tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post8406056862044791273..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Offensiveness does not make you a better economistNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-90689434936361181462012-03-23T12:32:03.992-04:002012-03-23T12:32:03.992-04:00Most recent comment is a WIN. :)Most recent comment is a WIN. :)Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-53545369452823970172012-03-23T12:26:22.313-04:002012-03-23T12:26:22.313-04:00"But the worse culprits that have caused a de..."But the worse culprits that have caused a debasement of dialogue is Delong and Krugman. Where is your outrage?"<br /><br />...and where are your grammar?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69252317510981040002012-03-16T10:44:26.837-04:002012-03-16T10:44:26.837-04:00Daniel: "Nobody can inform me what I think o...Daniel: "Nobody can inform me what I think of Landsburg. Anybody with any sincere interest in what I think of Landsburg ought to take my own position on it more seriously. "<br /><br />Daniel, we've read his work, and your comments about him and his work. We know what you think, and are taking it seriously. You just don't like our conclusions.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-17264607889830120812012-03-16T09:34:46.222-04:002012-03-16T09:34:46.222-04:00Anybody with any sincere interest in what I think ...<i>Anybody with any sincere interest in what I think of Landsburg ought to take my own position on it more seriously.</i><br /><br />Psst, Daniel. Anyone with a sincere interest in your views would probably want to examine <b>all</b> of your publicly expressed opinions, including the post that you recently took down. From the sounds of it you have some trouble taking responsibility for the turbidity of your prose.mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64351336054221799512012-03-14T19:36:02.465-04:002012-03-14T19:36:02.465-04:00Think what you want to think Barry. Nobody can inf...Think what you want to think Barry. Nobody can inform me what I think of Landsburg. Anybody with any sincere interest in what I think of Landsburg ought to take my own position on it more seriously.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24811710508519239452012-03-14T13:28:41.024-04:002012-03-14T13:28:41.024-04:00Daniel:
"Because I don't have the energy...Daniel:<br /><br />"Because I don't have the energy to continue to clarify it.<br /><br />Noah grossly mischaracterized my views, and then didn't show any interest in correcting it when we talked over email. I'd rather keep the my blog unambiguous. Maybe that was a mistake, but that was the decision."<br /><br />Daniel, I read your post. Others hear read it.<br /><br />At this point accusing others of mischaracterizing it, or of lacking reading comprehension is just a way of denying what you said.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16260658555434709952012-03-14T11:26:00.812-04:002012-03-14T11:26:00.812-04:00Daniel when I said, "You are a pathetic pueri...Daniel when I said, "You are a pathetic puerile juvenille cheering while the shoolyard bully picks on a little girl"<br /><br /> I didn't have you in mind so much as Landsbourg and Anonymous. I did throw you into the mix reasoning that if you were in the right there was no reason to burty the intiial post,.<br /><br /> But you say it's too hard to explain at this point and I'll believe you. <br /><br /> Again I think that you were right about just rejecting it out o fhand. There's no need to give everything a "fair and impartaion hearing."Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-5934695814025616932012-03-14T10:39:14.536-04:002012-03-14T10:39:14.536-04:00evilsax -
re: "Anonymous I don't need to ...evilsax -<br />re: <i>"Anonymous I don't need to dig for an ulterior motive. I heard what Limbaugh said. I have Landsbourg, Daniel and you sticking up for him.<br /><br />You are a pathetic puerile juvenille cheering while the shoolyard bully picks on a little girl"</i><br /><br />You are deeply mistaken. I have never stuck up for Limbaugh and I am not a defender of Landsburg. I am and always have been on Fluke's side of this.<br /><br />Feel free to take issue with the individual sentences Noah decided to pluck out, but don't call me a defender of Limbaugh or Landsburg. I'm not.<br /><br />There's no need to invent enemies here.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-19721854555955083972012-03-14T10:34:22.597-04:002012-03-14T10:34:22.597-04:00re: "I do wonder as you say that you were not...re: <i>"I do wonder as you say that you were not defending Limbaugh-Landsborg why you got rid of the original post."</i><br /><br />Because I don't have the energy to continue to clarify it.<br /><br />Noah grossly mischaracterized my views, and then didn't show any interest in correcting it when we talked over email. I'd rather keep the my blog unambiguous. Maybe that was a mistake, but that was the decision.<br /><br />I'd rather have a new post that I think is straight-forward that doesn't need clarifying than the old post that I think is straight-forward that apparently does need clarifying.