Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman respond to my post, and I would like to respond to both of them. I start with Paul whose remarks are about the kind of debate that is going on, and then cover Brad’s economic arguments about John Cochrane’s piece in a second post later.
Paul is probably correct that there is some wishful thinking involved when I ask for a moderate and balanced economic debate. It rarely happens and the climate of discourse in the US, at least from afar, seems somewhat poisoned. This is why I wrote the qualifying last paragraph:
[Paul] might just be doing an excellent job keeping the … stupidity in the economics debate in check. Without such a forceful executioner like Paul, such claims may take hold and move the median reader. In this model, he keeps the median reader in place for others to win her over.
What is more, he is correct that you get heard more if you are, well, louder. I am actually an example of that myself.
However, I think Paul is wrong here:
People like Kantoos or Tyler Cowen start from the presumption that when people with the right credentials, like Cochrane, or Jean-Claude Trichet, or Robert Lucas make strong statements, that they must have a defensible model behind their assertions.
Of course, some arguments are just flat-out wrong, some are intentionally twisted (maybe John’s piece is an example of that?) because there is some other agenda, some are just very unconvincing, regardless of source. I am fully aware of that. The problem, in my view, is that this is not obvious to everyone, for instance to the median readers. The key issue, and maybe Paul agrees, is how to convince them! I think it is fair to say that many people dislike mutual accusations on both sides – even if justified in the eyes of experts – if they haven’t made up their minds. Being too forceful may just alienate them.
To give you an example from Germany: there are many voices, some prominent, that protect the intellectual heritage of the German Bundesbank. And yet, if you read their articles about monetary policy in Europe, you sometimes want to “pound your head against the wall”, to quote Brad. However, the median reader in Germany is not aware of that, to put it mildly. If I too forcefully pointed out the stupidity of these prominent voices, the median reader would turn a deaf ear on me. Then again, I am not even a microscopic Paul Krugman.
So what should I do? The best way, that I unfortunately not always follow myself, would be to – somewhat pointed and punchy but politely – dissect their arguments from all possible angles. Much like Brad did with John’s piece now. That requires to understand and represent their argument in a complete and (sometimes overly) fair manner. Not because they deserve it, but because it is the best way to convince the median reader. That is very painful and tiresome, even I think that after just one year of blogging. But isn’t Ezra Klein’s tweet, for instance, an indication that it works? He seems to think that Brad’s long new post is quite a smackdown of John’s piece, maybe more so than Brad’s initial response in 2009.
I may be wrong but to me it seems that this is the more effective way to convince median readers and that is in the end what matters. Isn’t it?
PS: I was surprised about the angry comments I received, Robert Waldmann even wrote that I should be ashamed about insulting (?) Brad and Paul and that my post is not up to serious blogging standards. I apologize if that is a common perception, especially to Brad and Paul if they feel that way. My “unjustified rants” was probably a little too drastic way of saying “not dealing with the core arguments as I read them”.
Update: Robert Waldmann writes that “especially in comment threads here [on Angry Bear] and there [on Kantoos Economics], I was rude and I apologise for that.”
Hi Kantoos,
concerning the PS, Robert Waldmann objected in his comment to you linking to a post by Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/a-dark-age-of-macroeconomics-wonkish/), which you call an “unjustified rant”. In this post, Krugman gives the explicit text passages of Fama and Cochrane which he objects to and explains to what they say. Moreover, links to their full writing are included in the post. In contrast, you only assert that this is an “unjustified rant”, without explaining to us why this is the case, which you could have done either by writing explicitely in your post what makes it unjustified, promising a later explanation in a follow-up post or linking to a post containing explicit criticism of the Krugman post. After reading this post from you and the preceding one, I don’t have any clue at all what the core arguments of Cochrane as you read them are (If I missed a reference to your reasoning, please direct me to it), so I can’t judge whether you are correct.
