Comments on: Mankiw’s 10 principles of economics

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:05:58 +0000

So walt, were you wrong to say in 27 that it is insulting to call Friedman a charlatan? Do you acknowledge that that was a bullying tatic? And I don’t think phb claims that the author of a paper defining the “natural rate” of unemployment and of a model with a long-run vertical expectations-augmented Phillips curve was the inventor of “rational expectations”.

I think most Crooked Timber posters and commentators have become bored with arguing about the curious scholarly standards among academic economists. Other threads like this have had 200 comments.

I think orthodox economists have little to say about the world. (Maybe Shleifer knows something about corruption.) But it takes years of study to find out where the errors in orthodox economics lie. The motivation for this study, given how little orthodox economists have to say, is hard to fathom. I guess such motivation might lie in the institutionalized power orthodox economists have.

By: Questioner

Questioner — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:22:00 +0000

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here think that any academic economist since 1950, because of his training and not because he's got whatever it is that makes someone untrained in economics worth listening to, has ever said anything both surprising and true?

By: Daniel Reeves

Daniel Reeves — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:58:58 +0000

I suggest that everybody somewhat take phb says with a few grains of salt for his or her own good. phb seems knowledgeable, but phb’s criticisms of economics (“economists are ideologues,” “it’s more complicated than that,” blah blah blah) are among the most common economists ever hear, and the notion that economists haven’t realized it is quite silly. Krugman, a fine economist indeed, is not the only one in the field who “gets it,” as implied from his post. phb, you’re not the only skeptic out there; you can stop patting yourself on the back, mate.

I also suggest that everybody COMPLETELY ignore xboy because he is almost entirely wrong and probably hasn’t heard anything aside from blatant propaganda and lies. Let me correct him: most economists believe that the Laffer curve is bologna in most situations (by standard economic theory, it’s right in some situations, but requires extremely elastic supply-demand and/or ridiculously high taxation), that minimum wage only slightly increases teenage unemployment (although sometimes the degree to which is exaggerated), and that some deficit spending is alright because debt means nothing when it isn’t measured as a percent of GDP but too much is obviously bad (this is obvious). All you got right was that most economists think globalization is wonderful. And when you look at the facts and start thinking a bit, it’s hard to argue that it’s bad.

By: Walt

Walt — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:06:22 +0000

PHB, the fact remains that you don’t know what you’re talking about, yet you adopt a condescending and superior tone. Economists use models with delays, Friedman did not invent rational expectations, etc.

Your comment about Friedman working with dictators is a non-sequitor. I am perfectly aware that he worked with dictators. Really, fuck Milton Friedman. I am not a defender of his. But the fact remains that you don’t know what you are talking about, but pretending you do. Frankly, you got off lightly.

By: Edward Rhodes

Edward Rhodes — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:48:54 +0000

After reading the above,the incentive to contribute has an opportunity cost to harmonize my decision making capabilities.

By: Xboy

Xboy — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:42:56 +0000

Economics is not a science. It’s obviously not a physical science, though economists flatter themselves by talking about their own objectivity, mathematical rigor, and predictive value. It’s not a social science either, since ecomomists pay as little attention as possible to real inter-actions among people, preferring to make extrapolations from statistics which are already extrapolations.
Economics is simply the art of rationalizing whatever our rulers want to do to us. Ever since Reagan was elected president, economists have been
telling us that lowering taxes will increase revenues, that raising the minimum wage will increase inflation, that globalization is a good thing for everybody, and that deficit spending is disastrous (except when W went to war, when they prudently fell silent). This is exactly what bankers, investors, and corporate executives want to hear. Economists aren’t really concerned when the facts don’t bear out their theories, because the theories themslves are so beautifully consistent, and because the theories are just window dressing to disguise what is really going on.
Shakespeare was wrong. The first thing to do is kill all the economists… and then the lawyers.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:48:03 +0000

You, engineers-hating bastards. You, charlatans. We’ll getcha, we’re everywhere.

By: Walt

Walt — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:00:39 +0000

Okay, I don’t know what you were insulted by, if it wasn’t the remarks about engineers.

By: Scott Hughes

Scott Hughes — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:53:46 +0000

The video a funny video but in a very silly sort of way. :)

Economics is fun to make fun of.

By: notsneaky

notsneaky — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:30:19 +0000

(Ay ay ay)^2

By: PHB

PHB — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:51:52 +0000

Walt, I think it is you who is showing the thin skin here. I made comments about economists, you responded with a personal attack. Then when I point out that people who resort to name calling tend not to have the best arguments you pretend that it was your attack on engineers that was offensive.

Then two minutes later you decide to have another go. Hardly a sign that you are confident in the argument you are making. Two posts in a row without making any substantive points. You object to me describing Friedman as a Charlatan and then make no response when I point out that he made his career working for dictators.

Looks like you are guilty of a bit of projection here to me.

By: Walt

Walt — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:35:29 +0000

Actually, looking over your reply, PHB, it’s striking how completely you go pieces in the face of opposition. I was actually going to ask you some follow-up questions about your comment in 25, but you are clearly too emotional produce much in reply.

By: Walt

Walt — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:33:34 +0000

PHB, I spoke in the exact same generalities about engineers that you did about economists. You are a thin-skinned person who likes to dish out abuse, but can’t take it. It’s not a rare trait, but you shouldn’t be surprised when people reply in kind.

By: notsneaky

notsneaky — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:27:50 +0000

Ay ay ay.

By: PHB

PHB — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:19:20 +0000

walt,

As you keep resorting to personal abuse, let me give you some in return.

The phrase ‘economists are irritating’ is abuse, but not personal abuse. Such statements are entirely acceptable in polite conversation, particularly in a thread making fun at the expense of economists.

The statement ‘walt is an ignorant git’ on the other hand is personal abuse. Or rather would be personal abuse if it did not appear to be true.

And yes, Friedman was a charlatan and a humbug. Like many on the right he talked such a good game about ‘freedom’ when he was not sucking off the teat of the dictators like Pinochet who actually made his career.

The friends and allies of blood soaked dictators are fair game for being called much worse. He was an evil, evil man.