Comments on: De motivis nil nisi bonum

By: Jesse

Jesse — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:27:51 +0000

The contents of the Kay report is at the present undergoing blatent misrepresentation by our leaders. No ‘C’ argument is ever going to explain it. Kay himself said that the media, not the administration was wildly misrepresenting his report.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:21:19 +0000

Edward: Responding second to your first post: I’ve said over and over again that Krugman’s columns are not economics but politics. In politics M-type arguments are appropriate. Not in economics. Economics is part of politics, but not all of it. Politics is not part of economics. Things are permissible in the non-economic part of politics which are not permissible in pure economics. So of course, when Krugman or DeLong impugn Lindsay’s motives (and they DO NOT impugn the motives of everyone who disagrees with them)—OF COURSE he doesn’t teach any economics. That’s politics. And (this is the sticking point) politics is a valid activity, even for an economist. Krugman is wearing two hats (and, of course, does a better job of the economic part of politics than pretty much anyone else). Economists do not not get all heated up about the consulting activities of other economists. Robert Merton’s consulting got him a felony, making him the first Nobel Prize felon to my knowledge. BEFORE his indictment, I do not think that he got anywhere near the heat Krugman is getting for his (Krugman’s) laudable political involvements. Isn’t there something wrong here?

By: Zizka

Zizka — Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:10:57 +0000

Edward Hugh—in this discussion and the ancestral discussions at Brad DeLong Krugman’s economics have rarely been the issue. Almost all the criticisms have been about whether he should be writing journalism at all, whether he is too shrill, and whether (in principle) he should impugn the motives of his adversaries. Many criticize Krugman’s political writing while endorsing what he’s actually saying. As far as I know, none of the discussion to date has been about “Krugman’s cure for deflation”. Yours is the first suggestion I’ve seen that Bush’s economic policies are a shrewd way of scaring us out of the deflation trap. It strikes me as a long stretch, but what do I know? In any case, I am not able to critique Krugman’s economics or yours. I know him as a political writer and have been appalled by the fierce and, as far as I can tell, almost always unjustified attacks which have been made upon him, not only by conservative adversaries but also by purist professionals. That has been my topic and in that context, your most recent response is off-topic.

By: Edward Hugh

Edward Hugh — Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:04:09 +0000

“are you a critical theorist or something?” ooooooh I missed this one. Thanks for the complement. “The significance of the Grosz/Artaud citation escapes me” Just take a look at the Grosz drawing, you’ll soon get the point. “I found Edward Hugh’s contribution to be essentially unintelligible.” Funnily enough, after an exchange of 3 e-mails K had the same problem. I must be obtuse or something. If so let me be explicit. K’s principal problem is deflation (aha, not many of you had even understood that from the NYT articles). K’s solution to deflation. Provoke strong inflation expectations. Put everyone in a cold sweat that the central bank and the treasury have gone mad, coz that’s the only way to convince you that they mean business and won’t reign-in at the last moment. This is the way out of the ‘liquidity trap’. This could be what Bush is doing, I don’t say it is since I have no idea of his motives. But he sure as hell has convinced K, who has taken out a fixed rate mortgage on the basis of what he has seen!

By: Edward Hugh

Edward Hugh — Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:09:07 +0000

“made it clear that you accept most of Krugman’s political analysis” Zizka, I presume this is directed at Keith Ellis, because I certainly don’t accept K’s political analysis. I think he’s driven himself mad with his own obsessions, and that’s what I am lamenting. I haven’t entered the C/M arguments because I left all this behind years ago. Pragmatically I think you should all take note of the arguments from the right welcoming your decision to accept M arguments. I think this is the terrain they love, that’s why I think its a silly decision to go down that road. In fact this isn’t the first time Henry has advocated this. The first time I met him was over at Brad’s place, where he responded to a post of mine about Marty Feldstein and the Euro explaining that F’s economic arguments about the problematic nature of the euro were wrong because he was trying to help the Republican party. I happen to share Feldstein’s concerns (as to some extent I suspect Brad does) but I can assure you I have no connection whatsoever with, or sympathy for, the US Republican Party. What am I trying to say is simply that you waste a lot of time with these arguments, and no-one gets to learn any economics. My Indian co-blogger Kaushik just took one of those political aptitude tests and discovered he came bang in the centre. I guess that’s where I’d be. I’ve never seen a motives analysis for being in the centre. Since we tend to take flack from both sides I can think of a psychoanalytic one: masochism.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:09:06 +0000