At the end of your preceding post, you again assert that Cochrane’s piece is “not stupid at all” and that Krugman “needs to adjust his definition of what counts as stupid and what doesn’t”. Again, you (unlike Krugman) don’t even try to explain why this is the case. I find this disappointing.
Another point where I’m disappointed with this PS is your “nopology”: You should not apologize for us feeling that your post falls below blogging standards, you should apologize IF your post falls below blogging standards (i.e. if you think the criticism has merit).
Ah, reading the comment thread in your preceding post again (which I should have done before writing my preceding comment, sorry about that, kantoos), I found that have given what you take to be Cochrane’s main point (http://kantooseconomics.com/2012/01/04/the-political-economics-of-being-paul-krugman/#comment-6343). Still, an explicit explanation – even in very short form – from you, for why you think Krugman’s rant was unjustified, would have good to have in the post itself.
@ CC
I will, please be patient for a little longer.
Sorry, I think you have failed again. You have not even attempted to analyze Cochrane’s piece so as to justify your ridicule of de Long and Krugman. You are just changing the subject. At least you did apologize, though.
@ TA
As I wrote in the first sentence, I will deal with Brad’s post on Cochrane in a second post.
I don´t know a lot about macro or the stimulus issues that are being discussed (I am an government antitrust Ph.D. economist). However, you are right that Krugman style may be alienating some followers. Besides, his summary judgments about some issues and the profession as a whole are not really as impressive as he want to sell them.
Krugman/Delong are probably right in some or even all the arguments they make (at least some of them seem right to me), but things get really confusing when they start insultin the likes of Robert Lucas, Greg Mankiw, Robert Barro and others. We have to decide between two disturbing hypotesis: are the later guys really stupid, or just Krugman/Delong got really crazy or delusional.
Insults among credentialized, but otherwise industingisable, economists are generally not helpful to us mere mortals that are trying tu understand the issues.
Even if you reframe “unjustified rants” as “not dealing with the core arguments as [you] read them,” you were still off-base. Both Krugman and DeLong dealt with Cochrane’s so-called core arguments, which were incoherent, internally inconsistent, and incorrect. Regardless of your thoughts on how best to convince the (fictional) “median reader,” you just blew it on your understanding of Cochrane, and your understanding of Krugman and DeLong’s deconstruction of Cochrane. Is it so hard to just acknowledge that, straight up?
@ kibosh
I have a different understanding of Cochrane’s piece, and probably there is no right or wrong. It is not well written, and it contains clearly wrong statements, and good arguments. Brad and Paul focussed on the first, I focused on the latter. Is it that what I should have acknowledged?
Yes. There’s a big difference between saying “these are unjustified rants,” and saying “Brad and Paul focused on the clearly wrong statements in Cochrane’s statement.” So yes, if that were really ever what you intended, you should have acknowledged that. That said, I don’t think you’ve demonstrated, in this or post #2, that any of Cochrane’s arguments are actually good, and I think all of your “I focused on good, they focused on bad, it’s a wash, good and bad do not exist” narrative is just ex post facto justification as you try to dig yourself out of a hole (unsolicited advice, btw: when already in a hole, stop digging!), but regardless, yes, you would have been better of acknowledging that. But hindsight is 20-20, no? And for better or worse the web records everything for the wonders of posterity, so everyone can judge for themselves what they think you intended, based not on your later explications, but based on your actual writing.
I wrote this in response to the earlier post, and will write it again here – Our host’s view of how to sway the median reader is of no import. Our host has made up a median reader to suit him(her?)self. There is no evidence of which I am aware that supports our host’s median reader claim. Our host seems to have a preference for a nicer sort of exchange, and imposes that preference on the median reader. Once Paul says he’s in this thing to influence people toward better policy, our host really doesn’t have an argument to make other than “yeah, but you’re doing it wrong”. At that point, unless our host offers some sliver of evidence that undecided readers are better swayed by nice-speak than by pointed-speak, we have no reason to listen.
@ kharris
As far as I know, there is no evidence, so I am offering my guess — which is as good as anyone’s guess. If you disagree, that is fine.
