tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post6588984550916334697..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Is economics divided into warring ideological camps?Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35962586013146159502013-06-19T23:27:28.530-04:002013-06-19T23:27:28.530-04:00Their salaries have nothing to do with this. They ...Their salaries have nothing to do with this. They take an objective view of the situation, dont demonize them just because you disagreeShakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15330009146690471758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-84027613076484574902013-04-07T06:56:01.048-04:002013-04-07T06:56:01.048-04:00You probably know the story of the alpha beta gamm...You probably know the story of the alpha beta gamma paper (Alpher Bethe Gamow) perpetrated by George G. Perhaps a biblical sequence is available: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah<br />Barrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-87898295551579696642013-01-16T22:08:26.100-05:002013-01-16T22:08:26.100-05:00ur momur momNoah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81791225969933036462013-01-16T21:40:40.117-05:002013-01-16T21:40:40.117-05:00Sorry to burst your bubble, but the two questions ...Sorry to burst your bubble, but the two questions regarding the ARRA and the gold standard do not accurately reflect today's modern macroeconomic debates. <br /><br />What complete and utter hogwash. <br /><br />And an accurate sample of macroecomists tackling today's leading issues?<br /><br />You're are just full of shit. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-22406795635625122862013-01-13T22:46:57.966-05:002013-01-13T22:46:57.966-05:00Well, if the authors ask a silly question, they ge...Well, if the authors ask a silly question, they get a silly answer. "-dox" ideology is the issue in the econ profession. "Orthodox" ideology is, not coincidentally, in support of policies which benefit psychopathic CEOs.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58823653043687317712013-01-13T22:44:49.546-05:002013-01-13T22:44:49.546-05:00They're still wrong. You can stabilize the lo...They're still wrong. You can stabilize the long term fiscal health of the US government by taxing multimillionaires, cutting the super-bloated military budget, and establishing single-payer health care.<br /><br />In fact, our 0.1% has so much money, we could easily fund the government from taxes without taxing 95% of the population. People haven't noticed this yet. It wasn't true in the 1950s. It's just an article of faith that you have to tax the masses -- it isn't actually true any more. Now that a tiny minority has almost all the money, you can tax them and only them.<br /><br />Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-91028727476857305012013-01-13T22:42:10.499-05:002013-01-13T22:42:10.499-05:00This is because nobody in their right mind can rem...This is because nobody in their right mind can remain Republican after studying ANYTHING.<br /><br />The Democratic Party is, in international terms, a center-right party.<br /><br />The Republican Party is so far off the charts they don't even have an equivalent in most countries. It's similar to a fascist party, like Golden Dawn, in its bigotry and religious fanaticism, and its total denial of reality -- but without the positive aspects of fascism (fascists actually support infrastructure spending).<br /><br />So studies like those you quote are shocking only in that there are *any* Republican economists. 23% is astonishingly high. In most scientific fields, there are basically no Republicans. This is because the Republican Party denies global warming *and* evolution, and rejects the very concept of empirical research (in favor of "divine revelation").<br /><br />The Republican Party has now degenerated to opposing the teaching of the distributive law in algebra. (Really. I'm not kidding. Google it.)Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60704067017741913222013-01-13T22:36:23.582-05:002013-01-13T22:36:23.582-05:00See -- this just continues to prove *my* thesis. ...See -- this just continues to prove *my* thesis. There is a war in economics between an "elite"/"mainstream" view (which is mostly wrong, and does a lot of evil) and various guerrilla groups trying to overthrow it.<br /><br />Obviously you won't see "two warring camps". The guerrillas haven't breached the walls of the ivory tower yet.<br /><br />The ivory tower ignores papers like the ones you just mentioned. (Yes, DeLong has sympathies with the guerrillas.)Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64267231795619836182013-01-13T22:33:30.012-05:002013-01-13T22:33:30.012-05:00"Conclusion: Economics, at least at the elite..."Conclusion: Economics, at least at the elite level, isn't divided into two warring ideological camps."<br /><br />This is because at the elite level, the ideological camp which says whatever the 0.1% likes has *already won*. Look at this:<br /><br />"Also, 84% of top economists supported cuts in Medicare benefits, even for households making less than $250,000 a year."<br /><br />Well, this is obviously unnecessary, cruel, and evil. But it serves the perceived short-term interest of the 0.1%.<br /><br />So there you go. Economics has one evil ideological camp which currently controls the elite. They are wrong. There are warring camps attempting to overthrow this evil monarch.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-67328114627829818632013-01-11T22:57:07.035-05:002013-01-11T22:57:07.035-05:00Lulz!
