tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post8954830016037106485..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Why do non-experts think they know about macroeconomics?Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-36365646686049010472016-09-02T13:13:47.157-04:002016-09-02T13:13:47.157-04:00THIS IS THE BEST COMMENT EVERTHIS IS THE BEST COMMENT EVERNot bucketheadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-41866129799971567822015-03-11T16:02:29.013-04:002015-03-11T16:02:29.013-04:00Kudos on calling out the Austrians. They are the w...Kudos on calling out the Austrians. They are the worse. Very rarely do they approach things with the attitude of wanting to know something. They already know the answers, they just need to invent their own reality until it fits with their answers. That shit is annoying. ShaunPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360992511664194043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-47575155933399517442015-03-11T11:20:36.270-04:002015-03-11T11:20:36.270-04:00A lot of people who believe that they can speak ab...A lot of people who believe that they can speak about macroeconomics, but are not Ph.D. economists, may have insights into the workings of the economy that is superior to that of an economist working strictly from an econometric model. I would put professionals who work in the commercial sphere and have substantial commercial experience, and thoughtful politicians who have lived through business cycles and have to vote on and live with the results of their decisions. No econometric model that I have heard of predicted the collapse in the housing market, but there were astute investors who presciently bet on just that, and got rich doing so. Alternately, one of these individuals subsequently made an outsized bet on gold (with other peoples money) and lost a substantial amount of money lest anyone think that one can always make the right call.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-43704600450766298002015-03-10T20:08:26.226-04:002015-03-10T20:08:26.226-04:00Fortunately, the Fed didn't pump the money int...Fortunately, the Fed didn't pump the money into the economy. It pumped the money into private banks' reserve accounts at the Fed.Gaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74836681032318990622015-02-25T15:39:08.963-05:002015-02-25T15:39:08.963-05:00Great comment, most people in blogosphere don'...Great comment, most people in blogosphere don't understand how financial markets really work. They never bothered to go to a big bank, sit a few days beside a head trader or banker and understand what those people do. I would just add that most really good people in academia are much more judicious in their comments than most bloggers, who just have political agendas. But, in defense of economists, let's be fair, their life is not easy: everything that was tried in macro failed. Keynesianism failed (yes, despite some very vocal bloggers, observed multipliers are so close to 1 that people who actually make decisions don't believe it), new classicals failed, RBC failed, and until 2007, what seemed to be almost good, new neoclassical synthesis (RBC + New Keynesian models = recent DSGEs), also failed. They are in search of a model that actually can be used safely in policy design. Scott Sumner has one suggestion: stabilize NGDP. At least this is something (somewhat) new ...Jose Romeu Robazzinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-70983680195486515912015-02-24T07:16:40.001-05:002015-02-24T07:16:40.001-05:00I may speak for myself: I don't think I am an ...I may speak for myself: I don't think I am an expert, I think most of the so called "experts" have no clue whatsoever. Sumner is a case in point, he pontificates about monetary policy but has not the slightest clue how the monetary system works, what banks do and don't do. I one discussion he and his acolytes were thoroughly shredded by some guys who work in finance, he was reduced to asking for links to post Keynesian literature to read up on the reality, but since then his output has not improved. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=5893<br /><br />One of the central facts in macro is monetary sovereignty and distinction of currency issuers. The mainstream had no clue as late as 2011 why sovereign issuers have low and controllable rates, Krugman documented his own cluelessness on his blog. You wrote a whole blog post parading your obliviousness about financial repression and public debt in Japan. You managed to get a PhD and you don't know anything about finances of sovereign money issuers. It's like physicists not knowing about gravity. <br /><br />As for your dissing of the heterodox, this is just funny. Look at whom the market hires: it doesn't hire people like you, Krugman, Sumner or Kimball. It hires Ian Hatzius (Wynne Godley's student) and Paul McCulley. They are giants making multimilion dollar salaries working in heterodox tradition, are they annoying to you? McCulley thinks that your little paradigm is basically worthless, he thinks MMT had relevant things to say before and during the crisis. http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2012/06/25/paul-mcculley-mmt-won-declare-victory-but-be-magnanimous-about-it/<br /><br />I would never think I know more than Hatzius or McCulley, because I am no expert, but I see the mainstream spouting inanities every day. Sumner view on bank operations is objectively wrong, Krugman's as well. <br /><br />Your blog is great because you show why your paradigm is worthless (great entry on DSGE swamp), sometimes unintentionally (financial repression in Japan). We need more positive, constructive macro, that's why I wish Hatzius and McCulley blogged. Mainstream macro as you explained as well is great for getting a safe job in academia, not much more. PeterPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02032621777697914182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-41397707633520691832015-02-22T16:59:19.350-05:002015-02-22T16:59:19.350-05:00Nobody is obligated to read anything. Pls, don'...Nobody is obligated to read anything. Pls, don't read anybody you don't like, keep your confirmation bias goingJose Romeu Robazzinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4350251878344986322015-02-22T13:51:28.426-05:002015-02-22T13:51:28.426-05:00Hee hee! I just love the original post as one of t...Hee hee! I just love the original post as one of those alluded to therein.