In a way it's ironic that I'm going to have to explain what the debate is about as Sumner always says I'm not an economist and not worthy-or equipped-to participate in this issues.
But what's clear to me is that in all the back and forth none of the real economists are doing such a hot job of clarifying what it's really all about. Noah Smith made a good point regarding Paul Romer's campaign against mathiness.
"I love what Paul Romer is doing on his blog. It's great to see someone recounting the old 80s/90s macro debates, and criticizing the "freshwater" folks, who is not a "Keynesian". I mean, Romer was in the thick of it all. He got his PhD from Chicago in 1983, and Lucas was his advisor! Plus he's been working in macro for decades. If Romer doesn't know what was up with the Macro Wars of the 80s and 90s, nobody does. And he's telling it like he sees it and pulling no punches. As The Dude would say, that's far out."
"The problem is that Romer's writing style is not exactly ideal for what he's doing. He's writing blog posts like academic papers - very careful to specify definitions, cover all bases, and speak in a dry, neutral tone. That makes sense when you're writing a paper, because you're writing to a highly selective audience - i.e., the tiny handful of people in the world who are specialized enough to care about your research topic, and experienced enough to know all the background. It also makes sense because of the way papers get published - it's a long process, and you can't easily go back and change things, write addenda, write quick follow-ups, respond to arguments point-by-point, etc. Blogging is a whole different animal. Romer could get his message across more effectively, I think, if he would just take greater advantage of the format."
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/translating-paul-romer.html
In other words Romer is not that proficient in making this user friendly to a large non-specialist audience. As opposed to someone like Krugman.
Here's something else Smith has said about economists in general that is relevant here:
"No wonder Argentina’s best and brightest go into macroeconomics. What else are they going to do with their smarts? If they go into engineering, the chances are high that bad macroeconomic policy-making will simply force their companies into bankruptcy. In macro, at least they might have a shot at finding a fix for their country’s apparent curse."
"The sad thing is that they almost certainly don’t have a shot. Economists are not very good at understanding the vagaries of politics, mass movements, power transitions and the like. Nor is anyone else, for that matter. Studying optimal monetary policy or fiscal policy is well and good, but it’s a lot more likely to help a stable country like the U.S. than an unstable country like Argentina. The best macroeconomic policies are no good if they depend on the worst people to implement them."
"So while the torrent of talent from Argentina has enriched the macroeconomics profession, it won’t be able to heal Argentina’s troubles. For that, Argentina needs stable, inclusive institutions -- civil society, a stable democracy, a state that tries to encourage economic development instead of lurching from crisis to crisis. That is something that, for now, no theory can tell us how to create."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-04/argentina-is-land-of-great-economists-awful-economy
While Sumner has insulted me-though we do seem to have something of an understanding at this point-Noah Smith seemingly has an issue with me-I just realized that he's banned me from even reading his tweets, much less speaking to him.
He like many can't handle my aggressive, slashing style. Luckily I do have those who like reading me as well.
In some ways I respect Sumner more than Noah Smith who seems to me to be something of a slacker as academics go. Great ability but doesn't like to push himself too hard. I also think there is some insecurity on his part. I sometimes feel that economists like him and his mentor Miles Kimball are a little too complacent-after all they've got a good setup so the economic debates are just a parlor game for them.
But I think just what turns some academic economists off about me-that I'm clearly not an academic economist in any way, shape, or form-is what enables me to get to the bottom of many of these econ debates that strike most laypeople as impenetrable.
If most economists can't understand the vagaries of politics, that's what I'm all about-politics are my bread and butter. So when I read all these densely obtuse debates what I'm trying to figure out
1. Where's the real point of contention?
2. What are the stakes? Why does 1 matter so much?
This is how I figured out that the Neo-Fisherians just want an interest rate hike-they are actually the inflationphobes who figured out they had to change tact to still have anyone listen to them.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/neo-fisherism-rbcs-brilliant-trojan.html
So I never quite believe the economists when they say they're a science that is innocent of political considerations.
Like even what Romer says makes me a little skeptical:
"Politics does not lead to a broadly shared consensus. It has to yield a decision, whether or not a consensus prevails. As a result, political institutions create incentives for participants to exaggerate disagreements between factions. Words that are evocative and ambiguous better serve factional interests than words that are analytical and precise."
"Science is a process that does lead to a broadly shared consensus. It is arguably the only social process that does. Consensus forms around theoretical and empirical statements that are true. Tight links between words from natural language and symbols from the formal language of mathematics encourage the use of words that are analytical and precise."
http://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf
Overall, I suspect that Romer is more in the right than those engaged in 'mathiness', but I'm skeptical of this definition of science.
There is never any final consensus. If there were why even keep doing research?
I say this though I think his heart is in the right place here. We know the debate is not simply about to use or not use math as Sumner says he uses no math and sees no reason to-that everything relevant can be put in verbal English and yet he comes down against Romer's project.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/sumner-weights-in-on-mathiness-debate.html?showComment=1439198044761#c4203567432830496737
I think it's clear that this is a battle Romer is waging against RBC. With his talk of the need for rules of dialogue and engagement, it makes him sound like a censor. Here is Sumner at Econolog:
"I've always tried to live up to the standards discussed by Romer, but I'm sure that I've fallen short here or there. On the other hand I also know for a fact that there have been times when commenters thought I was being dishonest, or purposely misleading, when that was not the case. [That's the price one pays for being a contrarian.] And because of these false accusations, I know for a fact that if others followed Romer's advice, they would have found at least one "Willie Horton" in my 1000s of blog posts. And Romer says that one is enough." "Actually, his strict standard can't do much harm to people like Lucas and Prescott; they have their Nobel Prizes. It's people like me that are much more at risk. I can see it now: "Sumner thinks the Great Recession was caused by tight money, not financial crisis. Only a crackpot or liar could make that claim." I'm the sort of person that would be shunned, not Lucas. Maybe that's why I feel so strongly about this issue."
- See more at: http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/sumner-weights-in-on-mathiness-debate.html?showComment=1439198044761#c4203567432830496737
David Andolfatto also makes him sound like a censor.
http://andolfatto.blogspot.com/2015_08_01_archive.html
Yet, what's being missed is that this is basically about Romer being censored by the RBCers who control the economic journals. He's not the censor he's the victim of censorship.
Sumner and Andolfatto both take sides though both of them admit to not knowing much about growth theory-which is the whole argument. Basically the RBCers won't allow the use of Romer's growth theory in journals, etc.
Andolfatto really cheated in his piece by criticizing the idea of mathiness by looking at Delong when it's Romer's concept.
So we see the different conflicts in the econ field right now. There is the debate over Neo-Fisherianism, and the debate over mathiness. Both pit freshwaters and saltwaters against each other.
I always find it interesting in reading say Stephen Williamson. To hear him tell it the FW-SW distinction is a meaningless diversion dreamed up by Krugman-who is the source of all ills within the profession.
Yet I notice that only freshwaters ever say the distinctions don't matter, never saltwaters.
But what's clear to me is that in all the back and forth none of the real economists are doing such a hot job of clarifying what it's really all about. Noah Smith made a good point regarding Paul Romer's campaign against mathiness.
"I love what Paul Romer is doing on his blog. It's great to see someone recounting the old 80s/90s macro debates, and criticizing the "freshwater" folks, who is not a "Keynesian". I mean, Romer was in the thick of it all. He got his PhD from Chicago in 1983, and Lucas was his advisor! Plus he's been working in macro for decades. If Romer doesn't know what was up with the Macro Wars of the 80s and 90s, nobody does. And he's telling it like he sees it and pulling no punches. As The Dude would say, that's far out."
"The problem is that Romer's writing style is not exactly ideal for what he's doing. He's writing blog posts like academic papers - very careful to specify definitions, cover all bases, and speak in a dry, neutral tone. That makes sense when you're writing a paper, because you're writing to a highly selective audience - i.e., the tiny handful of people in the world who are specialized enough to care about your research topic, and experienced enough to know all the background. It also makes sense because of the way papers get published - it's a long process, and you can't easily go back and change things, write addenda, write quick follow-ups, respond to arguments point-by-point, etc. Blogging is a whole different animal. Romer could get his message across more effectively, I think, if he would just take greater advantage of the format."
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/translating-paul-romer.html
In other words Romer is not that proficient in making this user friendly to a large non-specialist audience. As opposed to someone like Krugman.
Here's something else Smith has said about economists in general that is relevant here:
"No wonder Argentina’s best and brightest go into macroeconomics. What else are they going to do with their smarts? If they go into engineering, the chances are high that bad macroeconomic policy-making will simply force their companies into bankruptcy. In macro, at least they might have a shot at finding a fix for their country’s apparent curse."
"The sad thing is that they almost certainly don’t have a shot. Economists are not very good at understanding the vagaries of politics, mass movements, power transitions and the like. Nor is anyone else, for that matter. Studying optimal monetary policy or fiscal policy is well and good, but it’s a lot more likely to help a stable country like the U.S. than an unstable country like Argentina. The best macroeconomic policies are no good if they depend on the worst people to implement them."
"So while the torrent of talent from Argentina has enriched the macroeconomics profession, it won’t be able to heal Argentina’s troubles. For that, Argentina needs stable, inclusive institutions -- civil society, a stable democracy, a state that tries to encourage economic development instead of lurching from crisis to crisis. That is something that, for now, no theory can tell us how to create."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-04/argentina-is-land-of-great-economists-awful-economy
While Sumner has insulted me-though we do seem to have something of an understanding at this point-Noah Smith seemingly has an issue with me-I just realized that he's banned me from even reading his tweets, much less speaking to him.
He like many can't handle my aggressive, slashing style. Luckily I do have those who like reading me as well.
In some ways I respect Sumner more than Noah Smith who seems to me to be something of a slacker as academics go. Great ability but doesn't like to push himself too hard. I also think there is some insecurity on his part. I sometimes feel that economists like him and his mentor Miles Kimball are a little too complacent-after all they've got a good setup so the economic debates are just a parlor game for them.
But I think just what turns some academic economists off about me-that I'm clearly not an academic economist in any way, shape, or form-is what enables me to get to the bottom of many of these econ debates that strike most laypeople as impenetrable.
If most economists can't understand the vagaries of politics, that's what I'm all about-politics are my bread and butter. So when I read all these densely obtuse debates what I'm trying to figure out
1. Where's the real point of contention?
2. What are the stakes? Why does 1 matter so much?
This is how I figured out that the Neo-Fisherians just want an interest rate hike-they are actually the inflationphobes who figured out they had to change tact to still have anyone listen to them.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/neo-fisherism-rbcs-brilliant-trojan.html
So I never quite believe the economists when they say they're a science that is innocent of political considerations.
Like even what Romer says makes me a little skeptical:
"Politics does not lead to a broadly shared consensus. It has to yield a decision, whether or not a consensus prevails. As a result, political institutions create incentives for participants to exaggerate disagreements between factions. Words that are evocative and ambiguous better serve factional interests than words that are analytical and precise."
"Science is a process that does lead to a broadly shared consensus. It is arguably the only social process that does. Consensus forms around theoretical and empirical statements that are true. Tight links between words from natural language and symbols from the formal language of mathematics encourage the use of words that are analytical and precise."
http://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Mathiness.pdf
Overall, I suspect that Romer is more in the right than those engaged in 'mathiness', but I'm skeptical of this definition of science.
There is never any final consensus. If there were why even keep doing research?
I say this though I think his heart is in the right place here. We know the debate is not simply about to use or not use math as Sumner says he uses no math and sees no reason to-that everything relevant can be put in verbal English and yet he comes down against Romer's project.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/sumner-weights-in-on-mathiness-debate.html?showComment=1439198044761#c4203567432830496737
I think it's clear that this is a battle Romer is waging against RBC. With his talk of the need for rules of dialogue and engagement, it makes him sound like a censor. Here is Sumner at Econolog:
"I've always tried to live up to the standards discussed by Romer, but I'm sure that I've fallen short here or there. On the other hand I also know for a fact that there have been times when commenters thought I was being dishonest, or purposely misleading, when that was not the case. [That's the price one pays for being a contrarian.] And because of these false accusations, I know for a fact that if others followed Romer's advice, they would have found at least one "Willie Horton" in my 1000s of blog posts. And Romer says that one is enough." "Actually, his strict standard can't do much harm to people like Lucas and Prescott; they have their Nobel Prizes. It's people like me that are much more at risk. I can see it now: "Sumner thinks the Great Recession was caused by tight money, not financial crisis. Only a crackpot or liar could make that claim." I'm the sort of person that would be shunned, not Lucas. Maybe that's why I feel so strongly about this issue."
- See more at: http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/sumner-weights-in-on-mathiness-debate.html?showComment=1439198044761#c4203567432830496737
David Andolfatto also makes him sound like a censor.
http://andolfatto.blogspot.com/2015_08_01_archive.html
Yet, what's being missed is that this is basically about Romer being censored by the RBCers who control the economic journals. He's not the censor he's the victim of censorship.
Sumner and Andolfatto both take sides though both of them admit to not knowing much about growth theory-which is the whole argument. Basically the RBCers won't allow the use of Romer's growth theory in journals, etc.
Andolfatto really cheated in his piece by criticizing the idea of mathiness by looking at Delong when it's Romer's concept.
So we see the different conflicts in the econ field right now. There is the debate over Neo-Fisherianism, and the debate over mathiness. Both pit freshwaters and saltwaters against each other.
I always find it interesting in reading say Stephen Williamson. To hear him tell it the FW-SW distinction is a meaningless diversion dreamed up by Krugman-who is the source of all ills within the profession.
Yet I notice that only freshwaters ever say the distinctions don't matter, never saltwaters.
No comments:
Post a Comment