I'm so hip I tweet (or is that I'm so hep I twit?)

Curmudgeon v Curmudgeon II

Now Kevin Drum agrees students shouldn't be forced to have facebook accounts. Again I agree. But he doesn't seem to have attended a University in decades.

I am completely out of touch with both kids and universities, plus I'm an old fogey. And if you really want to know the truth, I'm not sure why university professors need to communicate with their students digitally at all. Don't they still meet a couple of times a week in meatspace, like we used to when I was a lad? Can't assignments and office hours and so forth be sufficiently communicated during class time?

But fine. I get it. We all communicate digitally these days, so university professors need to do it too. But you know what? University students actually do know how to use email. Sure, they might consider it something that's mainly used for sending messages to grandma and grandpa, but they all know how to use it. And it has the virtue of being universal, extremely flexible, and supporting embedded links to any old thing you want. Students who plan to find jobs after graduation should probably know how to use it.

Curmudgeon v curmudgeon round two. Wow this is great, something I know about. 1. No meatspace won't do. Students skip classes. Students who are at the lecture seem to manage to not hear simple announcements. Information on the web is so useful that it would be crazy not to use it.

2. e-mail ??? It's hard to e-mail people if you don't know their e-mail address. Did you e-mail this blog post to me ? Of course not. You put it on the web and I came to you.

3. After announcing a change in my office hours in two successive lectures I finally finally followed my own observation in point 1 and updated the web page. See not e-mail a web page for me, the prof, where students surf. You know like a blog but much more boring. My students may thank you for provoking me into putting in the 10 seconds of effort. That is those who come to my office hours. That is no one.

http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/nuovo/facolta/docenti/docenti.asp?IdProfessore=&IdProfessore=&IdProfessore=187&B1=VISUALIZZA

Curmudgeon V Curmudgeon

Kevin Drum cankily complains "If Democrats Want to Appeal to the Working Class, They Really Need Some Policies That Benefit the Working Class" He was ticked off by a genuinely nutso argument that the way to appeal to the working class is through environmentalism. I share his feelings. Especially "I'm feeling a little peevish."

The main point of the post here (emphasis mine)

Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let's compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to pocketbook issues:

Republicans: We will lower your taxes.

Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and....and....working man....party of FDR....um....

There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it's too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it's not true anyway. Democrats simply don't consistently support concrete policies that help the middle class. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They've done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don't do anything for labor. They're soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can't even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one.

My comments

I very much agree with this post. In particular I am sure that Democrats would win more elections if they were more populist and that they are influenced by campaign donors. I think what set you off (and what set me off) was the really nutso idea of switching the debate to the environment -- Democrats shouldn't change the subject from people's pocketbooks, because their position is more popular.

However, I'm grumpy too and your claims of fact are odd.

Now I get really grumpy, because I scrolled up to the post to get the word "virtually" and couldn't click back down in the comment box. Also disqus forces me to use internet explorer, because it doesn't work with my Chrome and I hate that. So grrr get off of my lawn and more comment below.

I agree with this post but your claims of fact are odd (and disqus is made me start over grrr). I note the ultimate weasel word "virtually" in your claim that Democrats' policies have marginally helped the working and middle classes. That is, you know the claim is false (virtually true = untrue).

I have a modified A and B

A) Republicans: "We will cut your taxes and we did if you ignore payroll taxes and no we don't just cut taxes for the rich; why do you think that you anti-Republican liberal; ohhh you are a declared George HW Bush supporter who just hit the yes button when Clinton said that in a debate (this happened). well it's unfair to say we only care about the taxes of rich people. Think of all the times we complain about the 47% (AKA the retired and much of the working class).

B) Democrats We cut your taxes, but then you voted for a RepublicanHouse and the House Republicans insisted they be raised right back up again.