<br /><br />If Noah can confuse it and then continue to confuse it even after talking to him, then perhaps others will too.<br /><br />Maybe it was the wrong decision - but as long as my blog has my name on it, I'd prefer it only contain stuff that's unambiguous and that I stand by.<br /><br />The better option obviously would have been to keep the post and to have a more accurate representation of it on here.<br /><br />Anyway - it's just a blog post.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59334241751377914842012-03-14T09:07:39.075-04:002012-03-14T09:07:39.075-04:00"Anonymous, you're wrong: http://www.slat..."Anonymous, you're wrong: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html<br /><br />Furthermore, nobody should receive so much moral outrage for having the audacity to have a different perspective from the conventional American 'progressive' wisdom, you guys need to grow the f*** up"<br /><br />It isn't that I need to grow the "f" up, it's that Landsburg, and apparently now you, need to have a basic honesty in your approach. Otherwise you are preaching ideology, not science. <br /><br />Landsburg attributed the closing of a Bangladeshi gravel factory, one that employed 10 year old girls who started years earlier as it's labor force, to US legislation that never passed, never was signed, never became law. Please use your best economics argument to explain exactly how that works?<br /><br />If the basic facts are distorted, how are we to draw proper conclusions? As Landsburg paints it we are to conclude that Harken is indifferent, legislation is bad, "Buy American" is really bigotry, and those who employ 10 year old girls are really doing everyone a big favor.<br /><br />Or, if we knew the real economics, we might have learned something completely different like populations that employ only the children and not the adults stay in cycles of poverty for generations. But actual hard problems just aren't as fun as making fun of progressive wisdom and self righteous indignation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-87184733841108703012012-03-14T08:19:11.465-04:002012-03-14T08:19:11.465-04:00evilsax,
I never suggested that "no one ever...evilsax,<br /><br />I never suggested that "no one ever has a right to be offended about anything." Indeed, I'm all for getting offended. What would be the fun in saying offensive stuff if nobody got offended by it?<br /><br />And I'm pretty sure I don't share Limbaugh's moral prejudices with respect to birth control (though I may share some of Landsburg's, in as much as we both think like economists). As I said on Twitter, my own reasons for favoring birth control coverage mandates are probably even more offensive than Limbaugh's reasons for opposing them.Andy Harlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17582263872850949568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9646990153623721802012-03-14T07:16:19.527-04:002012-03-14T07:16:19.527-04:00Robert: "A better example would be the memo ...Robert: "A better example would be the memo arguing that there is to little pollution in developing countries. - it reads like a parody of the Arpsbargery economist because it is - he asked an aid to write such a parody and he signed without reading. Note he does not have Arpsbarger's syndrome -- he sometimes chooses to be outrageous knowing what he is doing (but sometimes incomprehensibly forgetting the meaning of "leak"). "<br /><br /><br />And aside from every other thing, it was factually wrong - I'd bet money that Nigeria is *more* polluted than the USA. If Summers disagrees, I'll pay for procuring some typical Nigerian water for him to drink for a week.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-82051972110565301432012-03-14T06:36:07.682-04:002012-03-14T06:36:07.682-04:00By the way how do you know I'm not a psycholog...By the way how do you know I'm not a psychologist? Talk about making assumptionsMike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-56682858928167940472012-03-14T06:31:16.693-04:002012-03-14T06:31:16.693-04:00Anonymous you said:
"'You dare to arg...Anonymous you said:<br /><br /> "'You dare to argue against us!?!?!? You dare have the audacity to defend someone we find offensive!?!?! You must be one of them!!!!' This is disgusting and morally repugnant groupthink circlejerking 'us vs them' attitudes that exist on the internet that needs to be utterly annihilated, you are not a psychologist. Please stop with vulgar pop psychology. Please stop assuming everyone has some evil ulterior motive."<br /><br /> Anonymous I don't need to dig for an ulterior motive. I heard what Limbaugh said. I have Landsbourg, Daniel and you sticking up for him. <br /><br /> You are a pathetic puerile juvenille cheering while the shoolyard bully picks on a little girl. I dont think everyone's motives are bad. But yours are. Your too cowardly to pick on people yourself but you applaud when Limbaugh does. Pathetic. You can't even use your real name. <br /><br /> As for your big talk about "annhilating" something going on the Internet, it's your friend Rush and his type who are being broken up. Free speech to call people like him and you out will continue on the Internet. Love it or leave it.Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88420300695262190432012-03-14T05:32:00.593-04:002012-03-14T05:32:00.593-04:00"Xerographica: Congress doesn't just appr..."Xerographica: Congress doesn't just appropriate money -- it also makes laws."<br /><br />Why should I bother delving into minutiae with you if you can't explain to me exactly why I should trust congress with my taxes in the first place? Can you make an economic argument for 538 congresspeople spending 150 million people's taxes? <br /><br />Can you explain to me <a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/03/partial-knowledge-and-opportunity-cost.html" rel="nofollow">how resources are efficiently allocated</a>? Demonstrate that you know the first thing about the study of scarcity and then we'll take it from there.Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-53982449925388090632012-03-14T04:24:04.071-04:002012-03-14T04:24:04.071-04:00"See, I don't buy it. I think you basical..."See, I don't buy it. I think you basically liked Landsburg's comments and thereofre in reality Limbaughs's comments not because of your Olympian economist worldview but because you share their moral prejudices. "<br /><br />'You dare to argue against us!?!?!? You dare have the audacity to defend someone we find offensive!?!?! You must be one of them!!!!' This is disgusting and morally repugnant groupthink circlejerking 'us vs them' attitudes that exist on the internet that needs to be utterly annihilated, you are not a psychologist. Please stop with vulgar pop psychology. Please stop assuming everyone has some evil ulterior motive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60570052786903384302012-03-14T04:20:35.389-04:002012-03-14T04:20:35.389-04:00Anonymous, you're wrong: http://www.slate.com/...Anonymous, you're wrong: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html<br /><br />Furthermore, nobody should receive so much moral outrage for having the audacity to have a different perspective from the conventional American 'progressive' wisdom, you guys need to grow the f*** up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-595112883842653172012-03-14T03:53:19.466-04:002012-03-14T03:53:19.466-04:00Xerographica: Congress doesn't just appropriat...Xerographica: Congress doesn't just appropriate money -- it also makes laws. In this case the law (as interpreted by HHS) forced a private entity (Georgetown U) to pay. The cost of the congresspeople's time is not at all the nonexistant public subsidy Landsburg alleged. He was wrong on the facts and you aren't even bothering to check.<br /><br />On Summers his main point was that only people obsessed with their jobs win the ruthless competition for the top spots. He claimed he did econ research 15 hours a day (back in the day). Someone ironically asked if he did econ reasearch in the shower. I thought "of course he did". The claim is that no family can function without a non-work obsessed adult and that is almost always the woman. The bit about the variance of cognitive skills was an aside (and just one of many examples of nonsense following from the assumption that all random variables are normally distributed).<br /><br />A better example would be the memo arguing that there is to little pollution in developing countries. - it reads like a parody of the Arpsbargery economist because it is - he asked an aid to write such a parody and he signed without reading. Note he does not have Arpsbarger's syndrome -- he sometimes chooses to be outrageous knowing what he is doing (but sometimes incomprehensibly forgetting the meaning of "leak").Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81443398720978415552012-03-14T03:44:30.367-04:002012-03-14T03:44:30.367-04:00This is slightly off-topic, but since it's ano...This is slightly off-topic, but since it's another one of the things economists like to forget: Adam Smith thought norms were <i>hugely</i> important - he wrote a whole book on them. <br />It wasn't really until Gary Becker that economists have taken an odd pleasure in being offensive for offensiveness' sake.adam.smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-82737037058750980102012-03-14T03:37:43.340-04:002012-03-14T03:37:43.340-04:00I do love to see my name in pixels in other people...I do love to see my name in pixels in other people's blogs. ThanksRoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49035011483672120672012-03-13T23:54:58.752-04:002012-03-13T23:54:58.752-04:00Anonymous,
