A School for Keynesians Who Can’t Read Good
…should be established. Yes I am now starting to think there is a “Krugman Derangement Syndrome,” because people seem to have an amazing inability to parse objections thrown his way.
Today’s case in point: Noah Smith, but first I have to give some context:
Ed Prescott (a Nobel laureate) recently gave a quote to a NYT reporter saying, “It is an established scientific fact that monetary policy has had virtually no effect on output and employment in the U.S. since the formation of the Fed.” So of course both Keynesians and Market Monetarists were flipping out, and (assuming that quote is in context) I agree Prescott should have been clearer about what he was saying, since as-is so many economists would dispute it. (My guess is that he meant we all agree money is neutral in the long-run, and that we’ve been doing QE for years now so let’s admit this isn’t working, blah blah blah.)
But that’s not the issue for our post right now. No, the issue is Noah Smith, and how he can’t read good. But we still need more to set up the story:
Chris House was discussing Prescott’s statement about monetary policy and how it was nutty. House’s point was that this shouldn’t surprise us too much, since Nobel laureates are not your normal folks and they are only experts in a narrow field. Then, to illustrate that we shouldn’t be so shocked that Prescott would utter such a ridiculous statement about monetary policy, House offered the throwaway line: “Even Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things.” As you can imagine, people flipped out about that line too (and probably not the same group of people who had flipped out about Prescott’s line).
Now then we are ready to parse Noah Smith, who chimed in with this:
“Even Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times.”
Chris House was a bit surprised when that statement received considerable pushback. It seems like an innocuous, throwaway line, sort of like when a political writer says “and of course the Democratic party has its extremists too.” A gesture toward centrism.
No Noah, your analogy doesn’t work. You changed the “Even” to “and of course.” Words mean things, and when you change them, you might change the meaning of the sentence.
Here’s what would be analogous if you want to take Chris House’s discussion and make it about political parties:
“Mark Sanford’s continued career in politics shouldn’t shock us, despite his marital infidelity. This is actually common among politicians, who are very charming and hold power. Even Bill Clinton has been known to cheat on his wife.”
So unless that was supposed to be a flat-out joke, then yeah such an absurd statement would indeed be worthy of “considerable pushback.” I don’t know Chris House’s writing style, but from this one post it looked like he was being whimsical at best; his point wasn’t, “Good grief, Krugman is the epitome of a Nobel laureate who says eight crazy things by lunchtime.”
And even if that is what House meant, it’s not how Noah defended him.
Hence, the obvious need for a School for Keynesians Who Can’t Read Good.
This is unusually tactless for a Bob Murphy piece, are you reconsidering the advantages of Atheism?
Not that I’m disagreeing with your logic here…
No Noah, your analogy doesn’t work. You changed the “Even” to “and of course.” Words mean things, and when you change them, you might change the meaning of the sentence.
Smith says House’s statement seems like a “innocuous, throwaway line” and gives an example of such a line, what’s the objection to that? That Smith makes his line innocuous and throwaway by changing “even” to “and of course”?
then yeah such an absurd statement would indeed be worthy of “considerable pushback.”
What’s absurd about it?
And even if that is what House meant, it’s not how Noah defended him.
Who is “him”? House or Krugman?
I think the trouble with Smith’s post is not in the part you quoted, but in the rest of the post.
House said: “Even Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times.“, and Smith’s goes on defending Krugman as if House had said *all* of Krugman’s economics are nutty.
All of Krugman’s economics are nutty.
Maybe now, but his international trade work in what seems like a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, was not nutty.
No wonder House’s statement received so much push back, rightly so! I also take strong issue with the “even” and “some” in Mr House’s statement..
😉
Oh well if economists dispute it…
Can we expand his quote to cover economists in general?
Bunch of narcissist babies.
What is this?
This post has to be at least three times longer than this.
Daniel Kuehn, FTW
I have to agree with martinK – I’m a little confused about what the change in meaning is supposed to be. Not saying you’re wrong I just don’t quite get what you’re getting at.
Bob sees the point.
Of course Bob sees the point.
Even Bob sees the point.
Well I know they’re different words but I fail to see how it really moves the meaning of the metaphor.