This is your response? I suspect this won’t do at all.
Once again, if:
“[L]et’s think of a “fiscal stimulus” in which the government borrows money and spends it, but with the clear plan that the debt will eventually be repaid with future taxes, not just by printing money. Can this kind of stimulus work, and if so how?… First, if money is not going to be printed, it has to come from somewhere. If the government borrows a dollar from you, that is a dollar that you do not spend, or that you do not lend to a company to spend on new investment. Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private spending. Jobs created by stimulus spending are offset by jobs lost from the decline in private spending. We can build roads instead of factories, but fiscal stimulus can’t help us to build more of both. This form of “crowding out” is just accounting, and doesn’t rest on any perceptions or behavioral assumptions. Second, investment is “spending” every bit as much as is consumption. Keynesian fiscal stimulus advocates want money spent on consumption, not saved…. Third, people must ignore the fact that the government will raise future taxes to pay back the debt. If you know your taxes will go up in the future… the net effect of fiscal stimulus is exactly zero…. The classic arguments for fiscal stimulus presume that the government can systematically fool people.
“[...]
“The government should borrow to finance worthy projects, whose rate of return is greater than projects the private sector would undertake with the same money, spreading the taxes that pay for them over many years, after making sure its existing spending meets the same cost-benefit tradeoff. Just don’t call it “stimulus,” don’t claim it will solve our current credit problems, “create jobs” on net, or do anything to help the economy in the short run, and don’t insist that we have to pass this monstrous bill in a day without thinking about it.”
is not a core argument, what is a core argument? And how can we tell what a core argument is?
@ Brad
I agree that it is hard to find the core argument in this piece, but I think there is one. In short: fiscal policy should be made on a cost-benefit basis, and stabilization policy should be left to monetary policy, even if unconventional. Add to that the arguement that if fiscal policy is reckless, we will at some point see a “run on the dollar”, and you also have his inflation fears. I have no idea why he writes it in such a convoluted way, but these were the issues that I thought would have been worth discussing.
You are, by the way, absolutely right that his accounting identities and similar claims are just wrong, but as you wrote, there are some sensible, if incoherent, arguments later. I will write a longer version of this comment tomorrow, if I get the chance.
It would appear Brad DeLong just took you to school in an extermely professional manner.
I agree with Paul’s take on not adopting a more “civil” tone. President Obama is a perfect example of his argument. For the past 3 years Obama has tried to use “your” approach to working with Republicans in the House and Senate. He has even invited them to the White House for football and beer in an earnest attempt to bridge differences. 3 years later, we all know how that played out. Late in the game, Obama is only now realizing the strategic/tactical mistakes he made. Plan A, being nice (above the fray) was a complete communications failure.
@K:”…because it is the best way to convince the median reader. That is very painful and tiresome, even I think that after just one year of blogging. But isn’t Ezra Klein’s tweet, for instance, an indication that it works?”
Hm. Is Ezra Klein a “median reader”? Is anyone?
I myself might be a “median reader,” if by that you mean a curious non-economist; if so, this median reader was fairly well convinced by Brad’s 2009 post, which along with Krugman’s seemed to demolish what seemed dumb enough to me: even I know that money is not static and that there are times when government spending does not crowd out private spending and investment. I glanced through Brad’s recent long post, but I was mainly interested in it as showmanship, and I imagine Ezra Klein was more interested in the spectacle , as well. For me the spectacle was mainly interesting because of what seemed the amazing lameness of posts like yours and the ones on Marginal Revolution. Yes, Delong and Krugman can seem annoying in their own particular ways–but they seem to be right!
@ eric
Ok, I should have left the remark “(of course, Ezra is not a median reader)” in the post, but I cut it out because I thought that was clear to everyone.
“Median” means that you are somewhere in the unconvinced middle of the pack, and my amazingly lame argument was that to convince those is not easy, and it may be better to take a different approach. That is all.
