Comments on: A Young Person’s Guide to Economics

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:28:37 +0000

After reading all that (original post and thread) I am slightly wiser and rather more entertained. DD’s right about the whole popularising thang – you got it or you ain’t. And Tyler’s chirpy “word to the wise” tone didn’t make things that much clearer. Also liked: “It is also in general associated with a loss of political control and general anarchy, which has an exhilarating effect on the animal spirits of artists (pet theory alert) but a debilitating effect on those of businessmen.” Fits with my experiences as an artiste, when I had the most fun (while also being very productive) during the recessions of the early eighties and nineties. Not to mention being inspired by some of the music and arty mayhem which emerged during the UK’s “Winter of Discontent.” Looking forward to a DDivot on this theory.

By: Jason McCullough

Jason McCullough — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:44:59 +0000

By the way, I’m curious what you think of this fed study which declares that personal wealth has gone up quite a bit for everyone, which seems wildly at odds with personal experience and all the other economic statistics.

By: Jason McCullough

Jason McCullough — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:59:56 +0000

Latest updates: “That being said, contractionary fiscal policy can damage an economy. Let’s say the government laid off half of all federal employees, tomorrow. Even if this were a good idea in the long run, we would have a big downturn, very quickly. But you don’t have to think of this as a fiscal policy effect. It is an unexpected sectoral shift, which leads to unemployment. State budget cuts are extending our recent recession, for related reasons.” Yeah, he’s an Austrian. Yech.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:50:21 +0000

If I get a post, I will explain what I think has happened, because the “Business Cycles” post makes it a lot clearer. Tyler actually has a very sensible, but decidedly heterodox view of economics (he’s a New Austrian), but rather than explaining how his worldview differs from orthodoxy, he’s decided to skate over the differences and pretend they don’t matter. So it’s a failure of popularisation, not a case of not knowing his stuff.

By: Ratherworried

Ratherworried — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:31:20 +0000

The original piece was so bad I actually went back to read it and make cetain that Dowdification was not occurring in the excerpts…I apologize for my lack of faith. I am not trained as an Economist and I think I could tear that piece up. Some questions: 1. Was this a case of trying to simplify something complex; or 2. Was this a case of hacking something together while under the influence; or 3. Was this a case of writing something outside your field of expertise and when faced with something you didn’t know fudging? I think it was a combination of all three. Numbers 1 and 3 are clearly indicated. Number 2 is indicated just in the disjointed thought construction that reads like an untrained writer throwing together a first draft. Can someone, who actually knows this topic, take the time to explain it in an article? I’m very curious now and I think that in some of his replies Daniel might have actually taught me some economics! Thanks Daniel!

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:20:58 +0000

He’s also written a book on Austrian theories of the business cycle which I rather like, but that hasn’t stopped him writing some terrible rubbish about that. Popularisation’s a gift. Either you’ve got it (like Krugman) or you haven’t.

By: JK

JK — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:57:58 +0000

Note to DD: Though Tyler is quite good in Public Choice, monetary econ is one of his core fields (along with welfare economics & economics of the arts) having published articles on monetary economics in such prestigious journals as the Journal of Political Economy, the American Economic Review, Journal of Public Economics, and the Journal of Money Credit & Banking.

By: Kevin Brancato

Kevin Brancato — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:44:51 +0000

“Most of macroeconomics today is monetary economics. Most of macroeconomics today is growth theory.” This disagreement begs for an empirical resolution.

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:36:17 +0000

Libertarians can sure get cranky about central banks and “fiat money,” can’t they?

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:40:55 +0000

As far as I can tell, his field of expertise is in public choice economics, and as far as I can tell, he’s quite good at it. Written a couple of good things on Buchanan etc, and a really rather good paper on concepts of economic rationality. But the monetary thing is just … ugh.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:18:11 +0000

Jesus, those articles by Cowen are bad, & confused. Thing is, how did he get his PhD from Harvard, or his professorship, when he’s that muddled? c.f. http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/tylervita2.pdf

By: Jason McCullough

Jason McCullough — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:11:31 +0000

What’s the best description for the fiat currency paranoia he’s channeling? Vulgar moneterism?

By: jw mason

jw mason — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:08:31 +0000

When learned people disagree the results are always interesting. It’s also interesting, and more relevant to the case at hand, when a learned person grinds an ignorant one’s face into the barroom floor. I do wonder why monetary policy in particular attracts so many cranks. A very suitable subject for a future dquared post, what with his fascination with Major Douglas and all.

By: JW

JW — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:52:40 +0000

I found this bit really very odd: Deflation pisses people off, by making them accept lower nominal wages. Funny, but academics will scream bloody murder if you cut their wages by $500 in a year. Those same educated people find it OK if their nominal wage is constant but eroded by price inflation over time. Don’t try to understand these people, or tell them they should be like Silicon Valley, just accept them for what they are.” But the evidence is very substantial that this sort of ‘loss aversion’ is not peculiar to academics, but is common to basically everyone. Cf. Kahneman and Tversky on ‘prospect theory’. So I don’t quite see what the point of this dig is at academics. And is there any evidence that Silicon Valley is somehow immune to this well-documented aspect of human cognition?

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:25:50 +0000

I see he’s on to Part II: Business Cycles today—I expect you’ll be on the case directly… ^o_-