Thursday, June 26, 2014

I actually hope they keep doing it periodically, it's a useful reminder of the actual intellectual level and limitations of that field.
"that field" is physics. And the piece itself is awful.

Leiter does it again
This is an effective takedown of Krugman's unwarranted complacency.
The link's to Alex Rosenberg.
Wind the clock back about 40 years and the shoe was on the other foot. Back then, the very same IS-LM models that Keynesians had developed and Krugman has recycled, were giving more or less the wrong answers. This was the period of “Stagflation” in the ‘70s when the economy refused to behave the way Keynes’ models told us it would—increasing unemployment together with increasing inflation.

Back then it was the New Classical macrotheory that gave the right answers and explained what the matter with the Keynesian models was.
Krugman in 2009. It didn't take long to find. See also Dean Baker.
I had a brief exchange of emails with Rosenberg; his responses were not reassuring. He gives himself permission to cut corners for the sake of scoring points.

Mark Thoma links to Simon Wren-Lewis and Thoma's commenters link to Krugman, all responding to Rosenberg.

I don't have to like Krugman much or think of economics as a science -even a "historical science"- to defend him against lazy arguments of someone who's claimed elsewhere that history is bunk.

Gabriel Kolko was a historian.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is enabled.