@ Kantoos
You don’t grasp P. Krugman’s argument and as a consequence are not able to question his position.
Let us be polite and avoiding terms like “ranting”. Let us just say that your original claim was that John Cochrane’s piece on fiscal stimulus is interesting reading and that P. Krugman and Brad DeLong did not seriously discuss issues Cochrane raised there.
Answering this P. K. stated that you raised a “nonsense problem”.
How does he come to this judgment?
He claimed that
1) “People like Kantoos or Tyler Cowen start from the presumption that when people with the right credentials, like Cochrane, or Jean-Claude Trichet, or Robert Lucas make strong statements, that they must have a defensible model behind their assertions”.
and
2. “ … if someone like me or Brad says that there is no such defensible model, we must be engaged in a “rant”, treating these people unfairly.”
He concludes from 1. and 2. that your demand is to drive him in a contradictory job
3. “So what purports to be a demand for fair-minded argument ends up, in practice, being a demand that we pretend to find a coherent position where none exists, that we basically invent a high-minded debate out of thin air.”
He refuses to do this contradictory job because it would create an illusion:
4. “… that they wish we lived in a different and better world. But we don’t — and it’s not my job to create the illusion that we do.”
This amounts for him to
5. Demanding to create an illusion is demanding to address a nonsense problem.
Now,
1. is plainly false – you have not started from the presumption that Cochrane has a defensive model. You did not even say that he has an interesting model.
2. Is also false, because 1 is false.
3. Is false because the premises are false.
4. Is a conclusion by which he puts himself in a position that does not follow from anything you wrote but solely from his construction of a contradiction.
His answer to you is purely conjecture.
Instead he could have said:
I don’t think that my job should be to discuss and refute other positions in economics, especially not those which I consider plainly false. My job is to explain the world how I believe it is. If in doing this, I think it is useful to refer to other people I will do so without having any median reader in mind. Why should I when the job is explaining the world and not to win median readers? I am convinced that this approach is more rewarding, because this is not a game, and it is also not a dinner party.
Such an answer would be fine with me.
BTW:
Brad DeLong does not seem to believe that he is driven to the task of creating an illusion on the basis of a contradiction. At least for the sake of the argument he takes Cochran seriously – and by doing so he delivers a nice lecture on “How to read an economic text”.
Kantoos, you seem like a young guy (your bio says you’re a 30 year old economist who just finished his PhD), maybe even a little “wet behind the ears.” And you’ve indicated that you may not understand the state of the economic debate in the US, so I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you claim that your interest is in furthering a respectful debate and that you honestly don’t understand why PK and DeLong would summarily and snarkily dismiss any possibility of discerning a coherent argument in what John Cochrane wrote.
But you should henceforth be on notice that the economic debate in the US is not a gentlemanly affair. The debate has largely been poisoned, because though we have economists like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong who show their work and seem to know what they’re talking about, they’ve been opposed by the minions of wealthy interests proliferating glib and misleading analysis of America’s economic difficulties, and certain academics who absolutely refuse to critically examine their own beliefs. The people you’re complaining about now have tried to be reasonable (and describing what they’ve said as “rants” is extremely snotty and dismissive, especially considering your admission that you don’t know the state of the debate in America), but the right wing in America has not felt bound by the same rules of rational, respectful discourse that you believe should hold and that would convince the “median reader.” If, in the future, you persist in bemoaning the “incivility” of the debate, then you should probably expect to be accused of trolling. Just saying.
@ MikeJake
Thanks for your comment, you are probably right. I still think one’s case is stronger if you can show that even the reasonable parts of an opponents arguments don’t hold up. This is what Paul Krugman, for instance, would easily be capable of. Instead, he and Brad focussed on the weakest parts.
Robert Waldmann left an angry and offensive comment on one of my blog posts once. I did not tolerate it. He has not been back.
Take your time Kantoos. Don’t let anybody bully you or rush you.