I have continued my presentation over at DeLong. Neither I nor Krugman speaks only about motives. Motives are included in what we speak of, and that is legitimate. What’s at issue here is whether Krugman is right in writing thje way he does (using M-arguments). You have not made the point that he isn’t. The larger issue is whether he’s right to go into the political arena, and you have not made the point that he isn’t right in that, either. Your comparison of me and Krugman to Bush is a clever rhetorical trope. I’m sure that there’s a Latin name for it. For all your intense rationalism, your responses to me scarcely ever respond to anything specific thatv I have said; they mostly consist of reiterating your initial erroneous characterization of my position. To the extent that I speculate about your motives, it’s because I find your attitude entirely baffling, since you have made it clear that you accept most of Krugman’s political analysis. I really do not know what makes you tick. But I think that DeLong is right about what makes Lindsey tick; it’s a much easier case.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:51:09 +0000

Zizka, you’re earnest and you mean well, and so I feel bad about “name calling”. But you automatically and vehemently impugn the motives of anyone that disagrees with you about Krugman. Which sort of proves the general point that Kling, and others, are trying to make. No one is arguing that motives aren’t relevant. But thinking chiefly about motives, as I get the strong impression you do, is a bad intellectual habit. It’s what Bush is doing, not incidentally, when he judges Putin as “decent man”. Thinking that one has a strong grasp on what makes someone “tick” allows one to dramatically cull the tree of possible interpretations of someone’s behavior. That is, in fact, the argument that you and other people are making in its defense. And it is hugely useful, assuming that one is correct in one’s judgments about another person’s inner state. But my observation is that a) people aren’t as successful at those judgments as they think they are; and, b) the fact that the method is convenient becomes, eventually, its own raison d’etre—as in the case of Bush and Putin. It’s so much easier for Bush to assume he can “look into” Putin’s “heart” than it is to, you know, deal with a complex reality.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Mon, 13 Oct 2003 04:22:43 +0000

Edward : You have the reductionism idea utterly backwards. I did NOT say that economics could be reduced to politics. I said that economics is part, but not all, of politics, and that politics cannot be reduced to economics, and that politics is a legitimate activity. I am not in any way a reductionist. I am completely in favor of economists doing economics. I do not understand why anyone should think that respect for economics should require the kind of contempt for politics that you and Keith display. (One which is only assumed and asserted, as if self evident.) Krugman has a choice between two kinds of honorable contributions, and at the moment (not forever) he’s doing more of one of them than the other. Krugman’s activity is mostly, at this point, not an attempt at “a short term fix”. It’s an attempt to forstall major political initiatives which will make things significantly worse. Sometimes in your statements you make it seem that you think that the whole political sphere is so epiphenomenal that no political event can have any effect whatever. But political disasters have an effect, whether or not political initiatives do any good. Beyond the charge of purist elitism which I think you deserve (bizarre, considering that economics is, or used to be, perhaps the most worldly of the disciplines), I suspect that both of you think you live in an ahistorical, apolitical world. But you don’t. The dream of a world without politics has taken many forms, but it’s erroneous. “He’s not a working economist, as you are, and he can’t really imagine how the work you do, and that Krugman isn’t doing, could really matter”. Keith, that’s insulting, and it’s utter bullshit. You have absolutely no reason for saying that. Not one word I have said justifies that. Both of you accuse me of what you do yourselves. Keith, you groundlessly accuse me of having contempt for Krugman’s economic work, while dripping an ignorant contempt for Krugman’s political work. Edward, you accuse me of reducing economics to politics, which I don’t do, but my bet (I can’t prove it) that you reduce politics to economics (or something else). The significance of the Grosz/Artaud citation escapes me; are you a critical theorist or something? Keith, I still have no idea what makes you tick. You did your little bit of name-calling just now, and consider yourself repaid in kind. I am not guilty of what you accuse me of. You both need to learn to read.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:09:09 +0000