Oh, they reflect some of the debates, for s...Lulz!<br /><br />Oh, they reflect some of the debates, for sure. Maybe not all of them.<br /><br />Is it a proper sample? Of top American economists, yes. Of world economists of all stripes, definitely not.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23481393914841435372013-01-11T22:04:24.346-05:002013-01-11T22:04:24.346-05:00My comment was directed at CA, not you. However, ...My comment was directed at CA, not you. However, since you chimed in, do you believe that that Gordon and Dahl paper is a proper sample and do you think the questions accurately reflect the debate in modern day macroeconomics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-85881857425119496312013-01-11T18:35:29.334-05:002013-01-11T18:35:29.334-05:00Damn it, I accidentally showed my truly colors! Cu...Damn it, I accidentally showed my truly colors! Curses, my plot is foiled...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21026528306048222682013-01-11T18:18:35.184-05:002013-01-11T18:18:35.184-05:00I know that Ron Paul is not an economist, but you ...I know that Ron Paul is not an economist, but you brought him up in this conversation, so perhaps you need to learn how to read or stop creating convoluted strawman arguments. <br /><br />While you are at, get some training in statistics. Gordon and Dahl's example is hardly representative. <br /><br />BTW, I know that most economists are against returning to any gold standard, but my point was lost on you. Obviously, you do not even understand the importance of framing a question. <br /><br />You have showed your truly colors. You are just another anti-Krugmanite who has absolutely no training in statistics and limited training in economics. <br /><br />Seriously, take a class in statistics. It won't hurt you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89187446573746428712013-01-10T11:48:41.629-05:002013-01-10T11:48:41.629-05:00By the way, most economists oppose not a strict go...By the way, most economists oppose not a strict gold standard, but any version of gold standard!CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24692705944717182972013-01-10T10:59:22.672-05:002013-01-10T10:59:22.672-05:00Ron Paul is not an economist, he was trained as a ...Ron Paul is not an economist, he was trained as a Medical Doctor. You might want to get your facts straight! In fact, even holding a B.A. in Economics does not qualify you as an economist. The economists whose opinions is really informed, and therefore matters, hold a Ph.D., and most of them work are top-tier universities. So Gordon and Dahl's sample is appropriate. CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69596228472855226502013-01-09T19:02:35.576-05:002013-01-09T19:02:35.576-05:00The Gordon and Dahl sample warrants skepticism. Wh...The Gordon and Dahl sample warrants skepticism. Why would you believe that such a small sample, with even fewer macroeconomists, with so few macroeoconomic questions would be an accurate sample? <br /><br />Plus, what makes you think that those list of questions accurately reflect the different views among some macroeconomists regarding the current times? For example, even right wing ideologies would agree that the ARRA reduced unemployment. That doesn't mean that they would arrive at a consensus over policy. <br /><br />Almost every single economist, even Ron Paul and Austrians, are against returning to a strict gold. Does this mean that their is no ideological divide between the Austrians and Krugman?<br /><br />Essentially, your hard data is two questions that has a lot of research already behind it among a sample of 42 economists, and you shout, "Eureka!". Sorry, but that is not hard evidence at all. <br /><br />None of the questions revolved around the policy debate. Sorry, but you do not have hard evidence. Of course economists are going to find much agreement that a strict gold standard is a bad idea and that the ARRA reduced unemployment. <br /><br />Seriously, is this all you have?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30429267386233571662013-01-08T17:47:32.522-05:002013-01-08T17:47:32.522-05:00Well, if it's not Tim Noah, then NBA.com says ...Well, if it's not Tim Noah, then NBA.com says Bulls center Joakim Noah majored in Anthropology at Florida. NBA, economics, anthropology, there must be something there. <br /><br />If you go the NBA route, though, keep it quiet; Yglesias might beat you to it, hooking up with Wes Matthew(s) of the Blazers (advertising at Marquette).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1946912593284539622013-01-08T13:43:22.470-05:002013-01-08T13:43:22.470-05:00I dont't have an issue with people who disagre...I dont't have an issue with people who disagree with me. I have an issue with people who pull opinions out of their behind and stick to them even when empirical evidence shows otherwise. When you or Krugman present hard evidence I will take you seriously. Until then I am going with the paper by Gordon and Dahl that bothered to test your theory using actual data, and rejected it! Even Krugman had a hard time responding! <br /><br />This is not to say that there are no economists that fit Krugman's description. They are just not the norm. Notice also that Krugman, in his response, tries to defend his view by saying that he has MACROeconomists in mind (unlike you who are referring to economists in general). Are macroeconomists a different breed that makes them more ideology-prone? This is not what my experience suggests!CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-83962482512012582672013-01-08T00:31:04.322-05:002013-01-08T00:31:04.322-05:00It's actually a tendency I have to address peo...