Looks like he opened Pandora’s box by referring to this Cochrane debate, thereby attracting an army of DeLong/Krugman defenders. Alas, that is distracting a bit from the original point: Whether Krugman’s style is too agressive and polemic.
Well, at least this probably strengthened Kantoos’ position as one of the most interesting and most read German economics blogs. ;)
@ Nick
Thanks, that is a bit of a relief. It was a little disappointing, though, to see that Brad actually linked to Robert Waldmann’s post on Angry Bear.
I guess Kantoos has validated his theory of what’s persuasive in that so far Brad DeLong has, politely, made Kantoos and Cochrane look like fools. Was that the point of this? Well done!
Like eric above, I am a “median” reader who had no positions on any of this 4 years ago. Krugman’s convinced me. Since then, I have read a lot (including Tyler Cowen) and I do not believe that many (but not all certainly) of Krugman’s critics are operating in good faith at all.
I have never read anything from Kantoos until today. I have read nothing that leads to me to believe I should take what this person says seriously. I guess we’ll see when he does respond to Delong.
“To give you an example from Germany: there are many voices, some prominent, that protect the intellectual heritage of the German Bundesbank. And yet, if you read their articles about monetary policy in Europe, you sometimes want to „pound your head against the wall“, to quote Brad. However, the median reader in Germany is not aware of that, to put it mildly. If I too forcefully pointed out the stupidity of these prominent voices, the median reader would turn a deaf ear on me. Then again, I am not even a microscopic Paul Krugman.”
Could there be any other reasons one would not want to have “pointed out the stupidity of these prominent voices”?
Just asking?
“I have a different understanding of Cochrane’s piece, and probably there is no right or wrong.”
Well, to the extent that this actually means anything, that’s certainy convenient. This lets everyone off the hook, including for wasting people’s time. This is how economic understanding advances?
“Well, at least this probably strengthened Kantoos’ position as one of the most interesting and most read German economics blogs. ;)”
Um, no.
It is worse than that.
If one claims in two following sentences
“I have a different understanding of Cochrane’s piece, and probably there is no right or wrong. It is not well written, and it contains clearly wrong statements, and good arguments”
than one is in a contradictory position (“probably” does not help here).
This is not a convenient position, it is an untenable one.
@ DT
The interpretation of someone else’s writings are not as logical as you might want it to be. I focussed on the good arguments, Brad and Paul on the wrong statements and the convoluted writing style. There is not right and wrong here, you are free to choose what you think is appropriate. Probably the middle is most reasonable.
One part of this debate is the economics science stuff, about Cochrane’ position and the confutation of it, by Paul and Brad. The other one is why it is important to convince the median economics blog reader that one’s position is superior.
If I didn’t miss something, so far Brad has only replied to the economics stuff part. Paul took you frontal on both. The harsh valuation ‘unjustified rant’ was not nice for their professionalism, after all.
As for the economics part, I can’t really judge about the merits of the Cochrane piece. Maybe his text and the replies by Paul and Brad were a suboptimal example to drive your point home.
As for the cadences of the prose part, and how to argue convincingly (by Humean dialogues or, for instance, by rank pulling, showing off, ‘us and them’ – attitude, arrogant style and so on) to win the median readers: so far I have the impression that the advocates of snappishness, unlike you, don’t see the necessity for this at all.
Entertaining, this. I guess Kantoos will be kicking himself for using the words “unjustified rant” as a consequence of which he’s harvesting this storm of angry replies.
More importantly, in one of his posts in this comment section he raises a point that I deem very worthy spending some thought on: As a person that agrees >90% with the Krugman/DeLong views, how to optimize one’s impact in the *German* debate on how to tackle the mess we’re in? Kantoos seems to think that a more confrontational style would just be frowned upon here, and hence counterproductive. I don’t think so. It would help very much if the liberal/left camp within the group of people that have some understanding of economics had the guts to clearly speak their minds, and to call a) the BS that the government are basing their policies on, b) the German hysteria concerning the central bank mandate, in a way that catches the attention of the wider public. And that is not by carefully weighing their arguments, but rather by calling stupid what is stupid.
