So I got fooled once by David Henderson's post where I thought he was going to say that everybody agrees that the question is about the role of labor supply incentives in the ultimate impact of UI on unemployment.
Shame on him, so the saying goes... but I'm not sure that's entirely fair - so let's say maybe shame on me for expecting that.
Now I see a post from Russ Roberts titled simply "Paul Krugman is not a hypocrite".
FANTASTIC!, I honestly thought.
We are making progress!
We are not making outrageous personal attacks and we're going to talk about economics, even if we disagree very strongly about the scientific reasonableness of a claim!
Well this is fool me twice, so it's definitely "shame on me" at this point.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hey, at least I tried to make an argument against the demand-side benefits of UI -- even if it's one of those arguments that talks about something that seems to have been already settled (the multiplier).
ReplyDeleteYep - did you see that Scott Sumner post on this? I think you'd like it. He thought the point was to be AD-focused too.
DeleteAnd even if you or Krugman or you and me ultimately disagree (your claim that consumption comes at the expense of investment seems odd in a liquidity trap, for example, and I think you also have to consider the role of the promise of extended benefits until the crisis abates for investment incentives), you're tossing around the issue of the macroeconomic effects of UI. That's the key. The problem is people who take a well recognized partial equilibrium effect and say that's the end of the story.
Yea, I thought Sumner's post was very good.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I don't like this pattern where you are allowed to tell us what "this is about." Russ, David, and I were saying, from the start, that we were NOT questioning the ability of a Keynesian to say extending UI would boost job growth during a recession. No, we were objecting to Krugman's discussion of his opponents.
ReplyDeleteYou can say that's dumb and we should just stick to the issues. OK, maybe you're right, but please stop acting as if we keep missing "the" point. No we're not. This is the point we want to make. And the guy who chimed in on the dispute totally missed "the point" we were making, giving Krugman plausible deniability in calling us idiots (since I doubt Krugman bothered to read the posts from Russ and me, but instead trusted that the guy had summarized our point well enough).
If you are still flabbergasted as to how anyone could be so petty as to focus on the identity of the economists advancing a particular economic idea, rather than solely focusing on the idea itself, do recall that someone has a series called "The Stupidest Man Alive." And another blogger routinely casts aspersions on the morals and motives of his opponents.
And this is the point I want to make.
DeleteThis is a very strange comment, Bob.
I think the hypocrite (or whatever word you want to use) accusations are dumb and a waste of time. I think there are good issues here that some people are spending a lot of time with (Dillow, Krugman, Sumner, Jonathan all took OTHER points away from this and spent a lot more time talking about that). I'm weighing. So? That's my prerogative.
I - like many people that responded to David's post - did not think Dillow missed the point in the way you claim. He seemed to summarize your point fine and then his response departed from your premises because he and many other people think those premises are wrong.
re: "If you are still flabbergasted as to how anyone could be so petty as to focus on the identity of the economists advancing a particular economic idea, rather than solely focusing on the idea itself, do recall that someone has a series called "The Stupidest Man Alive.""
And please do recall my long-standing position on those posts.
There are two questions here really - there's an "are you being civil" question and a "do you have a point" question. If the answer to the latter is "yes", the first question is dicier because sometimes blogs are just rough and tumble and if you have a point there may be a value to the rough and tumble.
DeleteDon't mistake me for focusing a lot on the former - I'm a lot more concerned with the latter in this case.
And please, please, please don't leave this comment section without noticing the irony of the fact that you're telling me what it's good and not good for me to be posting.
DeleteOK, finally both of these posts were inspired by honest shock from me. I expected David to say something else. I expected Russ especially to say something else because he DID say something else in his title!
DeleteThose dashed expectations, I think, were telling.
And they certainly belie David's claims that everyone is in agreement on what the question is.
Daniel Kuehn wrote:
ReplyDeleteI - like many people that responded to David's post - did not think Dillow missed the point in the way you claim. He seemed to summarize your point fine...
Right, and I am here to tell you that you are wrong. No Dillow did not summarize my point fine. He completely missed it.
I'm not going to bother repeating what my point was; you seem not to be particularly interested in understanding it, and why Dillow didn't state it correctly. But I am confirming that David was right in his treatment of the issue, and by "the issue" I mean what Russ and I were complaining about.
Dillow wrote his post in response to Russ and me. He thought he was answering our objection. If he started it by saying, "They're focusing on one thing, but that's a waste of our time, let me change the subject..." then David wouldn't have posted at all.
And I am here to tell you you are wrong!!
DeleteThis is all fine, but don't act like you have any more claim to say what this is really about than I do.
You think David summarized your point well. Well this is Dillow, followed by David. Let me know what is in David that is not in Dillow (courtesy of Rob Rawlings):
Dillow said: "Paul Krugman is being accused of hypocrisy for calling for an extension of unemployment benefits when one of his textbooks says "Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment."
David Henderson says: "Both Roberts and Murphy have made it clear that they are not accusing Krugman of hypocrisy for advocating extended unemployment insurance benefits during an economic slump or slow recovery. They are astounded, and certainly implicitly accusing him of hypocrisy. for disowning an argument that he himself has made."
I am not accusing David of misrepresenting you and Russ (although maybe not all of you would have liked the term "hypocrisy" I gather? But word choice is a minor point). I think he represented you fine. Where I differ with David is in suggesting Dillow missed that point, and of course what the central issue here is.
re: "Dillow wrote his post in response to Russ and me. He thought he was answering our objection. If he started it by saying, "They're focusing on one thing, but that's a waste of our time, let me change the subject..." then David wouldn't have posted at all."
DeleteRight, you don't like it when people think you're not remarking on an important point and think it's obvious that there is no discrepancy between Krugman's post and Krugman's textbook, and also think it's obvious that he was NOT trashing his textbook view as absurd.
I get that you don't like that, but I can't just change my read of the situation.
If Dillow and I completely reject the premise of your complaint, then obviously our reaction to your complaint is not going to include the premise!!!
Another way to put it is this:
DeleteKrugman clearly never said (I HOPE you can agree on this) that there are no negative labor supply effects of UI of the sort noted in his textbook. He never claimed that in response to Barro.
You are inferring that he's somehow contradicting the textbook by not explicitly saying that and that he's ridiculing people who rely on such an argument.
My response and Dillow's response is that no - there's nothing in the Keynesian argument that he stated that denies it. Indeed these effects are implicit - so this is a non-issue. The hypocrisy (or whatever you want to label it) that you see was badly inferred in the first place.
Last thing and I will move on:
ReplyDelete(1) Russ writes a post.
(2) I write a post agreeing with Russ and adding further commentary.
(3) Dillow summarizes our point.
(4) Russ and I both say, "No, that wasn't our point."
(5) You are telling Russ and me that we are wrong, and that Dillow knows our point just fine.
I'm going to play the, "I know my point better than Daniel does" card.
I'm going to play the "If Bob says David knows his point and David and Dillow's statements of Bob's points are nearly indistinguishable, someone needs to explain something to me" card.
DeleteTo repeat - when Dillow RESPONDS to your point he rejects a major part of your premise in presenting how this should actually be looked at. You may not like that, but that's different from what you're claiming here.
Krugman said nothing contradictory, much less hypocritical. He did write a piece that was more advocacy than explanation. That's worth pointing out, but the umbrage, from some of the most ideological writers in the econosphere, is ironic.
ReplyDelete