“Even” suggests you might be predisposed to think Krugman might not say nutty things. “Of course” reminds you of the obvious that Krugman says nutty things.
But I don’t see how one’s predisposition matters for the ultimate point that House is trying to make – which is the throw-away point that everybody makes nutty claims sometimes.
So you take the disputed text to be fully equivalent to “there exists a case where …” Nothing would change if Smith wrote in predicate logic?
Nuh-uh.
What I’m saying is that I take this to be a discussion of Prescott, not a discussion of Krugman, so predispositions about Krugman’s rightness are tangential.
Of course once it’s on Bob’s blog it’s always a discussion about Krugman…
Because, at first glance, House is not saying Krugman is nutty, and thus he’s surprised that people are vomiting all over him.
The nuttiness is totally separate from the Krugman…to HOUSE.
So, the backlash is based on an interpretation that is the opposite of what House was saying.
What he was saying was that even someone as eminent as his eminence can goof.
But nuttiness is elevated in status simply by being associated with Krugman.
Ya had to get that last sentence in there, didn’t ya?
Even X (implying he’s right most of the time) makes mistakes.
Of course X (implying he’s wrong most of the time) makes mistakes.
Even Roddis Daniel, even Roddis!
Of course Bob sees the point.
Even Bob sees the point.
That’s in no way an analogy to Smith’s analogy.
It’s a perfect analogy to Smith’s wording. Implications matter.
I don’t much care who’s right about the economics.
So, what is the implication that matters here?
Let’s review the bidding of this subthread:
DK: “I’m a little confused about what the change in meaning is supposed to be. Not saying you’re wrong I just don’t quite get what you’re getting at.”
Ken B: riffs on evenofcourse
martinK: OK, that explains even vs of course. But how does that answer a question you didn’t address or try to address?
Ken B: You got me. I didn’t explain how administered prices affect markets either.
Ken B: “Implications matter”
martinK: “So, what is the implication that matters here?”
Ken B: “Let’s review blah blah blah”
I’ll rephrase my question: what is it that you think that Smith implies with his analogy that matters here? You know, the thing that DK refers to when he says “I just don’t quite get what you’re getting at”?
martink:
Suppose I said “Even Murphy makes nutty claims from time to time.”
Suppose I then said “What I just implied about Murphy is exactly the same implication for when I say “Of course Krugman makes nutty claims.””
Do you see how the implications are NOT the same, despite what I claimed in the second part there?
If you can see that the implications are different, then you will understand Murphy’s point about what’s wrong with Smith’s interpretation of what House said.
martinK: Matters? As in the underlying economic argument? don’t care. So amny of the discussions on this blog turn on making reasonable readings or not of what people say, either on or between lines. So much of the conspiracism here, or the Kontradictions, are about such stuff. But suddenly Bob and I are out of line for being careful with implications?
As for your question, show me where I addressed the economics behind the rhetoric and i’ll answer.
MF,
No, because I don’t see what interpretation Murphy attributes to Smith.
Ken B
Matters? As in the underlying economic argument?
No, as in: what is the terrible misrepresentation of House’s statement that Smith is making by comparing it to what he compared it to?
I don’t have to show you that, because Murphy’s point is that “Of course…” has a different implication that “Even…”.
All Murphy is saying is that Smith is not giving an accurate analogy of what House wrote, due precisely to Smith saying that what House said is “sort of like” saying “Of course.”
No, saying “Of course…” is totally different from saying “Even…”.
Why is this so difficult to grasp?
saying “Of course…” is totally different from saying “Even…”.
Obviously, but SO WHAT? Is the point that Smith is somehow implying that House’s statement is equivalent to ‘Of course Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times.’?
martink:
“Is the point that Smith is somehow implying that House’s statement is equivalent to ‘Of course Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times.’?”
The point is that what is implied in using “Of course…” is different from what is implied in using “Even…”, such that Smith’s analogy doesn’t work.
Analogies require a correct understanding of what is being analogized.
such that Smith’s analogy doesn’t work.
House:
‘like other Nobel laureates, Krugman has said some nutty things’
Smith:
‘That’s an innocuous, throwaway line, something like “like other parties, the democratic party has some extemists”‘
It’s a fair cop Bob.