You know what anonymous (the other one...Anonymous,<br /><br />You know what anonymous (the other one). You are right. I don't know if Landsburg intentionally tries to be shocking. What I do know is Landsburg is a cancer. He believes one thing to the extreme and it is the libertarian ideal of self ownership. For him it is a straight line from taxation (taking my earnings) to forced labor (taking my labor) to slavery (denying that I own myself). Taxes and high prices are akin to slavery to him. <br /><br />That is his morality, and economic reasoning is his cover. He needs to be called out on his bad economics.<br /><br />You tell me if the article I referenced is really about protectionist legislation or an economic cover to push his ideology. <br /> <br />Landsburg begins "Back in 1992, a ten year old Bangladeshi girl named Moyna was one of 50,000 children who lost their jobs in the wake of protectionist legislation sponsored by the execrable union-backed Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa."<br /><br />That's a lot of influence attributed to a bill that was merely introduced, not passed, not signed by the President, and never became a law. What are we to make of a person who, just as he did in the Fluke piece, is willing to lie about the basic facts of the question at hand to press his ideology. <br /><br />From his false attribution to legislation that never happened, Landsburg goes on to write: "Tom Harkin doesn’t loathe her; he just doesn’t give a damn about her. Ditto for the union goons and the American business owners who tout their made-in-America, untouched-by-Third-World-hands product lines. Those people (by and large) aren’t hateful; they’re just mercenary and callous. It’s their customers–the ones who would cheerfully pay extra for the privilege of supporting a $30-an-hour middle class American instead of a struggling $1-an-hour Bangladeshi—who are motivated by something like hate. If hate is too strong a word, then let’s just call it bigotry, which is, after all, what it is."<br /><br />So economists, including Krugman, worry about protectionist legislation, but most, including Krugman also indicate that sometimes it is necessary. I doubt Krugman supports child sweatshop labor (the hero of Landsburg's story was a 10 year old girl who pounded rocks into gravel while adult unemployment all around her was in the high double digits).<br /><br />So what are we supposed to learn from Landsburg? Harkin is a liberal and doesn't give a damn about Pakistani kids? Union members are goons? Customers who buy American are bigots? Or as he states in the comments that child sweat shop labor really is good for the child because the only other alternative is <br /><br />Or is the take away supposed to be simply that free markets are morally superior? This is an attractive, simple, and compelling story for a lot of people, and constant retelling of it by Landsburg and others somewhat explains the political drift of the country. <br /><br />Bad economists, like Landsburg, need to be called out for bad arguments. They are warping a lot of minds. Either that or the profession needs a basic code of ethics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-18214367926890384642012-03-13T22:33:16.931-04:002012-03-13T22:33:16.931-04:00Have you done any posts on applying to grad school...Have you done any posts on applying to grad schools?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68439713143534093482012-03-13T20:39:25.578-04:002012-03-13T20:39:25.578-04:00evilsax: "I really have no clue why Krugan a...evilsax: "I really have no clue why Krugan and Delong are supposedly so offensive. "<br /><br />It's simple - they're right about the major issues of the day, and are calling out the people who are wrong. They are pointing out that they've been wrong for years, and that their arguments are rubbish.<br /><br />I notice that Daniel K really hates Krugman.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-41860333209098732682012-03-13T20:38:32.666-04:002012-03-13T20:38:32.666-04:00Daniel when you said,
"One thing you'...Daniel when you said, <br /><br /> "One thing you're probably right on - we all should have quickly dismissed all of them and then just stopped engaging it from the beginning. I think I may concede that point"<br /><br /> I think you were most right. To me part of being a good econoimst is being economical. Some things can be safely just rejected out of hand. We don't have to give everything the dignity of an intense debate. <br /><br /> I do wonder as you say that you were not defending Limbaugh-Landsborg why you got rid of the original post.Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21164679762782417482012-03-13T20:19:58.533-04:002012-03-13T20:19:58.533-04:00Andy Harless, you said:
"in Landsburg'...Andy Harless, you said:<br /><br /> "in Landsburg's case, if his argument is weak on substance, that is all the more reason not to criticize it for being offensive. By making a major point of Landsburg's offensiveness and only a minor point of his wrongness, you cheapen rightness relative to decorum."<br /><br /> See, I don't buy it. I think you basically liked Landsburg's comments and thereofre in reality Limbaughs's comments not because of your Olympian economist worldview but because you share their moral prejudices. <br /><br /> The idea that no one ever has a right to be offended about anything is pretty extreme and not very economicaly sound in truth. <br /><br /> I'm sure that if it was your daughter who Limbaugh had spendt three days publicly pooping on you;'d make light of it and come up with a pithy economic argument that shows Rush is perfectly reasonable. <br /><br /> But again, I think those that want to defend Landsburg-Limbaugh are the ones being uneconomical. The true economic response has been the fleeing advertisers. <br /><br /> I'm sure my using the word "pooping" wont offend you as you are so scienftific about these things.Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.com