<i>It's actually a tendency I have to address people by their full names when I know them.</i><br /><br />But we don't know each other...<br /><br /><i>I hope you didn't take it personally...</i><br /><br />Oh, of course not.<br /><br /><i>would you mind answering my three questions?</i><br /><br />Possibly...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33734751823783569352013-01-08T00:21:30.073-05:002013-01-08T00:21:30.073-05:00It's actually a tendency I have to address peo...It's actually a tendency I have to address people by their full names when I know them. I hope you didn't take it personally...would you mind answering my three questions?Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35169194474984879212013-01-07T18:48:19.745-05:002013-01-07T18:48:19.745-05:00I understand fine, but I disagree with you. It see...I understand fine, but I disagree with you. It seems that you have an issue with people who have different opinions than you do. <br /><br />Economists do form opinions driven by ideology. Certainly some will listen to the data and form (or change) their opinions, but some will be influenced by predetermined worldviews. To claim that the field of macroeconomics is completely free from prejudice is a breach of reality <br /><br />While I might agree with you that Krugman may overstate this case (he often writes in a hyperbolic manner), I disagree with you that the field of macroeconomics and all its practitioners are ideological unbiased. <br /><br />Plus, I am not sold on the questions that were used. I have issues with how they frame the questions - they are somewhat leading and narrow - making people arrive at certain conclusions. Plus, many of those participants do not specialize in macroeconomics. <br /><br />One must also consider that much of Europe got it wrong too with their austerity measures. Perhaps you can blame bad policies resulting from a schism between policymakers and macro-economists. Regardless, our economic problems are epidemic and they do not have to be this way, especially if we have a consensus on how to fix these problems. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49816339345172826282013-01-07T16:12:08.826-05:002013-01-07T16:12:08.826-05:00I never said that Krugman blames economists for th...I never said that Krugman blames economists for the debt ceiling. It seems you do not want to understand! My response is to your original comment that "Either Krugman is an outlier or we live in a divisive; politically and economically." Yes, we live in a divisive political climate, but Krugman is wrong when he argues that macroeconomists form opinions driven by ideology, much like the general public or policy-makers. This was the whole point of the paper that inspired the post! CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-66088717401180827262013-01-07T15:51:56.824-05:002013-01-07T15:51:56.824-05:00I have yet to see Krugman blame any economist for ...I have yet to see Krugman blame any economist for the notion of the dollar debt ceiling. <br /><br />He is critical of people peddling austerity measurements and anyone who places our deficit problem before our unemployment problem. <br /><br />Policymakers do not always do what their constituents wants. For example, "In almost every instance, senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call votes. Disparities in representation are especially pronounced for Republican senators, who were more than twice as responsive as Democratic senators to the ideological views of affluent constituents."<br />http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf<br /><br />I know there is another study out there showing that the rich and lobbyist have more political influence than others, but I can't find it right now. However, this is not hard to deduce. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23680639558091404952013-01-07T15:23:26.884-05:002013-01-07T15:23:26.884-05:00Economists disagree with most everything that Ron ...Economists disagree with most everything that Ron Paul says (including allowing Congress to audit the Fed). Policy-makers do what their voters want them to do, with few exceptions. The current impasse regarding the debt ceiling is an example. The whole notion of a dollar debt ceilings is ridiculus among economists, yet it seems popular among many voters and their representatives. Krugman blames the former for what the latter do. This is BS.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21791492569962628572013-01-07T15:15:59.136-05:002013-01-07T15:15:59.136-05:00Policy does not necessarily depend on public opini...Policy does not necessarily depend on public opinion. Many times politicians will pass policies that goes against public opinion. <br /><br />Going back to a strict, fixed gold standard is wrong. Even Ron Paul does not argue for that. However, I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com