Of course MF will agree with you but this is so clear even DK should agree with you.
Of course statists habitually throw jabs at Major_Freedom, but even Ken B sometimes ends up inadvertantly holding MF to a higher regard than DK in terms of reading comprehension, due to, of course, the prediliction of statements in the English language having multiple coherent interpretations. Even Ken B understands that!
Smith: But when looked at dispassionately, how “nutty” is Krugman’s economics itself?
Krugman’s ideas about the macroeconomy seem to be something like this:
1. a) Recessions are usually caused by some sort of aggregate demand shocks, and monetary policy affects demand.
b) There is a short-term inflation-unemployment tradeoff. If monetary policy is too easy in a boom (or during a negative supply shock like the 70s), you’ll get harmful inflation.
c) So the Fed should lean against the business cycle with monetary policy.
That’s completely nutty. Recessions are caused by distorted prices. I suppose there is a short term “inflation-unemployment” tradeoff where funny money emissions can temporarily draw people into unsustainable lines of production but which can only be sustained by more funny money emissions. So “the Fed should lean against the business cycle” by going out of business and ceasing to distort prices.
Hayek: [I]t goes back to the same cause. The unemployment of which you speak, which is the initial cause, is due to labor being temporarily directed into places or activities or industries where they cannot be maintained without further inflation.
http://mises.org/media/2773
Of course I aprreciate the irony of Bob lecturing others on tendentious misreading. Even I must admit he has Smith nailed. “Of course Bob misreads Krugman here” is not remotely the same as “Even Bob misreads Krugman here”. Of course even Bob gets it right sometimes. This is so clear that even Bob’s critics should say of course he’s right.
I’ve played with this enough. Of course at this point that even martinK and DK see my point.
I would be careful with the line of thinking that silence equals agreement.
Of course. Even so …
“No Noah, your analogy doesn’t work. You changed the “Even” to “and of course”
What difference to meaning would there have been if Smith had said “and even the Democratic party has its extremists too.”
Not much.
The use of the word “even” by House emphasizes that the phrase was meant in a “if Krugman does it every one does it” kind of way, while the use of “of course” in Smith’s phrase may imply “But the Republicans have it way worse” so the analogy is not exact – but scarcely worth writing a blog post about.
The sue of the
“
I would read that differently. I would read the “Of course” as the writer believing the Democratic party is generally extremist, or more extremist than not extremist. If I read “Even…” then I would read the writer as being more neutral.
Transformer beat me to it, but I was just going to write:
Of course, even Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times too.
Of course, even the Democratic party has its extremists too.
Tel, I agree with you that I shouldn’t have written this post, because it seems Ken B. is the only one who’s really on my side.
And that can’t be good.
And MF. So think how *I* feel.
Same way a closeted theist feels upon finding himself publicly agreeing with Richard Dawkins?
Stuck between loyalty and reason I would imagine.
More like Martin Luther. Here I stand, I can do no other.
In the closet, stuck? You would think this person would have evolved to a more preferable, rational position. They must of not gotten the meme…
Evolution does not necessarily imply progression.
Daniel Kuehn and Blackadder: This post is absolutely necessary, since so many of you can’t even understand why people objected to “Even Paul Krugman…”
I am being dead serious, half of what we argue about is that certain people don’t understand how words work. It’s like the thing with Mankiw and the unit root stuff. You’re acting like Krugman wasn’t letting his readers know what side was right.
Daniel you can “see” this quite clearly when, say, someone labels one group of papers “revisionist” in the minimum wage debate. When it’s somebody whose economics you challenge, then all of a sudden words have tremendous meaning in your eyes.
(And Blackadder, I’m not saying YOU don’t know difference between “Even” and “Of course,” but it’s clear from this thread that at least 4 people don’t. Hence the necessity for this post, and the School.)
And Blackadder, I’m not saying YOU don’t know difference between “Even” and “Of course,” but it’s clear from this thread that at least 4 people don’t.
I think all 4 know the difference, but don’t see how it matters here. Is it that Smith is somehow changing the meaning of House’s statement into “Of course Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times.” and thereby setting up a straw man maybe?
House is saying “even” because he knows people don’t think Krugman is nutty.