Edward, I have distinct memories of reading—years before GWBush,probably before Clinton—that were the USA another state, they would be in as bad a shape as Argentina. The USA should be able to steer out of this situation, but only if they are aware of it that can be done with the least amount of damage. DSW

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:27:51 +0000

Edward, I really like your comments and you’ve said some things I’ve been trying to say, only more successfully. I asserted (over on DeLong’s site) to Zizka that today’s political landscape wouldn’t look any different had Krugman not written his NYT columns. Zizka strongly disagreed. And here is the very nub of the problem. To Zizka, the spectacle of politics that he’s watching is where all the action is. He reads Krugman’s NYT columns, so he assumes they matter. He’s not a working economist, as you are, and he can’t really imagine how the work you do, and that Krugman isn’t doing, could really matter. I’m hard pressed to think of a single pundit, at least since WWII, that I would be willing to credit with making a truly important difference in American political life. But let’s assume for the moment that such a person could exist. Is Krugman that person? I say he’s not that remarkable in that capacity. On the other hand, I can think of a few economists, even since WWII, that have made important differences in American political life by virtue of the contributions to economics. Krugman is widely considered to be talented enough to be one of those people. He’s concentrating his efforts on the wrong thing. That’s your argument, and that’s my argument. But for Zizka, all that matters is that Krugman is “speaking truth to power” when so few are doing so. What amazes me is that from my perspective, Zizka seems remarkably naive and idealistic (along with a touch of narcissism). Yet, he (or she) feels himself to be hard-headed and pragmatic. Liberals shouldn’t fight with kid gloves on, and all that. But it’s like cheering on the concert pianist in a fistfight with a bully out of relief that someone is taking on the bully. What a waste.

By: Edward Hugh

Edward Hugh — Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:22:18 +0000

“most economists agree with K, or at least, almost none agree with the Bush administration.” Zizka, this is the whole point. These are apples and pears. No-one in their right minds (I hope) imagines that ‘the Bush administration’ are Nobel prize material in economics. “Economic considerations are part of politics, not all of it. Krugman’s political writings are political, and include economic aspects” I think this is why you find what I am saying unintelligible. Your argument is reductionist, everything boils down to politics. But some of us do not agree. Would you want to say the same thing about chemistry, or physics, or genetics……or anthropology, philosophy, sociology etc? Is there no such thing as science, only politics? Mein Gott! I happen to think that both Heidegger and Sartre were wonderful philosophers, but I wouldn’t go near the politics – in either case. In fact their philosophy went downhill as soon as they started getting involved with politics. So the loss is to science. Krugman is doing no original work, the problems are there (and they are not all created by GWB: the US is going to have to make a more or less ‘painful adjustment’ to its present reality whoever is in the White House – although Brad has been informing us that the ‘US is great, the US is powerful’ so maybe that will solve the problem). You see here we have another problem produced by collapsing economics into politics, politics tends to think in terms of short term fixes, a bit more fiscal here, a shot of monetary policy there, when what we may need is some long term strategic thinking. I happen to think that this is what intellectuals are for, putting the memes into circulation which can change things ten, twenty years from now, that’s why its better for them to stay out of politics. Let’s put this in some perspective. Almost fifty years ago Robert Solow wrote a simple equation which subsequently changed the way that most economists working today think about growth, Franco Modigliani did something similar for the way we think about saving and consumption. Most people who use their work have little idea of what they thought about politics at the time. A few weeks ago Solow, Samuelson and Modigliani signed a short but dignified denunciation of Berlusconi’s ‘re-interpretation’ of Italian fascism. They won’t be remembered for the letter, of course, but for their contribution to their science. K, on the other hand, will be remembered for playing fisticuffs with Bush. That may be his gain, but I’m suggesting it is probably our loss. Nearly a century ago the German artist George Grosz produced a work which changed in some ways our conception of art: it was entitled ‘the street fight’. Some years later Antonin Artaud explained to us that Aristotle got it wrong, art doesn’t immitate life, but life art. K is now giving us an ‘installation-type’ real-time demonstration of how right Artaud was.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:21:13 +0000

