Krugman On Reading

Paul Krugman has a fascinating weblog post up. To last fair, I volition quote it inward its entirety, alongside my emphasis added inward bold. 

I’ve written earlier almost the myth of the stupid progressive economist.Many conservative economists bring a fixed thought inward their heads — it’s to a greater extent than than but a presumption, because it seems completely impervious to prove — that progressive economists are dumb guys who don’t sympathize basic economics. And because of this fixed idea, conservatives look literally unable to read what my side writes; they criticize the dumb things they’re certain nosotros must bring said, without checking to run into if that’s what nosotros genuinely said.

In the linked post I wrote almost wellness reform issues, but you lot likewise run into this inward macro: 5 years in addition to to a greater extent than into this discussion, freshwater economists even hence can’t roll their brains around the notion that modern Keynesians (both New in addition to eclectic) bring genuinely done a lot of difficult thinking over the by few decades. I’ve called this a failure of reading comprehension, but it’s actually an unwillingness to read at all, to hence much as glance at what the actual declaration powerfulness be.

And I hateful that quite literally. Brad DeLong quotes from a John Cochrane newspaper (no link) which declares that those stupid Keynesians don’t sympathize why monetary policy is ineffective. It’s non because of the null lower bound, it’s because bonds in addition to monetary base of operations are perfect substitutes:

In this analysis, monetary policy is impotent, but non for the commons argue that involvement rates are nearly zero. The Fed tin arbitrarily central Treasury debt for money, in addition to increase the coin render as much as nosotros like. But nobody cares if it does so, since the “flight to liquidity” is as towards all forms of Government debt. If nosotros desire to a greater extent than fruit in addition to less cheese, putting to a greater extent than apples in addition to less oranges inward the fruit handbasket won’t help. 

So, I mean value I tin say without boasting that the modern revival of liquidity-trap economic science began alongside my 1998 Brookings Paper (pdf). Here’s the initiative of all judgement of that paper:

THE LIQUIDITY TRAP – that awkward status inward which monetary policy loses its traveling pocket because the nominal involvement charge per unit of measurement is essentially zero, inward which the quantity of coin becomes irrelevant because coin in addition to bonds are essentially perfect substitutes – played a cardinal component division inward the early on years of macroeconomics as a discipline.

That was sixteen years ago. Just saying.

It's pretty amazing to write a whole column almost people who, in addition to I quote "criticize the dumb things they’re certain nosotros must bring said, without checking to run into if that’s what nosotros genuinely said." in addition to and hence so manifestly in addition to blatantly not, well, check to run into if that's what I genuinely said.

"no link?" Dear Professor, allow me nowadays you lot alongside this matter called Google, alongside which you lot tin cheque quotes if you lot are hence inclined when Brad doesn't give you lot the link. (Update: Hilarious "let me google that for you" link from a correspondent.)

If you lot did, you lot would detect no declaration of mine, ever, that says anything similar "those stupid Keynesians don’t sympathize why monetary policy is ineffective." This is slander, pure in addition to simple. I bring never used the intelligence "stupid" to pull whatever economist.  Serious, scholarly, new-Keynesians similar Mike Woodford are incredibly smart.

And to write this inward the oculus of a column complaining that I don't cheque to run into what others bring genuinely said??? Are at that topographic point no mirrors at the New York Times?

As for my supposed lack of reading skills, I invite the learned professor, if he wishes to bring together the lodge of people who cheque facts, to browse my research webpage in addition to or the page of my monetary economic science class. He volition detect a lifetime of operate reading in addition to thinking difficult almost New, in addition to Old Keynesian models, going dorsum decades. I fifty-fifty got an H5N1 inward my Keynesian classes at Berkeley inward the 1980s.

Since he advocates reading, allow me advise my Determinacy in addition to Identification alongside Taylor Rules, including the references, or the to a greater extent than recent New Keynesian Liquidity Trap. You tin say it's all wrong, but you lot cannot say I bring non read in addition to thought difficult almost new-Keynesian economics, including all of Woodford's book. But to create that, you lot bring to read by 1 2009 weblog post, which seems to last the showtime in addition to terminate of Brad DeLong's reading, in addition to Krugman's passing along of opinions without doing whatever reading.

Perhaps this is all petulance because I didn't elevate Krugman for the thought that at null rates bonds in addition to coin are perfect substitutes. (In, allow us remember, a weblog post designed to explicate to a pop audience how neoclassical models work, alongside real few citations, non an academic article.) Anyway, Keynes in addition to Friedman (optimum quantity of money) had those ideas long ago. Indeed it did "play a cardinal component division inward the early on years," which is why a citation is non required for every newspaper that talks almost it afterward. And perchance I should add together a footling Emily Post etiquette lesson: There is a fine fine art of line-fishing for citations. Slander in addition to insults are ordinarily non real effective.

It was Apr 1. It's hence outrageous I did halt to cheque that it wasn't a parody! Apparently not.

PS: Comments off, for obvious reasons.