Ok, this is another one of these moments for me. You know like when I Nick Rowe first commented on me or Brad Delong linked to me or later when Delong and I actually spoke on email-I'm actually revealing this for the first time-though not the contents just yet.
I've written up about the debate Mark and Marko recently had here over at Diary.
However, what's interesting is that Mark evidently did find some of what Marko said compelling or at least noteworthy and he told Sumner about this. OF course, most gratifying for me is that he linked to my blog. Not that plenty of the Money Illusion readers don't already read me. Still, it was gratifying.
"A commenter named Marko makes an interesting claim at Mike Sax’s blog"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=26274&cpage=5#comment-321810
It seems to me that this suggests that Mark might really wrestle with ideas sometimes rather than just providing ideological support for MM which is how it often seems to me and others. Of course, Sumner professed that Marko had said nothing interesting.
"Mark, Not sure what Marko is talking about. Both myself and other MMs have always agreed that NGDP shocks cause huge problems for balance sheets."
This makes it sound like-what else?-MMers have all the answers and once in awhile someone notices some epiphenomenon that barely gets at the surface of all the brilliant things they already know. Certainly Marko is saying more than just that. There's a disagreement with cause and effect. Sumner is basically just arguing that when NGDP falls among other things. there are balance sheet problems. Marko's argument is that the balance sheet problem is the cause not the effect of continually low AD.
Marko then says this:
"It's funny. MMs always have nice things to say about Jan Hatzius at Goldman , who uses credit impulse metrics in his analysis , as do the big finance firms around the globe. Biggs , Mayer , and Pick are mainly finance guys , so I'm not sure they care that much acquiring the critical acclaim of the Econ Country Club."
"More relevant for discussions here , do you notice that the MMs frequently assert that they've performed this or that statistical test , proving this or that MM claim , without considering that people might be looking for something more substantial defore being convinced ? People who haven't been published - at all , anywhere - can claim , shamelessly , that Scott Sumner Grainger-causes output , wealth , clear skin , moms , and apple pie , and we're just supposed to accept it , uncritically ? By comparison to this tripe , Biggs' work looks like Einstein's."
I've written up about the debate Mark and Marko recently had here over at Diary.
However, what's interesting is that Mark evidently did find some of what Marko said compelling or at least noteworthy and he told Sumner about this. OF course, most gratifying for me is that he linked to my blog. Not that plenty of the Money Illusion readers don't already read me. Still, it was gratifying.
"A commenter named Marko makes an interesting claim at Mike Sax’s blog"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=26274&cpage=5#comment-321810
It seems to me that this suggests that Mark might really wrestle with ideas sometimes rather than just providing ideological support for MM which is how it often seems to me and others. Of course, Sumner professed that Marko had said nothing interesting.
"Mark, Not sure what Marko is talking about. Both myself and other MMs have always agreed that NGDP shocks cause huge problems for balance sheets."
This makes it sound like-what else?-MMers have all the answers and once in awhile someone notices some epiphenomenon that barely gets at the surface of all the brilliant things they already know. Certainly Marko is saying more than just that. There's a disagreement with cause and effect. Sumner is basically just arguing that when NGDP falls among other things. there are balance sheet problems. Marko's argument is that the balance sheet problem is the cause not the effect of continually low AD.
Marko then says this:
"It's funny. MMs always have nice things to say about Jan Hatzius at Goldman , who uses credit impulse metrics in his analysis , as do the big finance firms around the globe. Biggs , Mayer , and Pick are mainly finance guys , so I'm not sure they care that much acquiring the critical acclaim of the Econ Country Club."
"More relevant for discussions here , do you notice that the MMs frequently assert that they've performed this or that statistical test , proving this or that MM claim , without considering that people might be looking for something more substantial defore being convinced ? People who haven't been published - at all , anywhere - can claim , shamelessly , that Scott Sumner Grainger-causes output , wealth , clear skin , moms , and apple pie , and we're just supposed to accept it , uncritically ? By comparison to this tripe , Biggs' work looks like Einstein's."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-merits-koo-its-mark-sadowski-vs-marko.html?showComment=1394161573590#c6312544126122013816
I don't have much to say to this, especially this last paragraph but Amen. I kind of see Sumner as a double edged sword. In a way he has educated the public. I mean I think we all know so much more about monetary policy and ideas than we did 5 years ago and a lot of this is due to him-I would include myself here. However, just the same I always have the feeling that he's kind of taking advantage of the public-in the sense that he knows they lack the background to always be able to navigate and shift through these ideas properly-and are so, easy to beguile. I often feel like we need an intellectual referee to tell us when Sumner or someone else has gone off the deep end. In this case at least I think that Marko has done this. Thank you sir, I salute you.
I have no doubt that Steve Keen is right here in another link Mark left at Sumner-I think it's true that Sumner was the first one to push the idea that money was tight in 2008.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/steve-keen-godzilla-banks-good.html
"Sumner is basically just arguing that when NGDP falls among other things. there are balance sheet problems. Marko's argument is that the balance sheet problem is the cause not the effect of continually low AD."
ReplyDeleteSumner is just batty here. The only reason we know what NGDP is because of balance sheets. Balance sheets are accounting records and without them you couldnt determine NGDP. NGDP isnt this "thing" which goes around affecting economies and crashing balance sheets. NGDP is the accounting record of new production sold, not just produced. Production without sale is not good for a capitalist business. You cant do that for long. So I agree more with Marko here, but I wouldnt even say it that way. Balance sheets dont cause anything, they are records of transactions made and assets and liabilities created.
The more Sumner talks on these things the more ignorant he shows himself to be.