<br />I give you a 10 / 10 on your trolling, for here I am, a non-degreed macro enthusiast as well as a troll.<br /><br />For my personal, mmm, 'qualifications', let me say that I have an IQ well above average, lots of free time (this is not an inconsequential thing), and enjoy many types of thought experiments.<br /><br />I first learned of Keynesian Macro in high school, where the basic building blocks of macro were explained to me at a time when I was rather more receptive to it than not.<br /><br />After that, for much of my life, I have given macro and econ serious thought without the benefit of any teachers, professors, or otherwise qualified people around that I could turn to for guidance.<br />I have come to some interrrrrresting conclusions, lol, about some aspects of both macro and econ that are not contradicted in any way by any credible professor.<br /><br />Now would be a good time to mention that I am a solid fan of Professors Krugman, Thoma, et al in that school of thought. They are solid on what they speak and I just love that about them. <br />Krugman is exceptional in that he has a writing voice comparable to many great writers in that his writing is easy to understand and absorb in a non-stuffy way. He's a person and talks like a regular guy. Some of you might try that if you want a wider audience.<br />Thoma is like this too, but it is harder to find his words on his blog. <br /><br />I do see, on occasion, a few small errors in, say, theory or labeling or indexing of certain facets of the data they use to great effect, but until this gets out of hand, I will trust them to self-correct once they take a moment to reflect on that part of what they are doing and see what I see as error.<br /><br />To my own understanding of macro and econ, I am okay with what I know and do not need to memorize the formulae or do worky wonky modeling using graphs to see the ebb and flow of economic influences in the world around me, or even for historical analysis. <br />No, I have "gotten" Keynes on my own from the basic building blocks which have not changed in all this time and am more than glad that there are people like "Krugmaster P" (that made me laugh when I saw it above) who are famous enough that I rely upon them to do much of what I would have attempted were I in a similar position of ability and authority.<br /><br />I only learned of people like PK relatively recently after many years of distraction. I am an old man now. High school is a distant thing to me now. I do my own analysis and am always willing to turn to qualified professors like PK and Thoma to get the complicated details more or less correct when I feel the need.<br /><br />I am not an average troll. I rarely bother to comment, but when I do, it is as an undegreed enthusiast who nonetheless understands a great deal about macro and econ.<br />I don't need a smelly bit of sheepskin with fancy scrollwork along the edges to validate what I already know or to give me authority to speak. It is too late for me to bother with all that, for I have other things I understand that preclude such a course of action.<br /><br />The intellectual blindness in your original post is understandable. You do not believe that thoughtful, intelligent people could possibly have anything worthwhile to say if they haven't wasted years getting a degree in whatever. This is a normal human response but a wrong one. <br />Yes, I said you were wrong on that. <br />Now you can dismiss me as just another troll and go about your biased day.<br />***<br />Did you read this all the way through? Thank you for taking the time. I hope you weren't completely disappointed in how I have responded to your trolling. <br />Have a nice and, hopefully, unbiased day.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-8557650519039631902015-02-22T13:45:57.553-05:002015-02-22T13:45:57.553-05:00If I had seen in my lifetime, any evidence that th...If I had seen in my lifetime, any evidence that the purveyors of macroeconomics had the slightest clue what was happening I'd be more impressed. <br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/26/british-economists-send-a_n_244998.html<br /><br />If I had any faith that macroeconomists acknowledged and respected the laws of thermodynamics, I'd be less likely to hand them their heads when I encounter them... as I am wont to do. <br /><br />Real money represents work done. It cannot represent debt. If you deal with it that way it becomes a standard which can be used to measure everything that it is supposed to measure, and the (many) errors in its use become obvious to anyone who understands physical laws. <br /><br />You want respect? Earn it. bjchiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064437293931256675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-22394348500302675242015-02-22T13:44:48.239-05:002015-02-22T13:44:48.239-05:00If I had seen in my lifetime, any evidence that th...If I had seen in my lifetime, any evidence that the purveyors of macroeconomics had the slightest clue what was happening I'd be more impressed. <br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/26/british-economists-send-a_n_244998.html<br /><br />If I had any faith that macroeconomists acknowledged and respected the laws of thermodynamics, I'd be less likely to hand them their heads when I encounter them... as I am wont to do. <br /><br />Real money represents work done. It cannot represent debt. If you deal with it that way it becomes a standard which can be used to measure everything that it is supposed to measure, and the (many) errors in its use become obvious to anyone who understands physical laws. <br /><br />You want respect? Earn it. bjchiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064437293931256675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49368439646785098182015-02-20T00:54:35.609-05:002015-02-20T00:54:35.609-05:00Making up stuff and posting it to the Internet doe...Making up stuff and posting it to the Internet does not turn it into truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-14509461381591013002015-02-20T00:51:35.781-05:002015-02-20T00:51:35.781-05:00Plain, self-contradictory language inconsistent wi...Plain, self-contradictory language inconsistent with actual data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1477765195656930262015-02-20T00:48:43.048-05:002015-02-20T00:48:43.048-05:00You were better off before.You were better off