@ mitch
I disagree. I think that the confrontational style of some on the left in Germany has discredited their views in important parts of the specturm. There are people who just don’t take notice of Bofinger or Horn anymore, for instance.
You need to be punchy, and pointed, in a way to be noticed. But my least successful posts were those where I slided into polemics or misrepresentation of others’ views. I base that on the comments and resonance I received, and don’t have any firm evidence.
Look at DeLong’s dissection of Cochrane’s piece. He repeatedly uses the phrase “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” That, by German politeness standards at least, is quite a statement. But still, it is correct, as DeLong shows again and again. If you can back up your statements in this way, you should make them in this strong manner. If, in this case, there are hostile comments, all the better – you seem to have hit the right spot then. As you rightly said, the German wider public just doesn’t have a clue about monetary policy. They need to be woken up. (Btw, the fact that you don’t get as many supportive comments as others might be linked to the fact that you’re not an economics chair at Berkeley or Princeton.)
It seems to me as if conservative German economists are very successful in convincing the German public. And they do so without being very.. subtle.
http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/gastbeitraege/kein-schuldensozialismus-in-europa/6026424.html?p6026424=all
That’s probably the reason why Wolfgang Münchau adopted a Krugmanesque style in his SpiegelOnline blog.
@ kantoos
I agree with Political Scientist on that one. Münchau, and obviously Flassbeck would be exponents of a “Krugman style” confrontational approach. But I would challenge you to point me to examples of “confrontation style” statements of Bofinger or Horn. To my knowledge, neither of the two has called Steinbrück a “bonehead” who utters “know-nothing diatribes”, like Krugman has in 2009. (Rightly so, I would personally add.) The reason why Bofinger or Horn are largely ignored in the political arena in Germany is simply that their views are completely at odds with those that have informed the economic policy approach of ALL German parties over the past decade (with the exception of the LINKE). That seems to me a big difference compared with the situation in the US.
On the subject, German only I am afraid:
“Treten kritischere deutsche Wirtschaftswissenschaftler, zu denen ich auch Sie zähle, gegenüber der Politik zu leise auf oder finden sie einfach kein Gehör?
Horn: Man kann immer darüber streiten, ob man lauter sein muss. Und man kann sich immer verbessern. Aber es ist nun einmal so, dass jene Denkart, die in den letzten zehn Jahren die wirtschaftspolitische Beratung bestimmt hat, tief in den Gehirngängen der Wirtschaftspolitiker verwurzelt ist, die teilweise heute noch in Amt und Würden sind. Das heißt, Sie treffen, wenn Sie andere Positionen vertreten, häufig auf glattes Unverständnis. Sie werden nicht einmal widerlegt, man versteht Sie einfach nicht. Sie reden in einer anderen Sprache. Das mindert den Ertrag solcher Beratungsgespräche leider deutlich.”
http://www.wirtschaftundgesellschaft.de/?p=757
@ BB
good points. Horn and Bofinger sounded shrill at times, just as Sinn. But I should check some more recent interviews or statements.
@ Kantoos
Sorry, you don’t understand the argument.
I do not argue about what B. DL/P. K. focus on as against you or whether one is free or not in reading Cochrane’s text.
I am arguing about YOUR statements regarding this text.
Here in detail why these statements entail contradictory beliefs:
If “probably” in the first sentence makes any sense at all, then “probably there is no right or wrong” means “I believe that in the text there is nothing right or wrong (statements, arguments whatever), but I don’t know whether this is the case because I have not sufficient reasons for knowing (therefore “probably”)”.
In the second sentence you do not write “probably contains wrong statements” but – with the strong qualification “clearly” – “contains wrong statements” which means that you do not only believe without doubt that the text contains wrong statements but that know that the text contains wrong statements.
Knowledge implies belief, because one cannot claim having knowledge of some state of affairs to be the case but does not believe that it is the case.
