& BRIEFLY NOTED: For 2022-01-06 Th: Duncan Black finds Gray Kimbrough calling some of our fellow economists ghouls.... As I have often said, there was something very wrong with economists who signed up for the Trump train. There was worse wrong with economists who stayed on the Trump train.... It was a very badly designed tax cut. It is hard to produce a tax cut for capital that contains such feeble incentives for investment in new capital that it has no effect increasing investment in America. Trump, McConnell, and Ryan managed. The Trump economists—Tomas Philipson and company inside the White House, plus such luminaries as Mike Boskin and Bob Barro outside—claimed, even after the shape of the tax cut at the micro level had become very clear, that it would be as big a boost to investment in America as... what followed the Clinton budget-balancing reconciliation plan of 1993.... In a healthy profession, you would take a reputational hit for continuing to claim that things worked out as planned.... Defensive economists I talk to say other disciplines are no better: that “science progresses funeral by funeral” precisely because we are so bad at realizing when we are deep in a hole, and it is time to stop digging. But doesn’t that make it more urgent to develop societal systems that impose very steep reputational penalties on those who refuse to mark their beliefs to market?
Really? In 1930, Henry Simons and Frank Knight offered a plan for ecomonic recovery basically used to raise prices and give money directly to people who neeeded it. Essentially, the plan was followed. Among the people who said it worked were Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, Hyman Minsky, James Buchanan, Herb Stein, Dan Patinkin, all students of these men. In 1936 or so, Simons convinced Hayek that deflation was always bad. Schumpeter also admitted as much in the 1930s, pointing out that he advised in giving money to people even if there were some down sides. BTW , the same applies to charity. Charity is a disincentive in the same way as Government money. Hilariously, I've had people tell me charity is okay since it's such a small amount, and then argue it's the answer for helping people. In other words, people could always give more as long as it's up to them . Unreal.
I know nothing about Shadi Hamid, but he sounds like a Republican: make up a trope that actually reflects what your side does[1], and pretend that it applies, instead, to Democrats and the hated libruls. [1] i.e. the trope that a given side makes mask, vaccination, etc. status a cultural marker.
Even if science only advances "funeral by funeral", economic science is different. The difference is with the incentives of funders. When the chemical industry funds chemical science, it usually wants better chemistry. When business funds economic (or legal) science, it wants almost invariably wants legitimation.
Re: "science progresses funeral by funeral". That is a meme that applies only to sides that are deeply invested in a particular theory, famously, Plate tectonics and Continental Drift vs a globally rigid crust. The vast amount of science is not done this way, and practicing scientists are always revising their models based on new data that contradicts a previously held hypothesis or theory. This is egregious "whataboutism" and says more about the sort of people who appear to be more like the organized religions when faced with the disruption caused by scientific thinking.
Touché... It seems to apply much more to Kuhnian events (to the extent that they occur) and research-program collapses than to normal science. Still, there is some weirdness, of which perhaps String Theory may be the most recent example...
Really? In 1930, Henry Simons and Frank Knight offered a plan for ecomonic recovery basically used to raise prices and give money directly to people who neeeded it. Essentially, the plan was followed. Among the people who said it worked were Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, Hyman Minsky, James Buchanan, Herb Stein, Dan Patinkin, all students of these men. In 1936 or so, Simons convinced Hayek that deflation was always bad. Schumpeter also admitted as much in the 1930s, pointing out that he advised in giving money to people even if there were some down sides. BTW , the same applies to charity. Charity is a disincentive in the same way as Government money. Hilariously, I've had people tell me charity is okay since it's such a small amount, and then argue it's the answer for helping people. In other words, people could always give more as long as it's up to them . Unreal.
Touché...
I know nothing about Shadi Hamid, but he sounds like a Republican: make up a trope that actually reflects what your side does[1], and pretend that it applies, instead, to Democrats and the hated libruls. [1] i.e. the trope that a given side makes mask, vaccination, etc. status a cultural marker.
It's where it crosses over into "how dare you tell me what to do!"...
Even if science only advances "funeral by funeral", economic science is different. The difference is with the incentives of funders. When the chemical industry funds chemical science, it usually wants better chemistry. When business funds economic (or legal) science, it wants almost invariably wants legitimation.
Yes...
Re: "science progresses funeral by funeral". That is a meme that applies only to sides that are deeply invested in a particular theory, famously, Plate tectonics and Continental Drift vs a globally rigid crust. The vast amount of science is not done this way, and practicing scientists are always revising their models based on new data that contradicts a previously held hypothesis or theory. This is egregious "whataboutism" and says more about the sort of people who appear to be more like the organized religions when faced with the disruption caused by scientific thinking.
Touché... It seems to apply much more to Kuhnian events (to the extent that they occur) and research-program collapses than to normal science. Still, there is some weirdness, of which perhaps String Theory may be the most recent example...
The "Why our generals were more successful..." video is fascinating.
Yes, indeed it is...
Indeed...