Plot summary: Simon and Nick disagree about something Paul said, so Brad steps in to settle the dispute (probably a rerun or at least a rehash of a sequel to a remake). Most Lucky-like ("...the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis...") sentence -- what Brad wrote:
Conventional monetary policy that swaps liquid cash for short-term safe nominal assets cannot help unless and until it summons the Inflation Expectations Imp and so makes interest rates at the zero interest rate lower bound consistent with the configuration of real interest rates across the risk spectrum that corresponds to the current Wicksellian natural rate.What the reader sees:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, Nick Rowe, blah, blah, blah, Simon Wren-Lewis, blah, blah, Brad DeLong, blah, blah, blah, blah, Paul Krugman, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.Storyline for Economist's Squares (adapted from the storyline for Hollywood Squares):
Nine celebrity economist bloggers, seated in a three-by-three tier as in a tic-tac-toe board, joined two contestants, one of them a champion, in a game known best for the celebrities' wonkish answers to questions. The object was to win an otherwise standard game of tic-tac-toe by determining whether a celebrity economist was giving a correct answer to a general knowledge question or bluffing ("agree" or "disagree"). Contestants selected a celebrity, for which host Mark Thoma reads a question; a correct decision to agree or disagree by the player allowed him/her to place their mark in that box, while the opponent's mark was placed there if said decision was incorrect (unless it led to tic-tac-toe, in which case the contestant had to earn the box). During the first complete game of a show, a "Secret Square" game offered the contestants a bonus prize package for a correct answer. The contestant winning the best-of-three match was champion and returned to face a new challenger.
6 comments:
Now now, S-man. Sure, Mark T. tends to favor certain widely read blogs in his links, and when their bloggers get into tiffs, these get linked to. But I would note that he does link to our little blog here not too infrequently, as well, not to mention quite a few other blogs that are not so widely read. He does not need to be picked on for this.
Now, now, Barkley. As for linking to our little blog, Mark T. is not going to stop linking to Barkley Rosser, pgl and Peter Dorman just because little Sandwichman mocks the decline of the quality of links.
For a quite a while Sandwichman has observed a perverse incentive that arises from the "pecuniary" pursuit of EV links. Call it publication bias. I think comparing it to Hollywood Squares is a rather mild and humourous way to call attention to something that is probably unintentional but nevertheless insidious in its enforcement of conformity.
Sandwichman never ceases to be amazed at how little tolerance there is for "deviants" like S-man.
You get your links too, S-man, and I do not get nearly as many as I used to, for whatever reason, probably because there are more blogs out there all the time. Hey, MaxSpeak is back and cutting into our links (sob!), more power to Max, who is better than all of us here at Econospeak... :-).
No. Last link from MT was one I contrived to get a link from MT. Folks just don't get my mimetic sense of humour.
S-man,
Biff bam pow! And I die from laughter... :-).
As I was saying...
Post a Comment