Your list of policies does not include the Obama tax cuts in the ACA ARRA (update:oooops) then the partial payroll tax holidy. They happened. Under Obama the taxes of the working class were cut (until Republicans forced the cuts to be reversed). Under Reagan they increased (payroll tax increases being greater than income tax cuts). You haven't explained how the vast majority of US adults of all classes manage to not know about the simples possible tax cut. I'd say it is a gross failure of the news media to do their job.

In fact Democrats do sometimes run on "we will cut your taxes". Two examples are Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008. Hmm what do those two guys have in common ?

The ACA helps the working and middle classes by providing insurance insurance. Even people with employer provided insurance can't be sure that they will always have employer provided insurance. The ACA subsidies are available well up into the middle class reaching zero at an income about four thirds of the median family income. Here I think it is clear why the ACA hasn't convinced working and middle class Americans to vote for Democrats -- only half of poll respondents know about the subsidies at all. Also most of that half assume they are for low income people that is "those people." This is a sign of the power of the division of middle class vs poor (which of course has a lot to do with white vs black) and also a sign of a failure of the news media to do their job.

The ARRA helped the US working and middle classes both by increasing their chances of keeping their jobs (I'm not a US resident hence the third person) and by reducing the cutbacks in services provided by state and local government.

So I agree that Democrats are not egalitarian enough for their own political good. But you can avoid blaming the working class for deciding their are no pocketbook relevant differences between the parties only by ignoring the facts. You know better. You demonstrate it daily and non-virtually admitted it by typing "virtually."

update: and "next to". To not mention HAMP is to be kind to the Democrats but it sort of semi happened.

Comment on Lemann

Recently Ed Kilgore seemed to me to declare independence from the DLC (saying something about traditional liberalism being both more vulnerable and more valuable than he had thought). More recently Nicholas Lemann wrote an excellent essay in The Washington Monthly in which he gently criticizes the early Washington Monthly and his younger self. It is an excellent essay and well worth reading.

Read it. Then don't read my carping comments below.

I humbly assert that this is an excellent essay. However I will only comment on the parts with which I disagree.

1. A cruel parody of the first two thirds or so of the essay is "When I came to Washington I wanted to disrupt life for comfortably cartels of producers. Now I realize that pre-internet journalism was one of them. It is fine to make life uncomfortably for airline workers (including executives) but not to make it difficult for people like us." Surely you can see the pattern of a young idealist who works for very little and wants things shaken up becoming a not so young exceedingly established retired dean who thinks things have been shaken up to much. I don't think this is fair at all. But I enjoyed typing it. 2.Assange is a journalist. Manning is his source. Assange did not publish huge amounts of classified material by pushing a button. Wikileaks screened the material. Yes there was too much for them to screen, so they collaborated with newspapers. But journalists Wikileaks, The Guardian and The New York Times were doing the same things. Those at Wikileaks were paid much less (if anything) and are not members of the club. That is the difference. You'd really better update before Glenn Greenwald reads this post. He can be very harsh. 3. "What if it turns out that journalism’s social mission and its economic fortunes have simply diverged—that ventures like Klein’s do a superb job of informing the public, but don’t make money? Should we just shrug our shoulders and say, Sorry, if the market won’t support you, you shouldn’t exist?" "Superstar". There is a radical contrast between your guess about the economic fortunes of Ezra Klein and your guess about the economic fortunes of Ezra Klein. I think it is clear that the economic prospects of his venture are solid (ask Josh Marshall). Wonkblog shows how much it costs to produce excellent journalism (very little).

I think the problem with daily Newspapers and TV news is not principally financial (although the financial problems are extreme). A profession which can afford to send hundreds of well paid people into a room to shout questions at a press secretary does not lack enough money to do a better job. You briefly note that the Washington Monthly had a budget of roughly zero (and probably still does). It gets the job done. To choose a middling example CNN has a rather larger budget. It doesn't get the job done.

4. "There was some of this feeling in President Obama’s State of the Union address this year, which evinced a deep weariness with the process of seeking legislation and a preference for executive orders, or for Congress to present solutions to him, rather than vice versa."

I disagree entirely. Obama is smart and idealistic and a wonk, but he is not a technocrat. He clearly is inclined to seek common ground and try to find solutions together. He turned to executive orders, because it was obvious to him (as it is to you) that he can seek legislation all he wants, but there won't be any. Clearly this is a case of someone who loved Democracy not wisely but too well finally facing the plain fact that, however wonderful it might be, the legislative process will not occur in the near future except for keeping the lights on and the debt paid on time.

I am never convinced by "evinced". The verb to evince is rarely used and never used when a plain verb wouldn't make the claim clearly false. If we find something in a speech we can say it is stated or displayed or revealed or exposed. You wrote "evinced" because it is so weak a word that a sentence based on it can hardly be false. I propose that you ask yourself why you wrote write "evinced". I think it is because you wanted to make a claim, but knew it was false. Also the word "some" serves only to weasel. It has no meaning in context. It served only to weaken a plainly false claim to a not so plainly false claim.

The Five Minutes Hate of Chait

Jonathan Chait wrote "The Democratic version of idealism emerged during and after the Clinton administration," This statement implies that Jimmy Carter is not and has never been an idealist.

That is crazy.

My comment

There is only one way to understand your use of "idealism." To you it means killing people for ideals (this also explains how you can imagine that Bush believes in Democracy and freedom in spite of the fact that he also believes he had the power to lock up anyone anywhere indefinitely without trial (and did so).

I generally respect you and the only complaint I usually have with this blog is that you don't post enough. But your definition of idealism convinces me that your inner idiot -- the one which advocated invading Iraq, still lives. You now understand that that decision was insane, but you stick to the insane idea that idealists who don't kill don't count.

If you don't equate idealism with a form of killing, then why did you write the passage I quote ? I ask for information. I think you can present no other explanation.

Note I am not a pacifist and agree that sometimes our ideals require us to kill people. The reason I am appalled is that you don't seem to think anything but killing could ever be the result of ideals.

Of course it is also clear that you think that foreign policy which doesn't involve killing people amounts to nothing.

Also the subtitle is garbled.

Chait's claim is that Obama is a realist but not a Realist, so this is an error "What Is Obama’s Foreign Policy Ideology? Realism — not the same thing as realism!" it can be corrected to "What Is Obama’s Foreign Policy Ideology? Realism is not the same thing as realism!" or to "What Is Obama’s Foreign Policy Ideology? realism — not the same thing as Realism!

Finally, as written it is equivalent to writing "It is realism - not the same thing as realism" The capital R in the subtitle just indicates that the word is the first of the sentence. An irregular single r as in my second correction is meaningful. Capitalizing the first word in a sentence indicates nothing.

Winston (not Smith) and Myths

Karen Tumulty wrote a good article including one bad sentence on the Republican all the eggs in the Obamacare basket case strategy.

"In Winston’s view, it is a myth that the last midterm election was swung by voter outrage about Obama’s health-care proposal, which was then being debated in Congress."

Well that would be a myth, since the bill was signed months before the 2010 midterms. I'm pretty sure the error is not the fault of "David Winston, a pollster who advises House Speaker John A. Boehner." I think it quite possible that it isn't Karen Tumulty's fault either. I think a copy editor might have decided to save some ink by eliminating un-necessary words editing down from something like

In Winston’s view, it is a myth that [the outcome of] the last midterm [campaign] was swung by voter outrage about Obama’s health-care proposal, which was then being debated in Congress.

As rewritten, the sentence says that the law was debated during the 2010 election campaign. This is arguably true (especially but not only if you think the 2010 campaign started in November 2008). But really debating *in Congress* during an election ? Congress would never do that.

Now that's pretty wiki

The wikipedia lives up to it's name. Earlier today, the capo* of the Sinaloa Cartel El Chapo Guzman was arrested in Mazatlan

MEXICO CITY — Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán, the man who supplied more illegal drugs to the United States than anyone else on Earth, was captured by Mexican Navy commandos without a shot early Saturday morning in the Pacific coast resort town of Mazatlan, according to U.S. and Mexican authorities.

here is a screen capture from the wikipedia article on the Sinaloa Cartel

Now the screen capture seems to suggest that it is now early Sunday, almost 24 hours after the arrest. But in Mazatlan it is now 9:15 PM Saturday February 22 2014. *the Italian translation of the word capo is "boss" as in "boss della mafia." What goes around comes around cicciatori

More on Julia Boonstra

Glenn Kessler noted that the latest ad presenting an alleged Obamacare victim doesn't add up right. Koch funded "Americans for Prosperity" broadcast an advertizement in Michigan in which Julia Boonstra complained that her old insurance was cancelled due to the ACA. Kessler notes that also as a result of the ACA her annual premium is $571 per month instead of $1100 a month. Boonstra complained about out of pocket expenses.Kessler noted that "under Obamacare, there is an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 for an individual plan, after which the insurance plan pays 100 percent of covered benefits." This means that the maximium cost if the old plan had $0.00 out of pocket would be $2 this year. Of course it didn't so Boonstra will save money. I have a question. Why wsa the old plan cancelled ? The ACA imposes minimum standards for what counts as insurance (although insurance plans people had when the bill was signed are grandfathered). This is clearly needed to make the mandate meaningful. But Boonstra's old insurance sounds like excellent insurance. How could it not be ACA compliant. I can think of a few possibilities 1. It is ACA compliant, but ooops the contract is renewable by mutual agreement. Boonstra has leukemia. Obvsiously her old insurance company (and her new one) will lose money insuring her. The old company might have cancelled the policy for that reason only. I assume that the cancellation notice mentioned the ACA. I also assume it was not a sworn affidavit. 2. Her old plan was not ACA compliant for some minor reason (minor in the expected number of dollars paid by the insurance company to care providers). I might even suspect that insurance companies deliberately wrote technically non ACA compliant plans so they would have to cancel them. Then they could offer essentially identical plans at almost the same cost to healthy policy holders. Again the cancellation would be caused by the Leukemia. 3. Her old plan is seriously non ACA compliant (in dollars). For example it might have a lifetime maximum payment to providers. The ACA might have saved Boonstra a lot more money than old out of pocket minus $2. 4. For completeness I have to admit that it is technically possible that the insurance company didn't cancel the plan at all. It is conceivable that Boonstra cancelled to save the $530 a month and is now complaining. I am sure this isn't what happened. In any case, I'd be interested in the explanation. I suspect it shows how dangerous it is to trust insurance companies and how vitally important are the ACA regulatory reforms.

Great catch by Glenn Kessler

I have a more critical take here, but I want to note that Glenn Kessler did a great fact checking job figuring out the maximum possible cost of Obamacare to the latest victim ($2 if the "low" out of pocket costs under her pre-Obamacare insurance were zero oh and her insurance company raised premiums zero this year).

Not even Americans For Prosperity can defeat Glenn Kessler's love of "both sides"

