The fact that Sumner has now written not one but two posts defending it might suggest that the answer is yes.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30042
While this post seems to be about defending the Austrian school-which is strange as who cares about the Austrian school?-it becomes clear in reading that it's ratex Scott means to defend-which knowing him makes a lot more sense.
"Noah Smith has a new post discussing the current fad of looking for alternatives to the rational expectations model. The motivation seems to be that we need to explain the collapse of bubble expectations and the rise in the propensity to save (although not actual saving?) during the 2008 recession. I understand why people want to do this, but it would be a very big mistake."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29991
Actually I have discussed the rise of the Neo-Fisherians recently, but you could argue that the most interesting development of this is that in Mike Woodford's response to the rise of NF he has opened up the prospect of cutting rolling back ratex.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-is-fed-so-antsy-to-raise-rates.html
So while I think that NF is in a sense brillaint trolling on the part of the freshwater school-John Cochrane, Stephen Williamson, et, al-I bet none of them anticipated that their clever ploy of going from inlationphobes who demanded a rate hike to demadning a rate hike to raise inflation would actaully lead to the saltwaters coming back and saying You know there must be something wrong with ratex if it gives us a result like Neo-Fisherianism.
I like what this commentator said in Sumner's new post. Here is Jhow:
"Why does Noah Smith have so much attention from economists on blogosphere? Does he have a great contribution to economic science?"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30042
That kind of sniffing snark almost always means you're dealing with a freshwater economist. I'm guessing that for a Jhow-much like a Stephen Williamson-a 'contribution to economic science'-means getting something published in an economic journal. But as is well known, the economic journal are all dominated by FWs.
So pointing out that nothing that isn't FW gets published is kind of like an old Jim Crow Southerner pointing out that Black people never eat at segregated diners as proof that they aren't capable of dining there.
So NF led us to questioning Ratex. Kevin Erdmann responds with snark:
“Why would overbuilding of homes “have led to a bubble in Chinese real estate prices”? Wouldn’t it depress prices?”
"That’s what’s so great about leaving behind ratex. Non-ratex can explain everything!"
But Woodford had felt that ratex itself was too eslastic if it allowed for Neo-Fisherianism.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30042
While this post seems to be about defending the Austrian school-which is strange as who cares about the Austrian school?-it becomes clear in reading that it's ratex Scott means to defend-which knowing him makes a lot more sense.
"Noah Smith has a new post discussing the current fad of looking for alternatives to the rational expectations model. The motivation seems to be that we need to explain the collapse of bubble expectations and the rise in the propensity to save (although not actual saving?) during the 2008 recession. I understand why people want to do this, but it would be a very big mistake."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29991
Actually I have discussed the rise of the Neo-Fisherians recently, but you could argue that the most interesting development of this is that in Mike Woodford's response to the rise of NF he has opened up the prospect of cutting rolling back ratex.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-is-fed-so-antsy-to-raise-rates.html
So while I think that NF is in a sense brillaint trolling on the part of the freshwater school-John Cochrane, Stephen Williamson, et, al-I bet none of them anticipated that their clever ploy of going from inlationphobes who demanded a rate hike to demadning a rate hike to raise inflation would actaully lead to the saltwaters coming back and saying You know there must be something wrong with ratex if it gives us a result like Neo-Fisherianism.
I like what this commentator said in Sumner's new post. Here is Jhow:
"Why does Noah Smith have so much attention from economists on blogosphere? Does he have a great contribution to economic science?"
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30042
That kind of sniffing snark almost always means you're dealing with a freshwater economist. I'm guessing that for a Jhow-much like a Stephen Williamson-a 'contribution to economic science'-means getting something published in an economic journal. But as is well known, the economic journal are all dominated by FWs.
So pointing out that nothing that isn't FW gets published is kind of like an old Jim Crow Southerner pointing out that Black people never eat at segregated diners as proof that they aren't capable of dining there.
So NF led us to questioning Ratex. Kevin Erdmann responds with snark:
“Why would overbuilding of homes “have led to a bubble in Chinese real estate prices”? Wouldn’t it depress prices?”
"That’s what’s so great about leaving behind ratex. Non-ratex can explain everything!"
But Woodford had felt that ratex itself was too eslastic if it allowed for Neo-Fisherianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment