Sumner writes another one of those posts that are an obsession of conservative economists-quoting what Krugman says now with what he said in the past.
Krugman is always being accused of inconsistency by conservative economists.
"Krugman’s later conversion to fiscal stimulus seems partly based on the BOJ’s refusal to adopt his “promise to be irresponsible” suggestion. (Gee, I wonder why the Japanese culture would be averse to a proposal framed in that fashion?) It wasn’t until 2013 that his 1999 ideas were finally adopted in Japan, by which time he had begun assuming they would never be adopted—and hence switched to favoring fiscal stimulus. In my view the most interesting aspect of the 1999 quote is not its conflict with his current views, but that it exposes the vacuous nature of his personal insults. When Krugman says his opponents are knaves or fools, he’s often doing nothing more than suggesting that they disagree with his current view on some issue, at that particular moment in time. But perhaps not his view a decade ago, or a decade in the future. By 2026 he might well be an Austrian free banking type, or an MMTer. (More likely the latter.)"
"But even this doesn’t fully account for the Krugman contradictions. The hardest to explain are those where he begins by suggesting that his opponents are morons, who lack even a rudimentary knowledge of EC101, and later comes to embrace their views. It’s very difficult, no let’s face it, it’s impossible, for new information about the elasticity of labor demand, or new theoretical approaches to the zero bound, to overturn the conviction that someone doesn’t even understand basic ideas like comparative advantage. Either they do or they don’t, and it’s pretty obvious to anyone who does. Full disclosure: when Krugman was calling people ignorant in the 1990s, I generally agreed with him. If you haven’t seen him at work skewering his opponents from the right, you really ought to read Pop Internationalism."
"This is what makes E. Harding’s recent exercise in Krugman contradictions so devastating. Harding compares then and now:
Now:
“Back in 1991, in what now seems like a far more innocent time, Robert Reich published an influential book titled The Work of Nations, which among other things helped land him a cabinet post in the Clinton administration. It was a good book for its time—but time has moved on. And the gap between that relatively sunny take and Reich’s latest, Saving Capitalism, is itself an indicator of the unpleasant ways America has changed."
"The Work of Nations was in some ways a groundbreaking work, because it focused squarely on the issue of rising inequality—an issue some economists, myself included, were already taking seriously, but that was not yet central to political discourse. Reich’s book saw inequality largely as a technical problem, with a technocratic, win-win solution. That was then. These days, Reich offers a much darker vision, and what is in effect a call for class war—or if you like, for an uprising of workers against the quiet class war that America’s oligarchy has been waging for decades.”
Then:
“Intellectual arrogance, you say. Maybe so–but surely my arrogance is a puny thing compared with that of men who believe themselves able to invent a new and improved economics from a standing start, who are prepared to write books with titles like The Way the World Works or The Work of Nations without bothering to read one or two of those undergraduate textbooks first. (And don’t tell me that they do too know what is in the textbooks. The circumstantial evidence that they do not–the simple things misunderstood, the garbled statistics, the statement of both standard concepts and classic fallacies as if they were revolutionary innovations–is overwhelming.)
"There’s lot’s more, read the whole thing."
"There’s no doubt in my mind that Krugman still thinks that Reich is a mediocrity, lacking even a basic understanding of EC101. Once you get to be as brilliant as Krugman, there’s no going back. The fact that Krugman is now willing to praise Reich illustrates that he’s shifted from being an academic to being a partisan in policy street fight. All that matters now is winning, and to do so he’ll ally himself with anyone on the same side of the policy debate, no matter how uninformed their ideas."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31413#comments
A very common canard against Krugman. Another interpretation is that Krugman was like Sumner a pompous prig in the 90s but has since had a change of heart. He understandably speaks of being 'radicalized' by the 2000 election. My take on Sumner is that he exaggerates the extent to which politics and economics can truly be mutually exclusive. His Market Monetarist theory doesn't just effect monetary policy but by implication, fiscal policy which is controlled by politicians. So he is not apolitical as much as he may like to believe otherwise.
Krugman is always being accused of inconsistency by conservative economists.
"Krugman’s later conversion to fiscal stimulus seems partly based on the BOJ’s refusal to adopt his “promise to be irresponsible” suggestion. (Gee, I wonder why the Japanese culture would be averse to a proposal framed in that fashion?) It wasn’t until 2013 that his 1999 ideas were finally adopted in Japan, by which time he had begun assuming they would never be adopted—and hence switched to favoring fiscal stimulus. In my view the most interesting aspect of the 1999 quote is not its conflict with his current views, but that it exposes the vacuous nature of his personal insults. When Krugman says his opponents are knaves or fools, he’s often doing nothing more than suggesting that they disagree with his current view on some issue, at that particular moment in time. But perhaps not his view a decade ago, or a decade in the future. By 2026 he might well be an Austrian free banking type, or an MMTer. (More likely the latter.)"
"But even this doesn’t fully account for the Krugman contradictions. The hardest to explain are those where he begins by suggesting that his opponents are morons, who lack even a rudimentary knowledge of EC101, and later comes to embrace their views. It’s very difficult, no let’s face it, it’s impossible, for new information about the elasticity of labor demand, or new theoretical approaches to the zero bound, to overturn the conviction that someone doesn’t even understand basic ideas like comparative advantage. Either they do or they don’t, and it’s pretty obvious to anyone who does. Full disclosure: when Krugman was calling people ignorant in the 1990s, I generally agreed with him. If you haven’t seen him at work skewering his opponents from the right, you really ought to read Pop Internationalism."
"This is what makes E. Harding’s recent exercise in Krugman contradictions so devastating. Harding compares then and now:
Now:
“Back in 1991, in what now seems like a far more innocent time, Robert Reich published an influential book titled The Work of Nations, which among other things helped land him a cabinet post in the Clinton administration. It was a good book for its time—but time has moved on. And the gap between that relatively sunny take and Reich’s latest, Saving Capitalism, is itself an indicator of the unpleasant ways America has changed."
"The Work of Nations was in some ways a groundbreaking work, because it focused squarely on the issue of rising inequality—an issue some economists, myself included, were already taking seriously, but that was not yet central to political discourse. Reich’s book saw inequality largely as a technical problem, with a technocratic, win-win solution. That was then. These days, Reich offers a much darker vision, and what is in effect a call for class war—or if you like, for an uprising of workers against the quiet class war that America’s oligarchy has been waging for decades.”
Then:
“Intellectual arrogance, you say. Maybe so–but surely my arrogance is a puny thing compared with that of men who believe themselves able to invent a new and improved economics from a standing start, who are prepared to write books with titles like The Way the World Works or The Work of Nations without bothering to read one or two of those undergraduate textbooks first. (And don’t tell me that they do too know what is in the textbooks. The circumstantial evidence that they do not–the simple things misunderstood, the garbled statistics, the statement of both standard concepts and classic fallacies as if they were revolutionary innovations–is overwhelming.)
"There’s lot’s more, read the whole thing."
"There’s no doubt in my mind that Krugman still thinks that Reich is a mediocrity, lacking even a basic understanding of EC101. Once you get to be as brilliant as Krugman, there’s no going back. The fact that Krugman is now willing to praise Reich illustrates that he’s shifted from being an academic to being a partisan in policy street fight. All that matters now is winning, and to do so he’ll ally himself with anyone on the same side of the policy debate, no matter how uninformed their ideas."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31413#comments
A very common canard against Krugman. Another interpretation is that Krugman was like Sumner a pompous prig in the 90s but has since had a change of heart. He understandably speaks of being 'radicalized' by the 2000 election. My take on Sumner is that he exaggerates the extent to which politics and economics can truly be mutually exclusive. His Market Monetarist theory doesn't just effect monetary policy but by implication, fiscal policy which is controlled by politicians. So he is not apolitical as much as he may like to believe otherwise.
Indeed, you can make a good case that the real bee up Sumner's bonnet is that like it or not, the financial crisis of 2008 changed the complacent agreement of the econ profession prior to and that the country has moved somewhat to the Left in recent years and no amount of talk about comparative advantage or contradictions in Krugman's work are going to change that.
But I actually find E. Harding's own comments much more embarrassing for himself and Sumner than Krugman's change on Reich.
"PS. E. Harding really needs to take down that “Trump, Make America Great Again!” sign. You don’t want to turn off potential readers, by making them think you are a right-wing nut. In any case, I’ve never seen any definitive proof that Trump was born in America. Have you?"
Ok, so Harding supports Trump. But it's what he says in the comments section that leaves me feeling like the real lead here is not what Krugman says about Reich today compared with 25 years ago but what E. Harding says about 'white power vs. black power' today. Holy wow!
"E. Harding really needs to take down that “Trump, Make America Great Again!” sign."
-How about no?
"You don’t want to turn off potential readers, by making them think you are a right-wing nut."
-If Rand Paul supported the Iran deal and Russia’s reunification with Krim and didn’t go to Black-majority places to try to get support, I’d support him. But no Republican candidate supports the Iran deal, Trump is the most pro-Russia (and, therefore, most sensible on foreign policy) candidate, and does not go to Black-majority areas to try to get support. And, besides, by most academics’ definitions, I am a right-wing nut. Big deal.
"In any case, I’ve never seen any definitive proof that Trump was born in America. Have you?"
-I honestly don’t think that counts as a point against Cruz. What does count are his phoniness, his basic lack of understanding of the issues, and his contradictory stances on them (esp. on monetary and foreign policy). I really wouldn’t care if Trump was born overseas like John McCain was."
Ok-I agree with him on Trump's foreign policy being more logical than the rest of the field. But what is this strange preoccupation with not going to black majority areas to get support? He expands on this in a later comment:
"Best White-majority country: Norway"
"Best Black-majority country: Bahamas (which had a higher GDP per capita in 1969, before independence from a White-majority country, than in 2014)."
"Worst White-majority country: Afghanistan (outside the Middle East: Moldova)"
"Worst Black-majority country: Democratic Republic of Congo (outside Africa: Haiti)"
"There are pretty big quantitative and qualitative differences there."
"What do you have against White power, Gene? It’s good for both Blacks and Whites. Of course, I am not at all racist in my policy prescriptions. For example, Clarence Thomas is my second-favorite Supreme Court justice. I have no problem with high-IQ, conservative Blacks taking positions of power. But 70%+ of Black power is worse than 90%+ of White power. If you’d like me to, I could show you a chart I made a year or so ago showing this."
"That’s why Republican candidates running for President shouldn’t be campaigning in Black-majority areas in the United States if they’re serious about running, winning, and standing up for the cause of civilization. They should understand their base, and who their base is and is not."
Whoa! This guy sounds like Scalia with his talk of 'high IQ conservative blacks'-I guess he believes that all high IQ blacks are conservatives and that's why we have so few conservative blacks.
So anyway I find this more embarrassing than anything Krugman has said then or now on Reich.
But I actually find E. Harding's own comments much more embarrassing for himself and Sumner than Krugman's change on Reich.
"PS. E. Harding really needs to take down that “Trump, Make America Great Again!” sign. You don’t want to turn off potential readers, by making them think you are a right-wing nut. In any case, I’ve never seen any definitive proof that Trump was born in America. Have you?"
Ok, so Harding supports Trump. But it's what he says in the comments section that leaves me feeling like the real lead here is not what Krugman says about Reich today compared with 25 years ago but what E. Harding says about 'white power vs. black power' today. Holy wow!
-How about no?
"You don’t want to turn off potential readers, by making them think you are a right-wing nut."
-If Rand Paul supported the Iran deal and Russia’s reunification with Krim and didn’t go to Black-majority places to try to get support, I’d support him. But no Republican candidate supports the Iran deal, Trump is the most pro-Russia (and, therefore, most sensible on foreign policy) candidate, and does not go to Black-majority areas to try to get support. And, besides, by most academics’ definitions, I am a right-wing nut. Big deal.
"In any case, I’ve never seen any definitive proof that Trump was born in America. Have you?"
-I honestly don’t think that counts as a point against Cruz. What does count are his phoniness, his basic lack of understanding of the issues, and his contradictory stances on them (esp. on monetary and foreign policy). I really wouldn’t care if Trump was born overseas like John McCain was."
Ok-I agree with him on Trump's foreign policy being more logical than the rest of the field. But what is this strange preoccupation with not going to black majority areas to get support? He expands on this in a later comment:
"Best White-majority country: Norway"
"Best Black-majority country: Bahamas (which had a higher GDP per capita in 1969, before independence from a White-majority country, than in 2014)."
"Worst White-majority country: Afghanistan (outside the Middle East: Moldova)"
"Worst Black-majority country: Democratic Republic of Congo (outside Africa: Haiti)"
"There are pretty big quantitative and qualitative differences there."
"What do you have against White power, Gene? It’s good for both Blacks and Whites. Of course, I am not at all racist in my policy prescriptions. For example, Clarence Thomas is my second-favorite Supreme Court justice. I have no problem with high-IQ, conservative Blacks taking positions of power. But 70%+ of Black power is worse than 90%+ of White power. If you’d like me to, I could show you a chart I made a year or so ago showing this."
"That’s why Republican candidates running for President shouldn’t be campaigning in Black-majority areas in the United States if they’re serious about running, winning, and standing up for the cause of civilization. They should understand their base, and who their base is and is not."
Whoa! This guy sounds like Scalia with his talk of 'high IQ conservative blacks'-I guess he believes that all high IQ blacks are conservatives and that's why we have so few conservative blacks.
So anyway I find this more embarrassing than anything Krugman has said then or now on Reich.
Sumner does push back some, in fairness:
“E. Harding, I suppose you also supported Hitler’s reunification of the Sudetenland. After all, it was ethnically German, wasn’t it?”
E. Harding replies:
“E. Harding, I suppose you also supported Hitler’s reunification of the Sudetenland. After all, it was ethnically German, wasn’t it?”
E. Harding replies:
"-Of course. Also, unification with Austria. But the invasion of the USSR, Greece, the rest of Czechoslovakia, etc., nope. Kinda sad Germany lost Konigsberg.
“E. Harding, the Bahamas is experiencing a huge spike in violence.”
-More evidence in support of my positions."
Finally, I was pleased to see that our own Tom Brown left a comment where he proselytized for the Trump Democrat faith-I'm sure he won't like me using the word 'faith' LOL.
"E. Harding: good catch on the typo… I missed that several times. Also an interesting post! I used to be a right-leaning swing voter, but the Iraq War changed that (I’ll give Trump credit for at least opposing Billy “Cake Walk” Krystal and his neocon nonsense). Since then the neocons have been replaced with something even worse IMO, so it’ll be a long time before I return. I’ll consider the GOP again when they nominate a committed secularist who’s not desperately fearfull of science. It’d help if he/she was an evolutionary biologist or a geologist… somebody who’s got enough sense to realize the Earth isn’t 6000 years old… and that it’s not flat or held up by pillars or giant turtles. That way I’ll know it’s not a full-on religious fruitcake or just an out and out moron. After Bush I vowed I’d never vote moron again. But I am a Trump Democrat: I want to see Trump win the primary. Life long Republicans I’ve talked to in my dad’s & my older sibling’s generation say they’ll stay home if he’s the nominee (something I’ve NEVER heard these people say). My Dad is 98 years old… he remembers Calvin Coolidge with fondness (he was too young to vote for him, but he’s been a Republican ever since). Same goes for his “spring chicken” 85 year old wife. But then we all live on the West coast… I think Trump’s appeal is maximum in the Old Confederacy. Plus my dad’s old enough to remember Mussolini, the KKK with 5 million members, Huey Long and Father Coughlin… so there’s that."