Your two beliefs regarding “wrong” are contradictory and so is your position on Cochrane’s text.
As far as I am concerned this is sub-median-reader stuff.
If we cannot agree what the argument is about, then any serious discussion is impossible.
However, take your time to go through Cochrane’s text. Whatever your write – and as far as I am concerned it must not be against anybody –, if you achieve to argue as clearly and precisely as Brad DeLong on the level he has set, I am sure a lot of people will applaud you.
@ DT
You misunderstand what I said. There is no “right or wrong” in interpreting what someone meant, because nobody knows. It is all guesses. In Brad’s and my view, there are wrong statements in the piece and valid arguments. Where you put the weight on is up to you, me or Brad, and in THIS judgement there is no right or wrong.
I wish there would be someone like Paul Krugman in Germany calling bullshit as loud as Krugman does when he sees it. For there is quite a lot of bullshit in German political debates and no one to stop it, no one respected enough who could give the people an alternative view. Or someone like Brad DeLong, who is willing to argue with quite some depth, for the benefit of his readers.
If you, Kantoos, found something of value in Cochrane’s piece, pick it up, and better it as your own piece. As you can see from those 2 last postings in this blog, there is no need to hide yourself behind someone like Cochrane. You can get the attention for yourself. I’m looking forward to your response to DeLong.
@ lh
I am not hiding, I don’t even share John’s view! I just wanted to have an open and balanced discussion about the issues that John did raise.
How strange this all is. Is the premise really that Paul Krugman is somehow ineffective in persuading the “median reader”? Our host allows for an unfamiliarity with American culture as a possible disclaimer, but there is no subtlety that he/she should be aware of.
This aside, there are several, relevant flocks of readers, and my sense is that he is doing a fine job of shepherding each. In no particular order of importance:
(1) Prospective economics graduate students (and, perhaps, academics more generally). Simply put, Krugman gets the saltwater/freshwater “cultural” divide pitch perfect. And it is an absolutely necessary service to the discipline and the academy that a very public marker is placed describing the pathology. Is the median future macroeconomist reading carefully? What do you think?
(2) Those who might deign to represent that opinions on the shape of the earth differ. If only for fear of being called out publicly, are journalists these days more or less likely to call BS on false equivalences for Krugman’s tireless efforts?
(3) The political team in the White House. It is a bit late in the day, but battleship Obama is finally beginning to be steered in the general direction long advocated by Krugman to, surprise surprise, apparent political profit.
(4) The readership of the NY Times. It is not clear what the median of this “elite” population is, but I would find it incredible for someone to argue that the relentless presentation of the Keynesian argument in the mini-Depression has not had significant influence on the margin.
That there are millions who absolutely will not be moved from untenable positions, by fact and argument, for whatever reason, not even slightly, recent history has starkly demonstrated this seemingly bizarre phenomenon.
Would such people be so moved were the professor to instead have spent recent years producing a rumination “on the nature of leadership in a way which shows some tussling with Thucydides and Churchill”? C’mon.
If anything, Krugman would be more effective if he were a little less considerate of the tender feelings of the mendacious and ignorant, especially in his TV appearances. In the absurd world we live in, there is no substitute for absolute clarity of expression. And has been said, you got a problem with that?
Robert Waldmann’s point was perfectly legitimate. Kantoos *took* a position by claiming that Krugman and Delong had unleashed “unjustified rants.” That was absurd. And it’s clear that he took that position *without* actually understanding what Cochrane had said and what Krugman / Delong were saying in response. He’s already started back-tracking, and acknowledging that Cochrane’s article is badly written, disorganized and has many wrong statements and that he’s forced to cherry-pick for valid concepts that he’ll post about later. In essence, he’s already conceded that the supposed rants weren’t “unjustified” at all.
Plus Kantoos took the position that he was a some “median” good faith player, when I do not believe he is. He should be called out for this kind of gamesmanship if he wants to be taken seriously. As I said, I can see no reason to take Kantoos seriously, but we’ll see when he gets around to responding to Delong.
