tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post1809192869486970725..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-61230919427835597052016-02-26T12:31:03.485-05:002016-02-26T12:31:03.485-05:00The first I heard of Friedman's numbers, I ign...The first I heard of Friedman's numbers, I ignored them as "rosy scenario" projections of trends-with-benefits. Add up all the best outcomes of the positives and ignore any potential negatives. This kind of promotional rhetoric happens all the time in economics -- not just GOP/Laffer/voodoo economics, either. Trust me, it does. <br /><br />Case in point the "built-in mechanism" in Robert Solow's 1973 takedown, "Is the End of the World at Hand." of the Limits to Growth argument. I mention that one because I prescribe it as a reading for my Labour and the Environment course. It exemplifies the "oh, never mind those externalities -- they are incidental (we'll just internalize 'em)" view that predominates STILL in mainstream environmental economics. "Internalizing the externalities" is shorthand for "then a miracle occurs" step two in the famous cartoon.<br /><br />Nothing new here. It is the Mutual Assured Destruction response of Krugman and the Gang of Four that interests me. That wasn't about Friedman's pollyanna analysis; it was about intimidating and silencing those who are <i>not authorized</i> to commit the kind of "then a miracle occurs" step that the accredited authorities take as a matter of course. "How DARE someone commit that SIN without OUR permission!"<br /><br />When the same kinds of criticisms are directed at mainstream economics by the "heterodox," they are ignored, brushed off with an "all models are wrong" shrug or responded to with a shitstorm of <i>ad hominem</i> derision at the unqualified simpletons raising the objections. One possible positive outcome of the Friedman/Krugman Gang of Four affair is that it brings out in the open the partisan hypocrisy that revolves around who has license to use the then-a-miracle-occurs step and who doesn't.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-36851328890764162322016-02-26T10:52:15.280-05:002016-02-26T10:52:15.280-05:00I always do. Which is why I skip the resume and g...I always do. Which is why I skip the resume and go straight to the analysis. Of course as Peter notes - Friedman provided none. So Romer and Romer's rebuttal was all too easy. Time for some hard work - a real analysis. Anybody?ProGrowthLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17138489390594441753noreply@blogger.com