You guys know that over at Cafe Hayek Don's style and content bothers me leaps and bounds more than Russ's. But today's post is not a good one for Russ. A couple observations:
1. He really can't juxtapose Smith/Hayek with Keynes the way he's doing here. Economics, in reality, is actually not a boxing match. That's not to say Hayek and Keynes can perfectly co-exist. There were clearly specifics they disagreed on and one (or both) has to be wrong on something. It's irresponsible to look at the success of Keynesian economics and conclude Adam Smith has fallen. I guarantee you, Russ - we are Smithian as much as you are. Very few economists aren't. By acting like these cannot co-exist you're getting a bad answer to your own question.
2. There is a "market for science" in both the strict supply-and-demand market and in the broader sense of a set of exchange relations. In neither sense is science produced predominantly for the consumption of politicians and the general public. Scientists try to convince other scientists. To the extent that they are public expositors, that's not going to drive their scientific conclusions.
3. The idea that modern policy is supported by Keynesianism is nonsense. Why do you think Keynesians have been pulling their hair out for almost five years now? It is amazing to me people are still claiming this. There's this weird assumption that because Russ didn't get what he wanted we must be getting policy justified by Keynesianism. That's not how it works.
4. Ultimately, the same critique needs to be made here that needs to be made about the Keynes v. Hayek raps that Russ worked on: it's not so much the finer points as it is the big picture - if you see this as a battle royale or if you see this as "bottom up" vs. "top down", you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of economics discussions right now and you are fundamentally misunderstanding what the other side claims. I'm a bottom-up guy. I'm a Smithian. I'm a Hayekian. I'm also a Keynesian.
10 hours ago