Part of the hositility about Kantoos’ use of “unjustified rant” is that it is typical of the standard right-wing bad faith smear attack on Krugman to paint him as “shrill” or unseriousness – it’s a tactic of delegitimization – even if he is simply addressing errors in a very straight-forward manner. If you want to make those accusations and be taken seriously, you should be able to back them up *when* you make them, and not be forced into a cherry-picking exhumation to justify your error.
@ fs
Thanks, that is a hint I can work with. I was not fully aware of that, and it was by no means meant to deligitimize anyone. Your other comment is not enitrely fair: I wrote right from the start that John’s piece is convoluted.
Also consider this: Don’t only look for little extracts from Cochrane’s article that you can support, but explain why a guy like me, who is not an economist, should rely on Cochrane’s explanations to support or oppose specific policies. Should I do that? Can I rely on him? If not, why not? If I can’t, without massive revisions by someone else a few years later, isn’t that pretty significant? Hasn’t Cochrane made basic errors that would have resulted in harm to the quality of life for a lot of people? It sure sounds to me like he has. I mean, what’s going on here?
I’m delighted that you’ve taken back your comments about Krugman and DeLong engaging in “unjustified rants” — it shows an admirable open-mindedness. However, I think you still have a way to go to correct unfairnesses you have committed. Your original was unbalanced and unfair in other ways. Consider that the title of Cochrane’s piece accuses stimulus advocates of committing fallacies. Consider also that Cochrane essentially dismisses Keynesian as quaint history – a blatantly false and unfair attack on a vibrant school of thought – one that Krugman and DeLong continually point out better explains and predicts current economics circumstances and events than anything Cochrane has published. So I think it’s entirely fair to say that you started the discussion by holding Krugman and DeLong to a standard your other proxy interlocutor – Cochrane, failed from the beginning to uphold.
As a median reader, I have to say I think Krugman and DeLong have performed an admirable service. There is ample data to suggest – in public opinion polls and to some extent in policy discussions – that their forceful manner of debunking has persuaded ever-larger numbers of people to understand and believe the stimulus side of the argument. If they honestly believe that policy makers and opinion elites have fallen prey to zombie ideas, they have the right and perhaps the duty to say so. I’d say they’ve made their case quite well. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go around – I would never ask Krugman and DeLong to change who they are, lest it risk the contributions they make to the discussion.
The challenge in making a plea for open, high-minded dialogue in a polarizing environment is large; it means holding oneself and others to the same standards – that includes Cochrane – even now, you let him off too lightly. The dismissal of Keynesian scholarship isn’t unforgivable, but it’s a damning indictment of Cochrane’s supposed expertise. You, Krugman, and DeLong have all taken steps to correct the record – since your fair-minded, you should have no problem acknowledging that Cochrane is the only one among you who fails in every way to meet the standards of argument you suggest..
The schoolkid who doesn’t do his homework has no business chastising the teacher. There are tons of thirty something economy graduates out there who would have rebutted quite fiercely Cochrane’s original statements (especially re: Keynes) without requiring the good professors to do such work in a manner felt appropriately solicitous to Cochrane, Kantoos and the so-called median reader. Apart from his mention in spaces like these, the last time I ran across Cochrane’s name in the press was when he, a billionaire hedge fund manager who contributes heavily to his department, and a tea party congressman named Ryan were spotted drinking multiple $350 bottles of wine in public. As a German citizen you can take for granted a degree of social support from the government that is not present in the US, where right wing conservatives and their allies in academics and so called think tanks are actively trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. Economics fornicates with politics as your blog title suggests, and there is serious money involved here. When physicists start hanging out with billionaires who are taxed at 15% of earnings and their policymakers who think that that number is just fine when the country is in deep recession, we can all start questioning that field as a hard science, but only after those academics make no concession to the inappropriateness of that arrangement.