I found Edward Hugh’s contribution to be essentially unintelligible. According to Brad DeLong most economists agree with K, or at least, almost none agree with the Bush administration. This doesn’t square with “no-one outside the political arena takes a blind bit of notice. Who is bothering with K now, Arnold Kling and Larry Lindsey”. I ahve no way of understanding what Hugh means about “losing Krugman”. Frankly my confidence in the economics profession is quite shaken. What DeLong and Krugman are saying seems quite sensible. And very few say they are wrong. But they get a tremendous amount of flak from within the profession simply because they are saying out loud what they are saying. This seems entirely medieval to me, as if we are ruled according to mysteries.

By: Edward Hugh

Edward Hugh — Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:21:53 +0000

“Krugman’s explanation of the rationale for the tax cuts is dead on” Look, it may not cut any ice, but for what its worth I actually had an exchange of mails some months ago with K on this topic. Basically I was playing around – yes playing in the ludic sense – that you could make a good type M argument that Bush and Co were following K’s own advice, and more specifically advice contained in a thesis he partly supervised by Gauti Eggerston, to the effect that the best way to avoid deflation is by the politicians over-riding the central bank, and in an enthusiastic bout of crazed irresponsibility provoking a serious inflation fire. Gauti’s paper is called ‘Committing to Being Irresponsible’ (and is now published as an IMF working paper, where you can also find Gauti working as one of the deflation ‘experts’). This theory is as good as the ‘provoked trainwreck’ one. But my point is not to advocate it. My point is we have no decision procedure. Look, the important point is this: in 2001 K felt he couldn’t speak out too much about Argentina, since he might cause a run. I think he was wrong, but that is beside the point. Now he tells the world that the US is going to have an Argentina style crisis, and no-one outside the political arena takes a blind bit of notice. Who is bothering with K now, Arnold Kling and Larry Lindsey. I think it’s a tragedy. Maybe there are 5 really good economists out there who can hack both the theory and the practice. We lost one earlier this year in Rudi Dornbusch, now we’ve lost another in his own ‘unravelling’. K could have had an impact on Japan, that could have been important. Throwing away your mind like that in a street brawl with GWB and co, it’s so irresponsible. It’s worse it’s self-immolation.

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Sat, 11 Oct 2003 04:25:06 +0000

“As for Krugman’s quality as a columnist, please remember that he used to attack the left just as vehemently when the left spouted goofy ideas on trade. I’m guessing you don’t find his attacks on the left’s motivation as endearing as his attacks on the right.” Nope. Excellent pedigree.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Sat, 11 Oct 2003 04:19:55 +0000

classic liberal: I don’t understand how you think that you have replied in any way to my fairly lengthy posts. Motives are relevant in politics, not in (scientific) economics. Economic considerations are part of politics, not all of it. Krugman’s political writings are political, and include economic aspects. Kling would be correct if Krugman were submitting his NYT columns to economic journals, but he isn’t. Kling may possibly feel that purely economic arguments are sufficient in politics, not a knowledgable belief at all, but it’s more likely that he disagrees with Krugman politically and his high-minded pose is fake. I have been reading Kling on DeLong’s site for months and have not been impressed. One big rule of politics is that you don’t take political advice from your political adversaries. This is relevant here. Can’t remember what Kling said specifically, but if Krugman is right about the economic C-points, and I think he is, how could his additional use of political M-points detract in any way from his point? If he’s got the C-points right, he can draw flowers in the margin, quote snatches of Robert Burns, tell stories about his grandmother, whatever, and the economic points remain as good as they were in the first place. As I said, the NYT is not a formal academic publication. I am fully aware that Krugman, like Clinton and the CIA, is far to my right in every way. When I see the bunch of them being attacked relentlessly, stupidly and viciously by people from still further right, I become alarmed. But I cewrtainly know who my worst enemies are.