Posted on 07/03/2010 6:43:19 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
In this essay, I argue that neither non-economist bloggers, nor economists who portray economics —especially macroeconomic policy— as a simple enterprise with clear conclusions, are likely to contibute any insight to discussion of economics and, as a result, should be ignored by an open-minded lay public.The following is a letter to open-minded consumers of the economics blogosphere. In the wake of the recent financial crisis, bloggers seem unable to resist commentating routinely about economic events. It may always have been thus, but in recent times, the manifold dimensions of the financial crisis and associated recession have given fillip to something bigger than a cottage industry. Examples include Matt Yglesias, John Stossel, Robert Samuelson, and Robert Reich. In what follows I will argue that it is exceedingly unlikely that these authors have anything interesting to say about economic policy. This sounds mean-spirited, but it’s not meant to be, and I’ll explain why.
Before I continue, here’s who I am: The relevant fact is that I work as a rank-and-file PhD economist operating within a central banking system. I have contributed no earth-shaking ideas to Economics and work fundamentally as a worker bee chipping away with known tools at portions of larger problems. It is precisely from this low-level vantage point that I am totally puzzled by the willingness of many who fearlessly and breathlessly opine about economics, especially macroeconomic policy. Deficits, short-term interest rate targets, sovereign debt are all chewed over with a level of self-assuredness that only someone who doesn’t know more could. The list of those exhibiting this zest also includes, in addition to those mentioned above, some who might know better. They are the patron saints of the “Macroeconomic Policy is Easy: Only Idiots Don’t Think So” movement: Paul Krugman and Brad Delong. Either of these men will assure their readers that it’s all really very simple (and may even be found in Keynes’ writings). Lastly, before you dismiss me as a right- or left-winger, I am not. I’m simply less comfortable with ex cathedra pronouncements and speculations than the people I have named. [footnote omitted]
The main problem is that economics, and certainly macroeconomics is not, by any reasonable measure, simple. Macroeconomics is most narrowly concerned with the tracing of individual actions into aggregate outcomes, and most fatally attractive to bloggers: vice versa. What makes macroeconomics very complicated is that economic actors... act. Firms think about how to make profits, households think about how to budget their resources. And both sets of actors forecast. They must. One has to take a view on one’s future income, health, and familial obligations to think about what to set aside for retirement, how much life insurance to buy, and so on. Of course, all parties may be terrible at forecasting, that’s certainly a possibility, but that’s not the issue. Even if one wanted to think of all economic actors as foolish and purposeless organisms making utterly random choices, one must accept that their decisions will still affect, and be affected by what others do. The finitude of resources ensures this “accounting” reality.
[excerpted]
>>and wishes for the author to die.
Wishes for the author to eat Suuuuper Geckonomic Genius A$$Paper, and ~then die.
That’s ok, Bill . . . you wish for other people to die, and you wish to kick my ass . . . see a pattern?
The violent reaction you see is perfectly predictable . . . people don’t want to release themselves from whatever “comfort zone” they have established. There’s no simpler way to explain it . . . .
Poor little rude, paranoid, parrot.
Did BP break into your house again?
I prefer your condemnation,
To your suckin' sympathy.
Baby, good for nuthin',
Is good enough for me.
--Bobby Bare
{yawwwwwn} The frat punks in Parrot Delta Parrot need to feed their brother toddster some new material.
LOL...the pattern is LB’s special brand of Christian Charity. Storm onto a thread with some Bible quotes, plaster up some lame html personal attacks, and then simply wish people dead. Oh yeah, he’s a conservative all right.
I was thinking about that also . . . since when is “cowboy” a pejorative?
Hey, I was just reminded of something . . . do you have a Scriptural basis for wishing someone dead?
Welcome to LB World — a place where “cowboys” and “currie” instigate death threats. (It’s based on Westworld).
Nope, sorry . . . I’m looking for the scriptural basis for which I can visit a deathwish on this author, for example. I figured you might know.
Sorry that praised be he who permits the forbidden isn't working out for you?
Well, that's natural. Too bad for you. Maybe you can find a religionist wizard to sell you some candles to lessen your stay in Purgatory.
Natural Law provides the due penalty for perversion.If you do, you will - No Phd required to recognize that self-evident Truth.
That’s ok, you can always get help for your affliction . . . I’d recommend someone other than a trailer-park preacher, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.