And the real Krugman Derangement Syndrome sufferers vomit all over everyone “But Krugman isn’t nutty!”
I have always said, the main problem are the people who follow him like he is Jim Jones.
If you think Krugman is always right, then of course you don’t think he’s said anything nutty.
The problem is, YOU ARE NUTTY!
Bob – to clarify, see my comment starting with “Well I know they’re different words but I fail to see how it really moves the meaning of the metaphor.” and then the follow up comment to Ken B.
I get the difference between the two statements, and why you said that the people that reacted are different from those who reacted to the Prescott statement.
What I’m not seeing is how this switcheroo from Noah changes anything at all about the substance of the House post.
And increasingly I’m thinking my failure to see why this matters is because there’s one group of people who see the issue here as being about Krugman and another group of people who thought it was about Prescott. And I’m in the latter and I think you’re in the former.
Change “even” to “of course” in House’s post. It completely changes what he says about Krugman. It doesn’t really change the point of his post at all, though.
“What I’m not seeing is how this switcheroo from Noah changes anything at all about the substance of the House post.” My bold.
But the dispute isn’t about what the House post said. It’s about what the Smith post said.
I am realizing this now.
Yes, it changes what Smith said.
I think part of the problem here is that if you don’t think Krugman is crazy the difference between the two is very small. “Even” is fine because Krugman is generally a smart guy. “Of course” is fine because nobody’s perfect and even people who think Krugman is a smart guy don’t think he’s perfect.
If you don’t like Krugman the difference between the two seems wider because “even” isn’t even conceivable and it’s “of course” not because nobody’s perfect but because Krugman is very, very imperfect.
That’s why I made the point in terms of Homer.
I enjoy reading you writw that you can’t see what nobody is saying.
Bob,
What in your opinion is the difference between something being ” sort of like” something else and something being “exactly like” something else ?
Kind of like what is the difference between an astronaut flying to the moon and an astronaut driving to Orlando?
Depends…
Back to Prescott, and this is an open question.
If he’s wrong in the way he probably meant the comment, then why wouldn’t we just print print print?
I think somewhere deep down non-Austrians even…or of course…believe that something fish would happen.
In the colloquial, you can’t push on a string. And presumably, if you pull too hard you get catchup growth.
So, with all the six degrees of separation of talking about who is talking about who is talking what who said, I await Kevin Bacon’s opinion.
1. Even Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times.
2. Of course the Democratic party has its extremists too.”
Are these (taken in context) not both “gestures toward centrism” just like Smith says ?
No.
Not everything should be viewed through the polarized lenses of two-party polarization.
In fact, I can’t think of anything that should be.
Sean Hannity says “Even the republican platform could be improved. And of course the democratic one has bad ideas in it.” This you see as a sign of rapprochement, a lessening of his partisanship, a good will gesture only a churl could doubt? Then presumably you would see it as amping up the partisanship if he said instead “Of course the republican platform could be improved. And even the democratic one has bad ideas in it.”
I’m just trying to have a civil discussion you rat-bastard.
Back to parsing. (I have spent so much time parsing on this blog I could have read War and Peace).
House said something. Let’s change the names to avoid side issues and dog whistles. He said “Even Homer nods.” This makes two implications, first that Homer has in a certain situation under discussion (such as a list of ships) nodded, and second that this is a rare event. If you want non-nodding then Homer is usually your guy.
Now literary critic Smith wanders by and explains “House said of course Homer nods.” There are two implications, first that Homer has in a certain situation under discussion (such as a list of ships) nodded, and second that this is a common event. If you want nodding then Homer is usually your guy.
Now meta-critic Bob wanders by and says “Hey, Smith nods, he kinda misrepresents what House said.”
I think Bob is right.
Some here think Bob’s point *petty* and gussy that up by saying it’s *wrong*.
Maybe it is petty; it’s not wrong.
Ken B,
Do you agree with my analogy that professional economists debates are now like radio jock feuds?
Yeah, it’s a little esoteric. One has to have listened to radio while also having an unhealthy interest economics.
They have to fill the air time. They are vaguely competitive. Lot’s of time spent on who said what to who, what can we soundbite out of context, who is on whose side, etc.
