tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post126275830987009159..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Big Ideas in Macroeconomics book review, Part 1: OverviewNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-86108687544136960712014-06-18T05:49:48.140-04:002014-06-18T05:49:48.140-04:00Good article however I also found your opinion on ...Good article however I also found your opinion on scholasticism interesting. Because for me scholastics are the heroes that recovered old antic knowledge and protected it from destruction by the anti-rational of the Religion - as it was the case in Islam. <br /><br />If anything I think of scholastics as proto-scientists. They are the evolutionary link that antic knowledge and philosophy with modern western science while inevitably bringing some christian elements into it. <br /><br /><br />For me to say that I defend science against scholastics would be like saying that I defend chemistry against alchemy. Yes, alchemy is full of magic, rituals, spirituality and it is laughable for its obsession with things like philospher's stone or elixist of life. Alchemist also discovered a lot of crucial laboratory techniques, they used end refined experimental methods and also invented classification and terminology. Without alchemy there would hardly be any chemistry. <br /><br />So my view on (medieval) scholastics or alchemists is not that of enemies of science and progress. I respect these scholars and the role they played in the history of science. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853090724221729923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78789051527131466062014-06-17T19:12:11.024-04:002014-06-17T19:12:11.024-04:00People act like the most damning charge against Ec...People act like the most damning charge against Econ is that it failed to predict the crash. More thought needs to be put into the more important question: did economics cause the crisis and hamstring the response? Only theory could convince Larry Summers that deregulation made the market more stable. Only theory could make Greenspan believe that the average banker could understand every derivative the Ivy educated could invent, and only theory could convince a very smart president that the time to slash government payrolls was when businesses were doing the same.<br /><br />The cost to society must include the opportunity costs of a world without equilibrium nonsense!Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-63259832119985793922014-06-16T22:58:04.570-04:002014-06-16T22:58:04.570-04:00I don't believe I've seen a comment of you...I don't believe I've seen a comment of yours that ever rose above mediocrity, and yet you seem pretty convinced of your intelligence and that your output is worthwhile. That's rather sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-67539269651709686872014-06-16T14:22:31.863-04:002014-06-16T14:22:31.863-04:00Don't forget, lots of bureaucrats are paid ver...Don't forget, lots of bureaucrats are paid very well, too. Also, lots of string theorists get great jobs, too. hell, couple centuries back, lots of astrologists advised the highest levels of government, too. You are in great company. You should be proud. Krzyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15794655390770135247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-26104886535605131262014-06-16T14:16:55.305-04:002014-06-16T14:16:55.305-04:00Hilarious, it is very telling what criteria for su...Hilarious, it is very telling what criteria for success you chose. How's your hedge fund success going?Krzyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15794655390770135247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-40534986204180294762014-06-16T14:12:02.034-04:002014-06-16T14:12:02.034-04:00To criticize astrology, you need to know it intima...To criticize astrology, you need to know it intimately. outsiders simply dont understand the depth. Its amazing what a joke macro has become.Krzyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15794655390770135247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80510666501949627772014-06-15T19:55:47.473-04:002014-06-15T19:55:47.473-04:00Here, here. Chris Hedges would be proud:
*Epilogu...Here, here. Chris Hedges would be proud:<br /><br />*Epilogue*<br /><br />I believe that contemporary macro has lost its way. It has retreated into its own small, self-referential world. In search of final, internally consistent, analytically tractable, explicitly microfounded, general equilibrium models for everything, theorists have been obliged to speculate, to cross the line from social science to metaphysics. No doubt this was done initially with the best of intentions, the purpose being to get back across the line carrying some new insight about the way society works that would provide an empirical test. Instead, the theorists have become mired in a metaphysics from which they can’t escape.<br /><br />We might ask if there’s any real harm done. I personally think there’s a risk of lasting damage to the nature of the scientific enterprise. Admitting ‘evidence’ based on ‘internal consistency’ is a very slippery slope, one that risks undermining the very basis of science. In the meantime, the status of this fairy-tale macroeconomics has been mis-sold to the wider public. We’re in crisis, and we need a time-out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24549601003933173682014-06-15T17:05:31.521-04:002014-06-15T17:05:31.521-04:00Envy will get you nowhere.
