*****
Don Boudreaux!
Not content to refine distinctions between stocks and flows where they get a little fuzzy in the hands of journalists, Don goes WAY beyond anything Peter Morici ever actually says about the economics of disasters. That's called lying at worst, or being misleading at best (I won't outright call it lying because Don is slippery as to whether he's saying Morici has ever said any of this... but it's definitely misleading).
One other thing that bugs me about this bad tendency among certain economists: why does he call it "vulgar Keynesianism"? Why does Keynes always get whipped out when we talk about disaster economics? It's not completely irrelevant (since things at or below full employment have different implications), but it doesn't really have anything to do with Keynesianism.
Do we even know if Morici considers himself a Keynesian? Does anyone have any evidence he's a Keynesian? I heard this somewhere else recently too - citing Morici on disasters and saying "see that's what Keynesians think". Is he even Keynesian?
Posts
Keynes gets whipped out during disaster economics because both are retarded. If you want to be upset at anyone, get man at Krugman and his aliens.
ReplyDeleteGreetings from the real world!
ReplyDelete“…why does he call it "vulgar Keynesianism"? Why does Keynes always get whipped out when we talk about disaster economics?”
Keynes is not the culprit in particular, it’s the Keynesians that can after Keynes. The reference alludes to all the economic fallacies before 1700 that have been wrapped into a theory known as Keynesianism and promoted by Keynesians.
Regarding the title to the blog post of "The bad economics tide starts with the usual suspect!" exactly why does the term “bad” appear? Do certain economics appear “bad” and must sit in the corner? Hmmm. A “bad tide”? High tide, low tide, rip-tide….now we have the non-defined and brand new term “bad tide”. Wow!
One might want to examine this statement:
“Not content to refine distinctions between stocks and flows where they get a little fuzzy in the hands of journalists, Don goes WAY beyond anything Peter Morici ever actually says about the economics of disasters. That's called lying at worst, or being misleading at best….”.
Making a statement with no supporting evidence, nor evidence forthcoming later in the essay, is rather shallow. Where are “the facts and other suborn things”? At the very least you could offer a notional argument based on your painting the world in your self-image, but no!
One might want to consider your debate points:
(1) a bad tide is afoot,
(2) the bad tide is caused by hurricane Boudreaux,
(3) the bad tides is because: your being somehow and in some way enlightened and obviously benighted, have the power to designate the tide as bad.
Brilliant debate points! A regular fool proof plan!
News flash: blogs are a running conversation. Single posts may need to be read in the context of a posting history. This is as true of Don's blogging as mind. Don't go nuts if you can't get your head around a single isolated post.
Delete*mine
DeleteDaniel, Don replied to you in an Update.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I really think you need to relax your indignation and READ what that guy wrote. For example:
None of this is meant to discount the storm's costs to individuals and the temporary or even permanent disruption to lives and communities, much of which cannot be quantified. However, when government authorities facilitate quick and effective rebuilding, the process of economic renewal can leave communities better off than before in many tangible ways.
He is quite clearly saying that in terms of tangible wealth, the economy will end up being better off because of the storm than before. He is literally and explicitly saying what you keep claiming is just a strawman.
Matt Yglesias didn't say it, I will grant you. But this guy certainly did.
Thank you for making me aware of the update.
DeleteI read Morici carefully before responding.
"better off than before in many tangible ways" does not mean "better off than before in all ways". Sorry. They're quite plainly different.
Certainly they're different enough that you and Don should consider it a vague sentence and not proof positive that this man thinks a devastating hurricane is a good thing.
I have a post coming soon on his update. I'm sorry, I'm not budging on this and I hope you don't pile on Morici. Don's bullying is infuriating.
Daniel, now you're ignoring what *I* wrote. Since you're at the point of dropping F-bombs I guess it's pointless reasoning with you.
DeleteYou are so *sure* that I am accusing this Morici guy of saying, "I'm glad the hurricane happened" or "The people on the East Coast are lucky." That's not what I'm accusing him of saying.
Rather, go re-read what I wrote in your comments above. I said:
"He is quite clearly saying that in terms of tangible wealth, the economy will end up being better off because of the storm than before."
And that is indeed what he said. In addition to the quote I produced above, he also wrote this:
Disasters can give an ailing construction sector a boost, while unleashing reinvestment that actually improves stricken areas and the lives of residents. Ultimately, Americans always seem to emerge stronger and rebuild better in the wake of disaster.
So I think he is claiming that yes, it is a personal tragedy with unquantifiable costs in terms of stress, worry, and obviously if people actually get hurt or die, but in terms of economic variables--like flow of output and even stock of physical wealth--it can leave us better off.
You keep saying that no no no, nobody ever said it makes us materially richer, and I think that is exactly what this guy is saying. You cursing about it isn't an argument.
Don's "bullying" LOLOLOLOLOL
DeleteWow, kid - time to take a deep breath and reconsider your perception on things.
Bob -
DeleteI didn't say you thought "I'm glad the hurricane happened" or "The people on the East Coast are lucky" at all.
I specifically said that I hope you don't continue with what Don said and say that. I know you didn't say that. When did I accuse you of that? I didn't Bob. And all the hand-wringing about naughty language isn't an argument for when I did.
The second sentence you bring up is a reference to the fact that the new stock that will replace the old is going to be of better quality, right? Bigger houses on top of the smaller ones? That's what he talks about with the rest of the article. Does that mean the country is wealthier? I think that's a leap. Certainly that doesn't justify the other stuff that Don piles on.