I've been thinking about this lately. I know, if you read me, I've written a lot about economics and politics-and a lot about football too the last few days-I still can't get over it: LeSean McCoy for Kiko Alonso? It's not a great player in exchange for a great player but a great player for a player that they hope will be great-especially by they I mean Chip Kelly-but who hasn't proved it year. He had a nice rookie year, a couple of ACI tears. I mean his durablity is concern enough.
Arizona coach Bruce Arian gets it:
"On the trade, he added: "(It's) a great move for Buffalo not that Alonso is not a great player ... I think he is going to be coming off surgery. When you have LeSean's resume, it speaks for itself."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/bruce-arians-lesean-mccoy-kiki-alonso.html
So I love football, I love economics and yes, I really love politics. That puts me in a minority-most people say they hate politics. I remember once on one of those typically insufferable comment threads on Firedoglake they were all praising themselves for being too go to even want to go into politics. I disagree: if you hate politics good for you, but I don't think this makes you better than the men and women who make the sacrifice of public service. I don't care about the money for those who would snigger here that they do fine. Sure they do, but most people would rather not have to live the life of a politician even for the money.
Strange to say, there's a certain altruism in running for higher office. I don't agree that politicians are more selfish than the average Joe or Jane but to the contrary I thnk they are much more self-sacrificing.
So I love politics, and hope to someday be able to throw my own hat in the ring. In all modestly I don't think it's fair to deprive the world of what I have to offer it-I'm being ironic. Obviously most would read that as impudent and immodest but, hey, I said what I said.
Even more than politics, I love philosophy. Recently it occured to me that the real difference between a philosopher and the average person is that average people think things are much simpler and straightforward than they are. This was Socrates' point. It wasn't that he felt that what made him a philosopher and other men not was that he was smarter than them or knew more. No, it's that he was ignorant but knew this-as opposed to them. Eventually this hurt thier vanity so much that: they killed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-25/
I think that nonphilosophers get very frustrated when they see things they see as simple treated with too much skepticism.
As a philosopher, maybe this is why I have such divergent interests as shown by my various blog posts. A philosopher as opposed to the average well educated person-a philosopher is much more than simply well educated; you can be well educated and extremely unphilosophical in your approach to life and things; arguably there are some who suffer from too much education-is never a narrow skeptic or pedant. He has to be interested in Life in general-everthing is a source of wonder and fasicnation for him-many things that most folks take for granted.
Ok, now Scott Sumner has written yet another post knocking Keynesians as simpleminded sheept. Sumner seems to be trying-thanks no doubt in large part to Ken Duda, his benefactor's advice-which I appreciate.
I've never said Scott is a moron or even a wholly bad guy. Another thing that Socrates said is that 'Man always acts for the good.'
http://www.socraticmethod.net/socratic_essay_nature_of_human_evil.htm
My point here is simply that Sumner in his own mind is doing what he thinks is good for society and economics. Now that doesn't mean he isn't wrong. Flannery O'Connor has a great story about someone who thinks he's a very good man doing good, who does a lot of harm.
http://www.gradesaver.com/flannery-oconnors-stories/study-guide/summary-the-lame-shall-enter-first
This is why I disagree with people that say what really counts is good intentions. Not necessarily. It's possible to have good intentions and actually do a lot of harm.
Ok. Back to Sumner. He is rather proud of himself here going on about real economists and how darn subtle and brilliant they are. He actually sneers at the 'Great unwashed masses' and goes on to say 'There's weakness in numbers.'
He actually uses the wrong word. He doesn't really prove there's weakness in numbers just that he believes there's ignorance in numbers which is something different. Actually, what I think is that often the ignorant are able to lord it over those with more knowledge-precisely because there are so many more ignorant than knowledgeable.
I mean just listen to Rush Limbaugh or look at the election of all those Tea Party yahoos. As Michael Kinsley once inimitably put it: democracy can goof.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,968907,00.html
Sumner:
"Over at Econlog I have a new post pointing out that back in 2006 New Keynesians like Brad DeLong believed in monetary offset. I should clarify one point, however. I am basically talking about the New Keynesian elite, the people who follow the latest developments in macroeconomics."
Arizona coach Bruce Arian gets it:
"On the trade, he added: "(It's) a great move for Buffalo not that Alonso is not a great player ... I think he is going to be coming off surgery. When you have LeSean's resume, it speaks for itself."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/bruce-arians-lesean-mccoy-kiki-alonso.html
So I love football, I love economics and yes, I really love politics. That puts me in a minority-most people say they hate politics. I remember once on one of those typically insufferable comment threads on Firedoglake they were all praising themselves for being too go to even want to go into politics. I disagree: if you hate politics good for you, but I don't think this makes you better than the men and women who make the sacrifice of public service. I don't care about the money for those who would snigger here that they do fine. Sure they do, but most people would rather not have to live the life of a politician even for the money.
Strange to say, there's a certain altruism in running for higher office. I don't agree that politicians are more selfish than the average Joe or Jane but to the contrary I thnk they are much more self-sacrificing.
So I love politics, and hope to someday be able to throw my own hat in the ring. In all modestly I don't think it's fair to deprive the world of what I have to offer it-I'm being ironic. Obviously most would read that as impudent and immodest but, hey, I said what I said.
