Mark Sadowski's Holy War Against Slander of MM

       I don't agree with Mark. He believes there is so much overwhelming evidence that Market Monetarism is true that to question it at any point is basically slander. I think he understates how committed he is to the MM Cause. He's a Holy Warrior with a real martyr complex that there is anyone anywhere that doesn't buy the MM story whole cloth. 

       Still, I think that Cullen Roche was wrong-or at least he did something I wouldn't when he banned him from his blog. I give Sumner credit for never even suggesting he'd ban me with all the times we've butted heads on his blog. 

        http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/11/cullen-roche-takes-on-mark-sadowski.html

        Nevertheless I do think I get what frustrated Cullen. Basically Mark thinks he has the truth and is just here to correct errors. Tom Brown asked him the right question here I think-the directed it at me as well. 

        "Mark, do you see yourself as primarily a committed defender of Market Monetarism, or primarily as someone interested in seeing what the evidence supports? How confident are you that the Market Monetarists have it right, and what kind of evidence would it take to convince you otherwise?

       "Mike, I'll ask you the same question: what kind of evidence would it take for you to jump on the Market Monetarist bandwagon?"

     I don't think that the position of Mark and I are symmetrical by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not trying to defend any particular school of thought from any and all criticism as Mark is with Market Monetarism. I'm a 'Keynesain' but there are so many different definitions of that out there.

      http://uneasymoney.com/2014/02/13/what-does-keynesian-mean/#comments

     I certainly don't do for MMT what Mark does for MM, for instance. Anyway, here is Mark's answer to Tom. I do have to thank both of these gentlemen at least for giving me so many comments to read and respond to. 

    "I'm an empiricist by inclination and training. That's one reason why I don't find Sargent's theoretical ditherings persuasive. I'm interested in what the evidence shows, and I've already found loads of empirical evidence that supports MM positions. "

     Ok, right away I've got some reservations about what he's saying. This lauding of empiricism makes me skeptical. Economic questions-or even in the 'harder' sciences-are not decided by 'looking at the evidence' alone. This very point was discussed in some detail in yet another David Glasner post just recently. 

     http://uneasymoney.com/2014/01/26/two-cheers-well-maybe-only-one-and-a-half-for-falsificationism/

     Evidence alone isn't enough. I mean it's part of the story but theory is important as well even if Mark dismisses it as mere 'ditherings.' 

    Sure we look at evidence. However, then what? This evidence has to be interpreted. Mark talks as if he thinks that there is just one incontestable conclusion you get in looking at evidence. With most economic events today you get Monetarist, Keynesian, and RBC-or Austrian interpretations. Monetarists think it's just about money, Keynesians think that fiscal policy also matters-they don't oppose monetary policy as Monetarists oppose fiscal policy-and then RBCers think the economy just self corrects over time. Any evidence you give us will have those who want to interpret along these three different lines-so there will be at least three different interpretations. 

    Mark comes into this discussion with a deep sense of wounded righteousness. It's tough to be such a martyr for the MM truth. 

    "Mostly I find that people who attack monetarism routinely set themselves up for rebuttal by saying something that obviously false. So it's not that I'm such a committed defender, it's that they're obviously gluttons for punishment."

    He's not a committed defender just that all criticisms of it are wrong and he has to correct all these wrong criticisms of it. There just happen to be no right criticisms of it anywhere. Looking at empirical evidence I'm not very impressed with the MM story. We have basically followed the MM prescription the last 4 years and yet the recovery has been way too slow and shallow. Yet Sumner has been declaring a huge victory-his gloating has really makes him look silly and a joke in the econ field though this he misses. Yet Mark accused me of being a liar-not just wrong but a liar. See the moral fervor?

   "You know as well as I do that Scott Sumner has been deeply disappointed in the Fed's conduct of monetary policy since at least 2008. I would say this is a misrepresentation of Scott's positions, but since I know you know better, I'll call it what it is, which is a lie."

    I know he's been pounding the table for NGDPLT for 5 years, yes. However, he's also declaring victory. What's clear is you can't have it both ways. Either the recovery has been suboptimal or it hasn't. If Sumner is disappointed then it means it's suboptimal. However, if it's been suboptimal why is he attacking those who criticize fiscal austerity?  If it's suboptimal this means that QE by itself at least hasn't been enough, ergo less fiscal contraction over the last 4 years would have given us a better recovery than we've in fact had. How do  you deny this?

   This is why I remain so skeptical of MM. If he simply talked about NGDPLT it would be an interesting idea-though not proven as how can an untried idea be wholly proven? That he stumps so much for fiscal austerity tells me he's not just worried about NGDPLT, he is very invested in keeping the world safe for fiscal austerity. 

    I find that Mark accuses me of lying but he never is able to answer direct questions he doesn't want to answer. Would we have had a worse recovery last year without the sequester? Is that his position? If not then why is Sumner throwing ticker tape parades for himself?

    Mark expelled a lot of time giving us all this allegedly irrefutable evidence that MM is right. He mentions Japan in 2001-06 as showing that QE works. I don't get why if it worked so well after 5 years it was still kind of a very slow moving economy. Much of what he looked at was the 30s. He wants to credit the recoveries of the 30s for monetary policy. My question is is the GD recovery much to brag about? I mean this recovery took 13 years in the U.S. He claims that fiscal policy had little to do with it. Then how do we know these recoveries wouldn't have been faster had we done more with fiscal policy?   That's a question Mark you might try answering directly if Cullen is wrong and your are interested in any honest intellectual engagement and not just Sumner's Chief Minister of Information. 

     He cites a Cristina Romer paper where she-and her co-authors-gave the lion's share of credit to the pre-1942 recovery to monetary policy. Again, we might wonder if it wouldn't had been faster had we not had more FS. In reality FDR was no Keynesian and unfortunately really honestly believed in balancing the budget in the middle of our worst depression in history. 

    Maybe Romer wonders this too which is why she has actually been a chief proponent for FS during this Lesser Depression. If she wrote the paper and yet she doesn't take from her own paper that we shouldn't do FS, Mark, why do you think it should lead us to this conclusion?

    What you might really try to answer Mark is why do fiscal austerity in the middle of a deep depression or recession? Why do you and Sumner not just recommend your NGDPLT target and just keep your mouth shut about fiscal austerity? Why do you insist on defending austerity? Tom you asked what could make me jump on the MM bandwagon, well the answer is I don't jump on bandwagons-at least those I'm not driving. However, what might me a little less skeptical of MM is a real answer from Mark on this question-one that preferably doesn't try to insult me personally as that's a diversionary tactic. 

   I'm always willing to be persuaded by a persuasive argument,  however, Sumner-Sadowski haven't given me that, yet. Maybe Mark will surprise me this time though I'm skeptical. 
    
   P.S. As for Mark attacking me for doing telemarketing for a living, maybe if we had a better economy I and many others would have a better job. I mean have a degree in accounting-and am like one class from my Masters in finance so it's not education clearly I need. Unfortunately our Market Monetarist Congress and Fed don't want to give us a better economy they want to make sure that undeserving people don't get something for nothing. 

   If anything I see the minor nuisance to telemarketers kind of just desserts for people who take a Republican attitude to those struggling. If we didn't have Republican policies these people wouldn't have to bother you at home and at work. Oh, well. As most telemarketers are poor and their victims are rich, I see it as a victim-less crime. Almost a kind of Robin Hood operation. 

   Mark's insensitivity here, his brutal attempt to embarrass or shame me, shows that I have him and his Master, Mr. Sumner, pegged,