The difference between Classical "Classical" and later-day Liberals:
The former could not conceive of state power being used to improve the welfare of the less well off. The best we can do is fend off the predatory state. Hayek reigns.
Today's "Classical liberals" conceive of it but think that in practice it is vanishingly unlikely. Buchannan reigns.
DSGE: Should I fee sangfroid? My PhD used what I though was the best possible model to say something macroeconomically consistent about the effects of systematic change in tariffs, quotas and subsidies across multiple sectors with an attempt to estimate the effect of the the changes on relative prices of tradeable and non-tradable goods. And then came DSGE and my intellectual capital was creatively destroyed, not that anyone at the World Bank cared. :)
Still, what kind of model SHOULD the Fed use to decide how to link observations to its policy levers?
"The market should be free to the extent and in the direction that such freedom leads to widely distributed prosperity, and wealth should be pursued not as an end in itself but a means to the political and societal good."
Yes agree subject only to the realization that in this sub-lunar world we will often get it wrong,
"the [Keynesian] economy to would be a very low-interest rate economy.
I just cannot see why a full employment economy would necessarily have low real interest rates. Should we not al least hope that technology would continue dropping tempting morsels in front of us that would make it worthwhile to give up some current consumption to pick up. Not to mention [bringing this down to the early 21th century] for the need to invest boatloads of resources in zero co2 energy, zero CO2 industrial processes, electric grids. Now I guess that all that saving COULD come from massive public sector current account surpluses, but .... that seems like a corner solution to me.
Alex Tabarrok beat you to posting the McDonald/Shalizi paper and I took a look at it last night. I have personal interest in it. As you know, Cosma grew up next door to me though I cannot take any credit for his vast knowledge (that was perhaps more a result of his UC education that likely included one or more of your courses). This is not the only example of a model failing the test of time and there will be many more regardless of the computing power thrown at various economic problems. I love your Ptolemy example at the end of the section!!!
ADDED: I read the Patrick Collinson note to employees and it was quite good. He admitted they over hired against some strong headwinds. Those being terminated are being given a good set of benefits. It would be interesting to know whether those Musk has cashiered are being provided similar ones.
Unrelated question -- would you say you identify as "neoliberal" in any sense of the term? I remember you mentioning before that you did, but I might be misremembering.
Are you talking about public sector or private sector Central Planning? Our economy is centrally planned, but most of the planning is done by corporations with monopoly or oligopoly power. Personally, I worry more about private sector Central Planning since it is much harder to fight than public sector Central Planning, and its impact in the US has been much more pernicious.
The difference between Classical "Classical" and later-day Liberals:
The former could not conceive of state power being used to improve the welfare of the less well off. The best we can do is fend off the predatory state. Hayek reigns.
Today's "Classical liberals" conceive of it but think that in practice it is vanishingly unlikely. Buchannan reigns.
DSGE: Should I fee sangfroid? My PhD used what I though was the best possible model to say something macroeconomically consistent about the effects of systematic change in tariffs, quotas and subsidies across multiple sectors with an attempt to estimate the effect of the the changes on relative prices of tradeable and non-tradable goods. And then came DSGE and my intellectual capital was creatively destroyed, not that anyone at the World Bank cared. :)
Still, what kind of model SHOULD the Fed use to decide how to link observations to its policy levers?
"The market should be free to the extent and in the direction that such freedom leads to widely distributed prosperity, and wealth should be pursued not as an end in itself but a means to the political and societal good."
Yes agree subject only to the realization that in this sub-lunar world we will often get it wrong,
"the [Keynesian] economy to would be a very low-interest rate economy.
I just cannot see why a full employment economy would necessarily have low real interest rates. Should we not al least hope that technology would continue dropping tempting morsels in front of us that would make it worthwhile to give up some current consumption to pick up. Not to mention [bringing this down to the early 21th century] for the need to invest boatloads of resources in zero co2 energy, zero CO2 industrial processes, electric grids. Now I guess that all that saving COULD come from massive public sector current account surpluses, but .... that seems like a corner solution to me.
Alex Tabarrok beat you to posting the McDonald/Shalizi paper and I took a look at it last night. I have personal interest in it. As you know, Cosma grew up next door to me though I cannot take any credit for his vast knowledge (that was perhaps more a result of his UC education that likely included one or more of your courses). This is not the only example of a model failing the test of time and there will be many more regardless of the computing power thrown at various economic problems. I love your Ptolemy example at the end of the section!!!
ADDED: I read the Patrick Collinson note to employees and it was quite good. He admitted they over hired against some strong headwinds. Those being terminated are being given a good set of benefits. It would be interesting to know whether those Musk has cashiered are being provided similar ones.
"Friedman hoped to win a game of intellectual free-card-monte"
All-time great typo.
Unrelated question -- would you say you identify as "neoliberal" in any sense of the term? I remember you mentioning before that you did, but I might be misremembering.
Aaron Director concluding this… based on what?
Thx much..,
Are you talking about public sector or private sector Central Planning? Our economy is centrally planned, but most of the planning is done by corporations with monopoly or oligopoly power. Personally, I worry more about private sector Central Planning since it is much harder to fight than public sector Central Planning, and its impact in the US has been much more pernicious.
The interesting thing to me is how the Stigler-Friedman Chicago became very tolerant of private monopoly...