economics it should be able to be represented in a good DSGE model. If you can't, then you're talking gibberish. This more or less in a nutshell, crystallizes the history of Neoclassical econ which has always had imposing models that the layperson is likely to be dumbfounded by.  Sumner claims to be a follower of Richard Rorty. 

    A Rortian analysis would point out that while economics may be a science-of course I said 'may be' as that's been up for considerable debate!-it's also forms its very own society. As a society, it's wired like any other society; what a society has are certain mores, conventions, and rules failure of which identifies you as not party of the society in question. 

   In calling economics a society, I'm not actually trying to denigrate it, with a dig about whether or not it's a 'real science'-I think it may well be though a social science-we have the old saw that it's Original Sin is physics' envy. The point of Rorty is that all science disciplines are also societies. Is there something special about scientific discourse? This is a very loaded question that has led to a great deal of dissension. My instinct is that there is something different. 

   However, it still is also a society. You have to understand the sciences as also obeying their own social rules. So what makes you an 'economist' for a Sumner is that you hold certain propositions as true. Now, of course, right away I can point out that he only has Neoclassical economics in mind. However, that's one of the propositions you must believe to be part of this society: you must never speak of 'Neoclassical economics' as as far as you're concerned anyone who isn't a Neoclassical economist is not an economist at all. 

  I'm presently reading Stiglitz's the The Price of Inequality. It's a very important and thought provoking book. He-who is himself a New Keynesian Neoclassical economist-did touch on the fact that economists' opinions on many issues are so very different than the average person's. He used the example of someone raising the price of snow shovels during a storm: 82% of the general population but only 24% of economists think that's unfair. 

   http://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381449992&sr=1-1&keywords=joseph+stiglitz+the+price+of+inequality

   pg. 161

  I've read enough NC econ by now to get why they don't think it's unfair: because in a storm it's simply Supply and Demand pushing prices up. The demand goes way up so that the supply relatively has come down. To not allow prices to be raised would lead quickly to a shortage-as the level of supply is no longer sufficient for the level of demand. 

  I recall during Hurricane Sandy that with cars on Long Island waiting for miles up to a gas station a couple of places were charging almost a $1 more-as there were so few stations open I guess they figured people had no choice. 

  On the other hand there were a number of places that were open yet kept prices down. In any case what those who raised it did may have broken gouging laws. 

  So when Sumner says I'm ignorant of economics what he means is I don't belong in his society of (Neoclassical) economists.