Economists in a Circle — Firing Away

You’ve got to love this.   Macroeconomists actually forced to confront fundamental pathologies in their efforts at “science”.  Note well that Mark Thoma himself is not open to “outsider views” — he’s banned me from his blog for pointing out basic pathologies in his own brittle and closed macroeconomic framework.

This entry was posted in Macroeconomics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Economists in a Circle — Firing Away

  1. Roger McKinney says:

    Thanks for the link! That’s hilarious!

  2. Mark Thoma says:

    As I told you several times, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. If feel no obligation at all to allow people to continue commenting when they cannot be civil. When you could not restrain yourself even after being asked to do so, I was left with no choice but to ban you.

    Anyone who doubts my openness can check the comments. That is a red herring to disguise your inability to restrain yourself and accord people even the most basic civility. Take responsibility for your own behavior and quit blaming me. Or is taking responsibility for yourself somehow at odds with your libertarian philosophy?

  3. Mark Thoma says:

    Just to be clear, after leaving many, many comments that were nothing more than personal insults – they added nothing at all to the discussion – and after you couldn’t stop yourself from doing it again after you were asked not to, you were banned. If you think you can control yourself this time, I have no problem lifting it, but the fact that you are still blaming me does not bode well for the outcome. My guess is that you’ll cross the line is short order once again. Why should this time be different?

  4. Greg Ransom says:

    Mark, I make no apology for directly pointing out when people like Krugman and DeLong and Sachs are saying things that are not true, which you then quote prominently on your blog. I make no apology for not rolling over on my belly when leftists on your site start kicking me for no good reason. You’ve never stopped them from going after people who don’t have a leftist / anti-Hayek perspective, and you seem to not much worry about civility in such cases.

    It’s not uncivil to tell the truth about people who are demonstrably NOT telling the truth, as Krugman and DeLong and Sachs have done in the case of Hayek’s work. I’m not the first to point this out about Krugman and DeLong and Sachs. It needs to be said when prominent economists are botching important economic ideas and misleading the public about important economic questions.

    A demand for “civility” easily becomes a cover for allowing free reign to those who trade in falsehoods.

    The problem you have Mark is that my comments and criticisms of mainstream macro and the mainstream economics profession are too pointed with too much edge to them — they hit their target with too much force and too much accuracy. My comments aren’t vicious, they aren’t vulgar, they aren’t mean — they are pointed and on target and they don’t pull punches — the attempt to get at the truth in clear and direct language. The fact that the criticisms hit their target and raise issues people want to pretend don’t exist is what makes you cry “incivility”.

    You print false and unfair attack from Krugman and DeLong and Sachs, and then you call it “incivility” to point out the facts?

    Give me a break.

  5. Greg Ransom says:

    I looked a some of the old posts I’ve made to Thoma’s site.

    Thoma posted a bit from Krugman where Krugman calls other macroeconomists “cult” members. My bit of repartee?

    “Cargo cult economist Paul Krugman is calling other economists “cultists”?

    LOVE IT!”

    Another counters the suggestion that Keynes rivals believed that depressions were a “healthy thing” for the economy:

    “Note well that the Schumpeter/Mellon talk about the “health” making benefits of a depression has nothing to do with the Garrison / Hayek explanation of why a credit induced mis-allocation across the time structure of production must inevitable come to an end, producing all sorts of failed projects and unemployed factors of production.

    Anyone who makes this error is either ignorant of the literature or is purposely misleading people.”

    Note how I put in plain words the truth about the economists who are misrepresenting the literature.

    And here’s another very direct response to another posting by Thoma which totally misrepresents Hayek’s work and ideas:

    “This is really pathetic as an account of the “Austrian” school.

    Just for starters, Hayek simply does not do this:

    “reduce all human behavior to rational maximizing exchanges”

    Hayek also rejects the “rationalist” approach, Hayek identifies a causal/empirical explanation — learning in the context of changing relative prices and local condiditons — and identifies an empirical problem — perceptions of order and disorder in the market place.

    No wonder you don’t “get” Hayek — you learned your “Hayek” from an ideological hack.”

    This comment came after years in which Thoma repeatedly posted such false things about Hayek, as if these things were accurate and legitimate accounts of Hayek’s work.

    Testy yes. But they hit the target and they tell truth.

  6. Greg Ransom says:

    Bottom line Mark. You are happy with Krugman and Sachs and DeLong and your regular commenters taking pot shots at people — pot shots because they are not grounded either in study or truth or substance. But you find it “incivil” for people to point out what is going on — or what you are doing by posting this stuff. Yes it can be testy. But I think mostly what you object to is people very pointedly calling into question the things being claimed in the stuff you are posting.

  7. lionel from france says:

    The analysis of Keynes are contrary to logic and rationality. What is surprising is that more than 70 years later, some still give credence to such nonsense. Stiglitz and Krugman have mastered the art of saying stupid things. They may have been relevant before (i don’t know), but now they tell big mistakes? Some allow themselves intoxicated by the symbols and mathematical notation (or statistics) and forget the analysis and logic. The basic assumptions of their models are not relevant, but they continue to develop these models by giving them the maximum mathematical elegance. they confuse elegance and appropriateness.

  8. lionel from france says:

    Alex, you’re very funny. You’re probably right: The Austrian economists are Nazis like ostriches have an elephant trunk and walks on three legs. Your best friends should certainly be called Fidel, Mao, Joseph and Karl.

  9. lionel from france says:

    …Fidel, Mao, Joseph and Karl who, remember, were all respectful of freedom and individual rights!

  10. Greg Ransom says:

    “Alex” turns out to be a deadbeat who can’t pay his bills and wishes people to die of cancer — he’s “Max” at email address zebedee8f-at-aol-dot-com , that is, , calling people “human excrement” and other fine things here:

    Alex pretends he doesn’t know what a “troll” is. He can learn about it here:

Comments are closed.