I can see your point!
One famous blogger I won’t name even wrote in a note to me about one of my comments on one of his “competitor’s” blogs! Now there was I suspect a little tongue in cheek there, but also a little tongue in wherever tongues otherwise go when not in cheeks.
Ken B,
I think you are getting too hung up about the meaning/implications of “of course” v “even”.
For Smith to be correct then he just needs “Even Paul Krugman has been known to say some rather nutty things at times” and “Of course the Democratic party has its extremists too” to both be “sort of” “gestures toward centrism”.
Would you dispute they meet this criteria ?
Yes I would. See my Hannity comment. when a extremist says “even my side has flaws” and “of course their side has a problem with loonies” those are not gestures towards centrism. They are apretty straight up implication that my siade approaches perfection and their’s is dangerous.
You cannot describe divisive implications as irenic gesures.
“We can do a deal with Republicans – don’t get too hung on those Tea Party guys, They may be extremist but of course the Democratic party has extremists too”.
This would be a centrist statement, right ? And in context that is surely what Smith meant. It would have been clearer (and possible more correct) had he used “even” the same as House did but he probably just wanted to avoid the reuse of the same word for stylistic reasons (and probably he spend 1/1000000th of the time typing than we did analyzing).
“My guess is that he meant we all agree money is neutral in the long-run, and that we’ve been doing QE for years now so let’s admit this isn’t working”
Steve Williamson left it with the more radical interpretation, and he’s an admirer of Prescott who was trying to defend him (though he’s sometimes noted how atypical his views are). Williamson also wanted to defend the Minneapolis Fed by pointing out that the others there don’t share Prescott’s view on monetary neutrality, and that Williamson himself doesn’t believe that, but that Prescott isn’t COMPLETELY crazy for believing such a thing. There really wasn’t any defense of Prescott claiming it’s an established scientific fact rather than his contentious hypothesis.
Seriously, how would money affect the economy?
Well, unless you are an Austrian dis-aggregator…Is that who these people are?
I don’t see how it could have affected it on the upside…unless it eliminated the business cycle. Oops.
Nominal sticky prices.
Murphy, I bet if Krugman said (preferably in the voice of Darrell Hammond playing Bill Clinton):
“I am not here.”
Then some PK fan somewhere would be trying to justify how it is true and that those who think it is wrong are misreading him.
I asked Bob once, after he mentioned hearing a voice he took to be god, and concluding from that that god is real, how he would react to hearing a voice telling him he (the voice) was not god. Bob got very mad.
There can be only one mysterious and elusive (read: muddled and contradictory) being in the Universe.
There is no room for Krugman.
Am I the only one who has noticed that Narayana R. Kocherlakota’s name starts with Koch?
So let’s be clear here:
1. Even/of course completely changes what the sentence says about Krugman.
2. Even/of course does pretty much nothing to change House’s point.
Agreed on this?
If all you’re saying is #1, fine. I took this post to be more about House and Smith when I think it’s really just about Smith.
Ergo the school referenced in the title
Off topic, but on the show House, am I the only one to notice or imagine the significance of his sidekick being called Wilson?
” I think it’s really just about Smith.”
So does Bob: “Today’s case in point: Noah Smith”
Right, but Smith’s reading of House? As far as I can tell he comprehends House just fine.
He just switches a phrase that’s not quite equivalent.
Ken B. I’m disappointed in you. In response to Daniel, what you said is fine, but I think it would have been far better for you to have reproduced this quotation from my post:
“But that’s not the issue for our post right now. No, the issue is Noah Smith, and how he can’t read good.”
Even Ken B. has been known to blow a layup, but of course Murphy was there to rebound and put it in.
Well, I went for the first time you made it clear, not the fourth or fifth.
Bob – maybe you can’t read good. As I said to Ken B: “Right”.
Clearly we’re talking about Noah Smith.
The question is, are we talking about Noah Smith’s ability to understand House or Noah Smith’s phrasing in his own post. Since the subject is reading comprehension I was under the impression we were considering whether Smith comprehended House. The answer to that is clearly “yes”, regardless of the slight change in the metaphor.
Daniel, House wrote “Even.” Noah paraphrased it to “Of course” and then said people were weird for objecting to House.