I notice Tom's was the one comment, E. Harding chose not to answer.
I am happy that E. Harding plans to support Trump, however.
“E. Harding, the Bahamas is experiencing a huge spike in violence.”
-More evidence in support of my positions."
Finally, I was pleased to see that our own Tom Brown left a comment where he proselytized for the Trump Democrat faith-I'm sure he won't like me using the word 'faith' LOL.
"E. Harding: good catch on the typo… I missed that several times. Also an interesting post! I used to be a right-leaning swing voter, but the Iraq War changed that (I’ll give Trump credit for at least opposing Billy “Cake Walk” Krystal and his neocon nonsense). Since then the neocons have been replaced with something even worse IMO, so it’ll be a long time before I return. I’ll consider the GOP again when they nominate a committed secularist who’s not desperately fearfull of science. It’d help if he/she was an evolutionary biologist or a geologist… somebody who’s got enough sense to realize the Earth isn’t 6000 years old… and that it’s not flat or held up by pillars or giant turtles. That way I’ll know it’s not a full-on religious fruitcake or just an out and out moron. After Bush I vowed I’d never vote moron again. But I am a Trump Democrat: I want to see Trump win the primary. Life long Republicans I’ve talked to in my dad’s & my older sibling’s generation say they’ll stay home if he’s the nominee (something I’ve NEVER heard these people say). My Dad is 98 years old… he remembers Calvin Coolidge with fondness (he was too young to vote for him, but he’s been a Republican ever since). Same goes for his “spring chicken” 85 year old wife. But then we all live on the West coast… I think Trump’s appeal is maximum in the Old Confederacy. Plus my dad’s old enough to remember Mussolini, the KKK with 5 million members, Huey Long and Father Coughlin… so there’s that."
I notice Tom's was the one comment, E. Harding chose not to answer.
I am happy that E. Harding plans to support Trump, however.
Ha... There are some comments I write out and then really hesitate posting... Especially on Sumner's site where you can't erase. That was one. Funny you noticed though.
ReplyDeleteBTW, did you see Noah Smith's recent one on race? He says it's basically impossible to discuss the matter with the right these days (he mentions some sources I bet E. Harding is familiar with), and thus he's focussing all his criticism on the left. I recommend the post... I think you'd like it.
DeleteYes, I remember you mentioning that. I'll take a look.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a link? I can't find Noah's race piece
ReplyDeletehttp://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-left-talks-about-race.html
DeleteYour old pal Morgan Warstler leaves a comment there: for me, it was largely incomprehensible, as usual.
DeleteMike, you might like this one from Jason too (on the subject of falsifiability):
ReplyDeletehttp://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/01/falsifiability-isnt-empirical-validity.html
Here's an interesting bit:
"A good set of heuristics is that a valid theory should in general 1) be falsifiable, 2) not be too complex to be falsifiable, and finally 3) not be falsified. If you want to drop one or more of these, you better have a convincing explanation.
Economics has tried to get around these from time to time. For example I once read this line and shuddered:
I recall Bob Lucas and Ed Prescott both telling me that [empirical tests] were rejecting too many good models.
I think this was trying to get around number 3 in favor of number 2 without any convincing argument. But at least RBC was falsifiable -- it was falsified! Market monetarism isn't falsifiable as far as I can tell, violating number 1"
This probably isn't fair, but it's almost like E. Harding turned into Sumner's Cliven Bundy. Lol.
ReplyDelete