Another Very Nice Takedown

I love it when economists mud wrestle, but a number of the conservative fresh water^* economists, Kantoos and Tyler Cowen, have complained that Krugman is being mean about them.

I love Krugman's response to this criticism:

So Alex Tabarrok thinks I treat everyone who disagrees with me as mendacious idiots, and Tyler Cowen says that I always demonize my opponents.

I plead innocent. I only treat people as mendacious idiots if they are mendacious idiots.

Seriously: I have some big disagreements with Ken Rogoff, but if you use the little search box up there on the upper right and enter “Rogoff” I think you’ll find that I have always treated him with respect. On the other hand, enter “Heritage” and you’ll find me pretty scornful — but with very good reason! And I always document what I’m saying.

Now, what about people like Cochrane? You need to bear two things in mind. First, he and his friends entered this whole debate by declaring that Keynesian economics of any stripe was total nonsense, “fairy tales” that nobody serious believes. Then they proceeded to make howling, basic errors. And I was supposed to respond politely? I’ve never gone ad hominem on them — but I’ve called nonsense and ignorance when I see them. So?

I think that this is a valid response, and fairly straightforward, and measured.

On the other hand, Brad Delong goes seriously medieval on John Cochrain, and ends with:

What do I see here? A bunch of overheated and largely false rhetoric. A bunch of apparently false claims about the way the world works. A bunch of false claims about pretty basic economic theories. Occasionally correct claims that are then--almost invariably taken back--by something that claims (for reasons I do not understand) to be a refutation.

Overall, it does not seem to me to add up to a coherent argument.

Kantoos, what else do you want me to do with this?

Seriously, it's a very nice Fisking.

It also proves a point that Krugman is wont to make, that salt water economists can cogently discuss fresh water economics, but fresh water economists cannot cogently discuss salt water economics.

Basically, when salt water economists teach, they teach both theories, and fresh water economists only teach their theories, which is why we see things like the walkout from former Bush Administration Economist Greg Mankiw's intro to economics class at Harvard (yes, technically a salt water school, but Mankiw is a fresh water economist) because they found narrow and parochial.

This for a bloody introductory survey course that should expose them to the full range of theories.

But I think that I'm ranting here a bit.

^*If you look at schools of economics, those in the center of the country, (fresh water) on lakes and rivers, tend to be extremely conservative, either Austrian, or Milton Friedman, while those on the coasts (salt water) tend to be more liberal.