In discussing Sumner with someone like SW what's clear is he doesn't take him very seriously. I quoted Sumner's triumphalist pledge to conquer the intellectual world 'one funeral at a time'-but he's not very impressed. Here's Sumner:
"Does that mean progress is not possible? No, at the end of January I plan to do a long post carefully explaining exactly why the market monetarist framework has been far more successful in explaining the past 5 years than any of the competing frameworks. I’ll explain what went wrong with our competitors, and why. I hope that when bright young students at schools like Michigan and Princeton see that we are more successful, market monetarism will gain new adherents. That’s how progress is made. Successful schools of thought get everyone to talk their language."
"The older people stuck in their ways? One funeral at a time . . ."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/12/stephen-williamson-vs-nick-row-in-epic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
"But, suppose that we can divide the world into schools of thought. In order for a school of thought in economics to be successful, the members of the school have to work on multiple levels to convince everyone. You have to play the academic game and be rigorous about the ideas; you have to play the policy game and convince policy makers; maybe you want to convince lay people. Perhaps Sumner has had some success on the latter dimension through his blog, but convincing lay people is second order. You can't get traction without doing the serious science and convincing the policymakers."
"Does that mean progress is not possible? No, at the end of January I plan to do a long post carefully explaining exactly why the market monetarist framework has been far more successful in explaining the past 5 years than any of the competing frameworks. I’ll explain what went wrong with our competitors, and why. I hope that when bright young students at schools like Michigan and Princeton see that we are more successful, market monetarism will gain new adherents. That’s how progress is made. Successful schools of thought get everyone to talk their language."
"The older people stuck in their ways? One funeral at a time . . ."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/12/stephen-williamson-vs-nick-row-in-epic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
Here is what SW has to say about that:
"Claiming that you're a school of thought is a little dangerous. For example, at least one of my good friends who works in monetary economics thinks it was a bad idea to introduce the "New Monetarist" label. Someone else I know (an auction theorist) thought it was dumb to call anything "new" as it quickly becomes old. The whole school-of-thought idea can be a little weird in any scientific field where ideas are constantly evolving. That said, it helps to give yourself a name so that people sit up and take notice."
"But, suppose that we can divide the world into schools of thought. In order for a school of thought in economics to be successful, the members of the school have to work on multiple levels to convince everyone. You have to play the academic game and be rigorous about the ideas; you have to play the policy game and convince policy makers; maybe you want to convince lay people. Perhaps Sumner has had some success on the latter dimension through his blog, but convincing lay people is second order. You can't get traction without doing the serious science and convincing the policymakers."
I think SW is a little too sanguine here. He may well be right that academic economists don't take Sumner seriously-I'm pretty sure he's right. First of all, he would know better than I would. Secondly, it's obvious Sumner lacks the skills to impress them. However, I'm not so convinced that you always have to have 'serous science' to convince policymakers. I think the three groups he mentions-are distinct. You have the lay public and you have the academics. However, policymakers don't form their opinions and make their decisions solely from what academics say. Politicians have to also take heed of public opinion and rightly so if this is a democracy. That's one reason that Sumner has such contempt for fiscal policy-it's executed by elected officials who have to pay some due deference to public opinion.
So while SW is right, I'm guessing. about Sumner getting little traction with 'serious academics'-though this is something of a subjective designation, Christina Romer has publicly voiced support for some kind of NGDP targeting scheme, though I'm guessing SW would claim for whatever reason that she's not a serious academic. He is right that Sumner has gotten a good amount of traction with the lay public. However, I think Sumner has gotten further with policymakers than he may be aware of.
Sumner is clearly making some inroads with some of the conservative intelligentsia-the National Review, Cato, Larry Kudlow, et. al. If there is some trickle to actual Republican politicians then he's got the ear of policymakers.
Meanwhile economists like SW, Krugman or Delong don't take Sumner seriously enough to call him on things like this:
So more people believe things like unemployment benefits are a problem during a recession-he never even touches on the fact that UI has a major demand benefit-I know the Fed will just 'offset it' right?
No comments:
Post a Comment