Even more than politics, I love philosophy. Recently it occured to me that the real difference between a philosopher and the average person is that average people think things are much simpler and straightforward than they are. This was Socrates' point. It wasn't that he felt that what made him a philosopher and other men not was that he was smarter than them or knew more. No, it's that he was ignorant but knew this-as opposed to them. Eventually this hurt thier vanity so much that: they killed him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-25/
I think that nonphilosophers get very frustrated when they see things they see as simple treated with too much skepticism.
As a philosopher, maybe this is why I have such divergent interests as shown by my various blog posts. A philosopher as opposed to the average well educated person-a philosopher is much more than simply well educated; you can be well educated and extremely unphilosophical in your approach to life and things; arguably there are some who suffer from too much education-is never a narrow skeptic or pedant. He has to be interested in Life in general-everthing is a source of wonder and fasicnation for him-many things that most folks take for granted.
Ok, now Scott Sumner has written yet another post knocking Keynesians as simpleminded sheept. Sumner seems to be trying-thanks no doubt in large part to Ken Duda, his benefactor's advice-which I appreciate.
I've never said Scott is a moron or even a wholly bad guy. Another thing that Socrates said is that 'Man always acts for the good.'
http://www.socraticmethod.net/socratic_essay_nature_of_human_evil.htm
My point here is simply that Sumner in his own mind is doing what he thinks is good for society and economics. Now that doesn't mean he isn't wrong. Flannery O'Connor has a great story about someone who thinks he's a very good man doing good, who does a lot of harm.
http://www.gradesaver.com/flannery-oconnors-stories/study-guide/summary-the-lame-shall-enter-first
This is why I disagree with people that say what really counts is good intentions. Not necessarily. It's possible to have good intentions and actually do a lot of harm.
Ok. Back to Sumner. He is rather proud of himself here going on about real economists and how darn subtle and brilliant they are. He actually sneers at the 'Great unwashed masses' and goes on to say 'There's weakness in numbers.'
He actually uses the wrong word. He doesn't really prove there's weakness in numbers just that he believes there's ignorance in numbers which is something different. Actually, what I think is that often the ignorant are able to lord it over those with more knowledge-precisely because there are so many more ignorant than knowledgeable.
I mean just listen to Rush Limbaugh or look at the election of all those Tea Party yahoos. As Michael Kinsley once inimitably put it: democracy can goof.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,968907,00.html
Sumner:
"Over at Econlog I have a new post pointing out that back in 2006 New Keynesians like Brad DeLong believed in monetary offset. I should clarify one point, however. I am basically talking about the New Keynesian elite, the people who follow the latest developments in macroeconomics."
"A paper by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern (2006) points to a 2003 survey done by the AEA that showed that most economists favored using fiscal stimulus for purposes of fine-tuning the economy. Read that again, I didn’t say “most Keynesians,” I said most economists. Fiscal skeptics like Krugman and DeLong were right-of-center economists back in those days."
"The problem here is that most economists get their ideas on macroeconomics from studying the Keynesian cross model in EC101, and also using common sense (obviously if G goes up, then C+I+G must go up.) But by 2006 the Keynesian cross model was horribly outdated, and common sense is almost useless in economics. Indeed you could argue that it is a lack of common sense that separates the elite economists like Krugman from their mediocre colleagues."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28784
He really outdoes himself here trying to claim some place of honor for economics among the sciences:
"Unfortunately, most economists are far behind the times in macro theory. By joining up with most economists, Krugman has allied himself with the least informed segment of the profession. It would be like suddenly becoming a protectionist, and citing the fact that 90% of Americans think Chinese imports cause unemployment. Come to think of it, isn’t Krugman also making that argument?"
"Economics is the queen of the counterintuitive sciences. And no parts of economics are more counterintuitive than stabilization policy and trade. Krugman was wrong in thinking the majority agreed with him in 1997. But Krugman’s right that he’s now in with the overwhelming majority of economists. I’m in the tiny, tiny minority of economists who think the economy has needed demand stimulus but that fiscal stimulus is ineffective. But this is one case where there is weakness in numbers. I’m perfectly happy being in a tiny minority, if it’s the same minority that Krugman and DeLong and the other elite NKs belonged to a decade ago."
So opposing fiscal stimulus makes you sophisticated? Then the most sophisticated people in the country is the Tea Party. Yet they have numbers on their side-there are lots of rubes who believe this. In fact, I've spoken wiht some friends who don't know anything about economics-who can't spell Ricardian Equivalance-who will lecture me that fiscal spending means that taxes have to go up.
Again, for folks like this the matter is simple-fiscal stimulus doesn't work. So maybe Sumner has more numbers on his side than he realizes.
Sumner of course, whatever kind of economist he is, is clearly no philosopher: he too thinks things are much simpler than they are. Economists are not philsophers. As econoimsts go, Sumner can get pretty dogmatic.
Meanwhile, some of the best of the mainstream economists-like Tony Yates-don't think he's nearly 'counter-intuitive' enough in his approach.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/03/scott-sumner-tony-yates-and-warren.html
P.S. Obviously you can get too carried away with this whole premise about economics and counterintuitiveness. I can think of any number ideas that are counterintuitive and not true in the least.
No comments:
Post a Comment