before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4126117203043173542015-02-20T00:47:22.891-05:002015-02-20T00:47:22.891-05:00Austrians aren't economists, so we're not ...Austrians aren't economists, so we're not obligated to read them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-3110327604996285932015-02-20T00:40:54.728-05:002015-02-20T00:40:54.728-05:00You truly know nothing.You truly know nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-41567332266011028792015-02-20T00:39:37.000-05:002015-02-20T00:39:37.000-05:00If anyone knows how to be meaningless, it is you.If anyone knows how to be meaningless, it is you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33126630814980429942015-02-20T00:35:02.258-05:002015-02-20T00:35:02.258-05:00The idea that Matt Yglesias is conversant in macro...The idea that Matt Yglesias is conversant in macroeconomics is laughably absurd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-73629147239776460472015-02-20T00:34:00.331-05:002015-02-20T00:34:00.331-05:00Rosser -- no matter how many times you say lies, t...Rosser -- no matter how many times you say lies, they don't become true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-86252235506413697632015-02-19T21:13:21.403-05:002015-02-19T21:13:21.403-05:00Your opinions and the opinions of people like you ...Your opinions and the opinions of people like you affect the way the rest of us live because they influence the way politicians act and get elected, the kinds of policies that are enacted, and the general direction of the country.<br /><br />We live in a democracy where people influence the direction of the country directly (i.e. by voting) and indirectly (i.e. by influencing people who DO vote, etc.). So we can't just ignore other people's opinions on things that affect us all.Qnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-2830478016580831942015-02-19T21:09:23.818-05:002015-02-19T21:09:23.818-05:00Economic decisions have to be made and economic po...Economic decisions have to be made and economic policies have to be implemented.<br /><br />Even if economists can only improve those decisions by 10% or even 1%, that's still better than 0%. Yes- making those decisions WITH modern economics is absolutely better than making decisions blind, without any kind of guidance from rigorous economic theory.<br /><br />Before modern economics, you had Spanish kings triggering horrendous depressions and hyperinflations with ridiculously stupid economic policies.<br /><br />Believe it or not, economies were way more volatile, way more insecure, and way less capable of even, stable growth prior to the 20th century and the advent of modern economic theory and their resulting institutions (i.e. central banking, fiscal stabilizers, freer labor markets, etc.).Qnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33105195895636125362015-02-19T21:04:30.172-05:002015-02-19T21:04:30.172-05:00What?
Before we had economists we certainly didn&...What?<br /><br />Before we had economists we certainly didn't have MODERN economies.<br /><br />Modern economics has played a big role in things like Central Banking, regulation of monopolies, modern tax systems, the opening up of trade, etc.<br /><br />Modern economics helped teach governments that mass price controls are really bad, that mercantilist policies are disastrous, that .<br /><br />Who do you think developed measures like GDP and inflation and actually started tracking them so policy makers could make smart decisions?<br /><br />It takes someone really divorced from history and reality to think that the modern economy arose spontaneously without the input of people like Keynes, Tobin, Solow, Samuelson, Kuznets, etc.<br /><br />Saying we had an economy before economists is like saying we had computers before modern computer scientists.<br /><br />Well yea, we did. <br /><br />It was called an abacus and you couldn't exactly use it to post blog post comments on the internet.Qnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-35379808382771936402015-02-19T20:50:57.054-05:002015-02-19T20:50:57.054-05:00No, economists aren't often caught making mist...No, economists aren't often caught making mistakes that are visible to a "reasonably well-informed layperson".<br /><br />What actually happens is that laypersons see assumptions and theoretical shortcuts made for complex but valid reasons and believe these things are "errors" because they aren't educated and experienced enough in the field to realize that it's not error but design.<br /><br />In other words, you suffer from the same disease that every layperson is infected with: thinking that because something SEEMS like an error it couldn't have been done on purpose for reasons that you can't possibly imagine precisely because you lack expertise.<br /><br />Economists, like all other scientists, work incrementally, building their work up, within a certain framework. That requires them to make certain assumptions, take certain shortucts, make certain leaps, and leave certain holes that will be corrected, bridged, and filled over time.<br /><br />You, the layperson, aren't patient or involved enough to understand why those things are done, so you just assume you are done in error.<br /><br />They rarely are.Qnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78897086577536247952015-02-19T20:41:10.217-05:002015-02-19T20:41:10.217-05:00Physicists have heated arguments like the ones Coc...Physicists have heated arguments like the ones Cochrane and Krugman have.<br /><br />Have you read some of the stuff Peter Woit and Lee Smoling have written about their colleagues?<br /><br />So if the point you are trying to make is that public disagreement implies that economists are not to be trusted, you will be very disappointed when you find out how almost every field of science operates.Qnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-81167647694084286462015-02-19T18:35:50.764-05:002015-02-19T18:35:50.764-05:00Did I mention that other economists unanimously ag...Did I mention that other economists unanimously agree that I am the greatest mind in the history of the topic? <br /><br />Well, they do. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-13371750255233804082015-02-19T18:29:34.388-05:002015-02-19T18:29:34.388-05:00It helps the link bait strategy that Krugman actua...It helps the link bait strategy that Krugman actually is very much a douche.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com