I agree with you that House *also* can’t read good, since he didn’t get why people were flipping out over the “Even.”
Even and of course are different but pretty close in this context (I would use either phrasing to describe Krugman myself). It is weird that people objected to House.
I don’t have a whole lot of data to go on but as far as I can tell House can read good.
people were flipping out over the “Even.”
That’s new. I thought people were flipping out over House having the audacity of saying Krugman says “nutty things”.
I want to clarify: it completely changes what the sentence says about Krugman IF you think Krugman is nutty through and through.
If you think he’s smart but only human (so of course occasionally nutty), then there is very little difference between the two.
It would kind of weird to say “Even a nutty person does nutty things occasionally” so its obvious that House doesn’t hold the view “Krugman is nutty through and through”.
You are correct though that someone who held that view about Krugman AND was not good at reading things from the author’s perspective may end up writing a post like this one
So they disagree with House and believe that we should listen to Nobel prize winners on everything under the sun?
They should all run Ask The Nobel Prize Winner columns in the newspaper.
Paul, should I get a dog?
RPM: “Tel, I agree with you that I shouldn’t have written this post, because it seems Ken B. is the only one who’s really on my side. And that can’t be good.”
OK, I’ll argue the other side!
When citing an example or parenthetical remark, it is common, especially in speech, to use what is called a flavoring particle. “Well” is a common example. In German the most common example is “doch”. These serve as markers to indicate that the following remark is of a subordinate or tangential nature. It is especially common in speech where timing and emphasis may indicate the particular sense or valuation that the speaker wishes to convey. It is also used in informal writing such as blogs, which might be but lightly revised, and there there is no intonation to guide one’s reading. It is therefore tricky place too much reliance on the actual choice of flavoring particle. So while the change that Smith made might reflect an unconscious bias on his part, it might also simply be an example of a flavoring particle upon which not too much import should be placed. Bob and Ken B making a mountain out of a molehill.
(I still think Bob is right btw.)
House is saying we shouldn’t listen to Nobel prizes. Smith miscobstrues that as saying not to listen to pk. Its hard to determine if he understood house at all.
“Flavoring particle” is an apt description of Ken B’s posts on this blog.
Its really amazing that everyone has to talk about Paul Krugman. If he gets hit by a bus it will be a nominal shock to GDP.
Nominal shock to a real variable?
Noah Smith knows absolutely nothing about the Austrian School. I’m shocked.
Gene Callahan defends our honor.
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-new-classicals-drank-austrians.html?showComment=1391652916247#c5939378970073978079
One last thing before I jump off a bridge:
Folks, what motivated this post is that there is a recurring theme amongst many bloggers who are fans of PK, to the effect that any criticism of him can only be explained by a psychological condition on the part of the critic.
So for example, Chris House says “Even Paul Krugman has been known to say nutty things,” and then is surprised that anybody would react to that. Noah Smith chimes in, as he too is mystified at how Krugman’s critics can’t recognize an olive branch. MAN those people really can’t stand the success of the IS/LM model that could.
Thus the need for this post. I like to point out to such people, occasionally, that there are quite valid reasons for people to object to Krugman. What’s odd is that in this very post Noah explains that it’s not Krugman’s basic economic views that are “out there.” So, why then does Noah list Krugman as one of his blogging heroes? Well, for all of the reasons that also make Krugman a poor choice for saying, “Even PK has been known to say nutty things.”
that there is a recurring theme amongst many bloggers who are fans of PK, to the effect that any criticism of him can only be explained by a psychological condition on the part of the critic.
Ok…
So for example, Chris House says “Even Paul Krugman has been known to say nutty things,” and then is surprised that anybody would react to that.
How is that an example of the theme?
Noah Smith chimes in, as he too is mystified at how Krugman’s critics can’t recognize an olive branch.
Smith says (in the part you cited) the statement “Even Paul Krugman has been known to say nutty things” seems like an “innocuous, throwaway line”. How does that show he’s mystified with Krugman’s critics? If he’s mystified at all, I would expect him to be mystified with Krugman’s fans for being upset with House. (I mean, it were Krugman’s fans, not his critics, who were upset with House, right?)