Economics Debate

I posted a version of the following to a comment on Brad DeLong's site, but he deleted my last three paragraphs and gave me pretty much a non-answer to the second, citing some source he liked without giving a hint as to whether economists generally agree.

I have been reading the opinions of a variety of distinguished economists on the proposed stimulus, and I'm a lot more discouraged than edified. It seems that prominent economists from famous institutions variously think that there is no stimulus multiplier, that the multiplier is greater for spending than for tax reductions, vice-versa, or that the stimulative multiplier effect can be specified to three significant figures. I am led to wonder whether economics has anything useful to say about the world - is it a science or just mumbo-jumbo whose only connection to reality is via the credulity of the gullible?

There is a lot of debate in the economic blogosphere, but an unsatisfyingly large portion of it consists of assertions that the other side is ignorant or deluded. So are there any facts that can be brought to bear on the issues?

If so, perhaps a more formal public debate would help. My idea is that such a debate should be confined to a crucial but narrow topic, (for example: What is the evidence for the multiplier effect of various stimulative strategies?) that the debate should be conducted via blog or similar internet medium, that the discussion should be intended to be intelligible to the public, and that the format be strict: Each side gets an opening statement (say 1000 words), A set of questions to pose in cross examination of the opponent, and a rebuttal. It might be useful to allow each side a limited time to revise and extend their remarks.

If successful, such a debate would be a great public service. Even if not, it ought to be interesting and even educational.

Is there any chance that there might be takers?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec...
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st...
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more