==> How do you guys feel about this geologist who predicted the EPA spill?
==> Richard Ebeling on John Stuart Mill.
==> I thought I would write on this, but I just don’t have time. For a while, Paul Romer & Friends were criticizing the modern Chicago School for being lawyers rather than scientists when it comes to macro. As Scott Sumner pointed out here, when you read how Romer is describing Lucas’ defenders, it is astonishing. In particular, and I’m going to paraphrase here, there was a guy saying, “Paul, Robert Lucas may have done what you say in that particular paper, but I don’t know that he did it intentionally to mislead anybody, and he’s more open than 99% of the profession.” Romer then summarized this by saying the guy was defending the practice by saying “everybody does it.” No no no that’s totally misleading.
==> Someone on Facebook (I don’t know if he wants me mentioning this) pushed back on my criticism of this Krugman post. Specifically, he said that Krugman singled out Trump’s prediction of 9% unemployment because of ObamaCare, and that was in fact wrong, so who am I to object? Well, if I were advising Trump, I’d tell him to respond to Krugman by pointing out that “some predictions matter more than others,” and that a botched unemployment prediction clearly has no bearing on someone’s economic model.
(I’m just kidding. If Trump actually wanted to respond to Krugman’s post, he would kick Krugman in the crotch and say, “Whoa! Guess you didn’t predict that, did you Mr. Pointy Head?” Way more effective than my gotcha.)