= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Open thread, Feb. 9 - Feb. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (321)
I wonder how many of those "some economists" there really are. I know that, e.g., Paul Krugman, one of Cochrane's leading ideological opponents, vigorously denies that all models, data and experience say fiscal stimulus doesn't work. Cochrane's response is to suggest, inter alia, that Krugman doesn't really believe it either. I suppose he might be correct, but it seems more plausible to me that ideological differences are getting in the way of Cochrane having a good mental model of Krugman and other stimulus proponents. (In a similar way, many theists think, or say they think, that atheists really know that God is real and just don't want to admit it, and many atheists think, or say they think, that theists really know that there are no gods and just don't want to admit it.)
(Note: first link is to an NYT article; may be behind a paywall; if so, you can probably find it by searching for "Few economists saw our current crisis coming" and following the first link.)
My point was not to argue about fiscal stimulus. Indeed, if you deny that the models, data, etc, say that, then that is an intellectually respectable position, same as with any scientific dispute. But what is definitely not respectable, what is below the sanity waterline, is the attitude in the quote - that science says X, but I don't believe it anyway.
And that is very widespread, in my experience.
I understand that your point wasn't to argue about fiscal stimulus (and you will notice that no part of what I wrote was was arguing about fiscal stimulus, as opposed to about opinions about fiscal stimulus). I'm calling into question how often Cochrane has really heard people say what he describes, as opposed to less transparently irrational things that he interprets that way because he can't or won't believe that his ideological opponents really think as they say they do.
My mental model of Krugman is that he used to be smart scientist and then (I think consciously) decided that agitprop is really really important and that he will do more good by being a frontline fighter in ideological wars rather than a chief alchemist of an ivory tower. Unfortunately Krugman's assumed role is not compatible with being a smart scientist...