Heh. :-)<i>Envy will get you nowhere.</i><br /><br />Heh. :-)Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-57298609964485909852014-06-15T16:59:32.261-04:002014-06-15T16:59:32.261-04:00Excellent.Excellent.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-10047141337245679442014-06-15T16:14:19.563-04:002014-06-15T16:14:19.563-04:00BTW, just to be slightly more precise, at least so...BTW, just to be slightly more precise, at least some of these nameless critics consider themselves to be doing macroeconomics or even being "macroeconomist," although most of them are not at top institutions either in academia or in the world of central banking, and who are notable for not doing, indeed rejecting, the DSGE approach. Needless to say, there has been a tendency for "insiders" to dismiss such as outsiders who "do not know modern macro," even though at least some of these have much better track records at calling what went down than they do.<br /><br />JBRrosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23216599811118740392014-06-15T16:11:03.444-04:002014-06-15T16:11:03.444-04:00I have not read Athreya's book, but I am curio...I have not read Athreya's book, but I am curious if he bothers to reply to critics whom he might view as "outside" because most are "further out" than Krugman or even Quiggen, but some of whom, very frankly, have had a better track record of calling the macroeconomy than the "insiders," including Stephen Williamson above. I am talking about people who have followed Minsky in particular more closely, quite a few of whom are not at all afraid of equations and who are also pretty knowledgeable about official "insider" macro. I shall not name names...<br /><br />Barkley Rosserrosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30645966890501837452014-06-15T12:47:27.983-04:002014-06-15T12:47:27.983-04:00"To criticize something, you need to know it ..."To criticize something, you need to know it intimately; the best way to know it intimately is to do it yourself. Once you have done that, you do not want to criticize it yourself."<br /><br />All of you critics of astrology and macroeconomics should take note.<br /><br />"Macroeconomics is much cheaper than particle physics"<br /><br />Astrology is even cheaper, and produces more research output!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977684524676621423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49058193870367584162014-06-15T12:19:24.080-04:002014-06-15T12:19:24.080-04:00Noah,
For Part 2 of your review, why not save som...Noah,<br /><br />For Part 2 of your review, why not save some time and just:<br /><br />1- Copy-paste Jim Baggott's article below: http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/the-evidence-crisis/<br /><br />2- Replace "string theory" for "macro".<br /><br />3- Profit!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76762427930366012412014-06-15T12:03:07.630-04:002014-06-15T12:03:07.630-04:00"...it's similar to what you'll hear ..."...it's similar to what you'll hear from a ton of non-macro economists in private discussions. The basic idea is that the macro field is not doing well, and pretty much everyone outside the field seems to know it."<br /><br />I hear all kinds of things. I talk to a lot of people: at conferences, in my home institution, when I go out to give seminars. In those conversations, I have identified large critical masses of people who are willing to spout the following opinions, quite emphatically:<br /><br />1. All experimental work is crap.<br />2. Game theory is crap.<br />3. Structural applied work is crap.<br />4. Astructural applied work is crap.<br />5. No empirical work in economics ever convinced anyone of anything. The only useful economics is theory.<br /><br />Is macro really "doing badly?" Does "everyone" know it? Are people really ceasing to "fork over the cash?" Afraid not, Noah. We are among the best paid in the profession, we have more than our fair share of Nobels, and there is plenty of work for well-trained macroeconomists. Envy will get you nowhere.Steve Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16629774961390533020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21143425535643819082014-06-15T02:59:45.919-04:002014-06-15T02:59:45.919-04:00"If you're one of those few people who wa..."If you're one of those few people who wants to understand macro by poring through dense literary tomes (Keynes, Hayek, Minsky), but who flees at the sight of a single equation"<br /><br />That's me!<br /><br /><br />http://econautodidactic.blogspot.com/2013/10/keynes-math-is-hard.htmlJ. Edgar Mihelichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08735224229199089531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-77213078538772972152014-06-15T01:14:08.094-04:002014-06-15T01:14:08.094-04:00"If macroeconomists are just goofing around a..."If macroeconomists are just goofing around and having fun making unrealistic models and then giving policy advice based on those models, then outsiders are needed to point this out."<br /><br />A fair standard for how all fields should be treated, yes?guy, swellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234115507473133459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-45716108601856723332014-06-14T19:02:51.123-04:002014-06-14T19:02:51.123-04:00"I don't think you'll really understa..."I don't think you'll really understand modern macro by reading this book. "<br /><br />Please, do this part first. I have not read a graduate text on macro <br />(although I have nothing against equations) but I've actually made it through this.<br /><br />I am intensely interested in what you think of the economics content. Philosophy, not so much.<br /><br />If I must I'll wait. But still...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80364826566316151962014-06-14T17:54:26.555-04:002014-06-14T17:54:26.555-04:00In this case what is the basis of micro economists...In this case what is the basis of micro economists critics ? Does a broken balance invalidate Newton laws of gravity ? I'm quite puzzled there.<br /><br />Ludovic CovalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72060699696086217612014-06-14T17:50:11.055-04:002014-06-14T17:50:11.055-04:00Could be, I suppose.Could be, I suppose.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-56345752018658951652014-06-14T17:48:16.396-04:002014-06-14T17:48:16.396-04:00Noah,
I'm not economist and have a question t...Noah,<br /><br />I'm not economist and have a question to you :<br /><br />Could it be said that academic Macro is fine but that applied Macro (read policy) went FUBAR ?<br /><br />Ludovic CovalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com