The Australian Economist
Here's a comment from Steve Keen from the Noahpinion blog:
The thing I find most hilarious about the debate here is that I'm being accused (by some) of having originated sectarian behaviour in economics.
The sectarian behaviour--by which I mean excluding people from academic economic institutions because they follow a different economic theory--began long ago. The outcome now is that there are only a handful of non-Neoclassical economists in academic economics departments, and those departments teach almost exclusively Neoclassical subjects. Only at a handful of institutions in the USA--The New School, UMKC, UMass Amherst--are there non-Neoclassical subjects.
Oh, and by Neoclassical I mean precisely as Krugman defines it in the quote in this discussion. Non-Neoclassical means not using methodological individualism, not modeling optimizing behavior, working out of equilibrium, in a range of ways (literally from Austrian to Marxian).
So I am responding to that purge, but in a very different way that my predecessors have done: rudely, and deliberately so. As Barkley notes, I prefer being open-minded. But to have an open-minded discussion, the other side of the discussion has to admit that you exist.
Neoclassical economists have behaved as if Post Keynesian (and Marxian and Austrian) economists do not exist. They have conducted a vigorous debate with each other, but ignored the rest of us. I decided some time ago that the best way to not be ignored was to practice "No More Mr Nice Guy". And obviously that tactic has worked.
So now that I have your attention--attention you have not given to numerous predecessors and colleagues of mine thus far--I'm willing to drop the rudeness and begin the dialogue that should have been happening for the last fifty years. Your move.
I find that very very interesting.
From my perspective, I'd come across him a few times before and specifically stopped reading because I couldn't see him saying anything substantive. It wasn't until someone significantly less rude tried to make Keen's case for him that I started to pay attention. His tactic wouldn't seem to work on me, but maybe this really is the right way to go about business with respect to most economists.
I've heard before that one of the best ways to get good physics (or other technical) homework help is to go anonymously into a internet forum and start making outlandishly wrong claims about the subject in an aggressive know-it-all tone. They will treat you like a pile of dog shit, all the while explaining in extremely helpful detail how the pieces fit together to demonstrate how fucking stupid and wrong you are. Just a joke? Probably. Still might have a couple grains of truth in it, though.
This also explains why Keen would include Peter Schiff on his original list, despite the nonsense. (There was arguably some good fire marshalling from Schiff, but that doesn't excuse the nonsense.*)
I think I understand now. The goal isn't to have rigorous heterodox thinkers in more prominent positions, which is what I'd personally want. The goal is to have any heterdox thinkers at all in more prominent positions, to have a broader spread of ideas. This leads to -- how to put it nicely? -- a relative lack of standards, as Keen is willing to overlook little oversights like an utter inability to understand aggregate demand. I am not personally that tolerant. I want the best, regardless of intellectual tradition.
*Here's Schiff (via you-know-who):You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.
Hey, he still has a couple more months for this prediction!
Last I heard, he was still predicting hyperinflation.
The thing I find most hilarious about the debate here is that I'm being accused (by some) of having originated sectarian behaviour in economics.
The sectarian behaviour--by which I mean excluding people from academic economic institutions because they follow a different economic theory--began long ago. The outcome now is that there are only a handful of non-Neoclassical economists in academic economics departments, and those departments teach almost exclusively Neoclassical subjects. Only at a handful of institutions in the USA--The New School, UMKC, UMass Amherst--are there non-Neoclassical subjects.
Oh, and by Neoclassical I mean precisely as Krugman defines it in the quote in this discussion. Non-Neoclassical means not using methodological individualism, not modeling optimizing behavior, working out of equilibrium, in a range of ways (literally from Austrian to Marxian).
So I am responding to that purge, but in a very different way that my predecessors have done: rudely, and deliberately so. As Barkley notes, I prefer being open-minded. But to have an open-minded discussion, the other side of the discussion has to admit that you exist.
Neoclassical economists have behaved as if Post Keynesian (and Marxian and Austrian) economists do not exist. They have conducted a vigorous debate with each other, but ignored the rest of us. I decided some time ago that the best way to not be ignored was to practice "No More Mr Nice Guy". And obviously that tactic has worked.
So now that I have your attention--attention you have not given to numerous predecessors and colleagues of mine thus far--I'm willing to drop the rudeness and begin the dialogue that should have been happening for the last fifty years. Your move.
I find that very very interesting.
From my perspective, I'd come across him a few times before and specifically stopped reading because I couldn't see him saying anything substantive. It wasn't until someone significantly less rude tried to make Keen's case for him that I started to pay attention. His tactic wouldn't seem to work on me, but maybe this really is the right way to go about business with respect to most economists.
I've heard before that one of the best ways to get good physics (or other technical) homework help is to go anonymously into a internet forum and start making outlandishly wrong claims about the subject in an aggressive know-it-all tone. They will treat you like a pile of dog shit, all the while explaining in extremely helpful detail how the pieces fit together to demonstrate how fucking stupid and wrong you are. Just a joke? Probably. Still might have a couple grains of truth in it, though.
This also explains why Keen would include Peter Schiff on his original list, despite the nonsense. (There was arguably some good fire marshalling from Schiff, but that doesn't excuse the nonsense.*)
I think I understand now. The goal isn't to have rigorous heterodox thinkers in more prominent positions, which is what I'd personally want. The goal is to have any heterdox thinkers at all in more prominent positions, to have a broader spread of ideas. This leads to -- how to put it nicely? -- a relative lack of standards, as Keen is willing to overlook little oversights like an utter inability to understand aggregate demand. I am not personally that tolerant. I want the best, regardless of intellectual tradition.
*Here's Schiff (via you-know-who):You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.
Hey, he still has a couple more months for this prediction!
Last I heard, he was still predicting hyperinflation.