I mean that he loves the phrase "both sides". This fact check is pretty much "Opinions on shape of planet differ. Both sides overstate their case." He is discussing a grotesquely dishonest ad by Americans for Prosperity about an Obamacare victim who " told the Detroit News that her monthly premiums were cut in half, from $1,100 a month to $571. That’s a savings of $529 a month" I am mainly objecting to this "Too many anecdotal stories, on both sides, have fallen apart under close scrutiny." Before the cut and paste comment, I'd like to make a really rude question here. You do facts right ? OK how many pro ACA anectdotal stories have fallen apart. An honest fact checker would have calculated a number before concluding it is "too many." Naturally this would be a lower bound as in what ? At least 100 ? At least 10 ? Well arguably at least one ? No one who respects facts should say a number is "too many" without deciding how many is too many and checking that the number is greater than that. my comment. I was expecting to enjoy reading this fact check (which is widely cited). I absolutely don't agree with only 2 pinnocchios. I'd go for four (note the very inflamatory claims). In any case, the assertion that an absolute maximum of $2 more a year is "unaffordable" is clearly at least 3 pinocchios false). Also you write "Too many anecdotal stories, on both sides, have fallen apart under close scrutiny." I understand about limits of space, but I don't know about anecdotal stories on the pro Obamacare side which have fallen apart. Really, I draw a blank (I vaguely remember maybe one case). In contrast I don't know of anecdotal stories presented by the anti-Obamacare side which haven't fallen apart. I think the "on both sides" is knee jerk Ballance which has no place in a fact check. In any case, you made an assertion of fact without presenting evidence. I think you should not allow yourself to do that. You must assert that "many" pro ACA anecdotes have fallen apart under scrutiny. You must now find at least several examples or award yourself at least a couple of pinocchios. Note that I didn't assert that there aren't many such anecdotes. I just said I knew of zero or one (depending on how one scores the one). I ask you to ask yourself why you wrote "on both sides". Was it the result of memories of pro-ACA anecdotes which fell apart or was it because you fear being accused of liberal bias ? I think you can and should obtain the answer by introspection. To try to phrase the second explanation more politely, was it that you didn't want to claim one side on a debate is less honest than the other, because that is a broad judgment and not the assessment of a simple claim of fact. The problem is that the assertion that their honesty is roughly comparable (both sides) is also a broad judgment not the assessment of a specific claim of fact.

What is the Opposite of a Weasel Word ?

I need a metaphor and no one is answering at metaphor customer service.

I need a nuancing partner for weasel word. A weasel word is a qualifier which makes a statement so weak it is unfalsifiable without making it sound like "I don't know either." I think there is an equally seriously problem with words used only to set up straw men. There are words which can be used to make a perfectly reasonable claim false.

I am tempted to call them "berserker words" as only the sort of person who would go into battle unarmored would actually use them. On the other hand, berserkers were people and not at all like weasels. I also thought of "rabid lion words" but, come on, syllables. I think "wolverine words" might be good, since wolverines are closely related to weasels (who are ferocious and fearless so whose weaseling whom here ?).

I just read "invariably" in one of the "Five Myths about ..." essays (here I think part of the problem is the norm that there have to be five myths -- the essayist who can only think of four is strongly tempted to strawmanize). I won't link to it, because I don't want to criticize the author.

Also

Necessarily, inevitably, exclusively, absolutely, automatically, [give me a minute I'll think of more]

I wonder what is the ratio of people saying something is invariably true to people claiming that a (usually un-named, un-cited, and absolutely made up) opponent says it is invariably true.

update: "gospel" is another berserker word

as in "It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s and later" Uh Chris I'm a progressive and I sure didn't have that impression in the 1980s and earlier. Name a progressive preacher of that gospel (it will have to be one of the kids I envy who don't even remember Reagan)

The usual metodological rant

I managed to resist commenting over at Krugman's blog but not here I think Krugman didn't go far enough. I think the heuristic explanation of why the model gives the result it does is often the useful product of the whole effort. One use of models is to clarify thought. The clearer thought is the heuristic explanation of what drove the model. Even if the details of the model aren't true, that informal story can be true. I add that I think that this is the only way in which economic theory has ever been useful. Obviously abstruse theories in the natural sciences have been useful aside from the intuitive explanations including some which remain incomprehensible. But they are used because they yield astonishing but accurate predictions and are ruthlessly tested (they are hypotheses or theories not models). I think it just so happens that, so far, economic theory doesn't include anything like that. I think many economists try to convince themselves to fall for a very elementary logical error. The fact that it is not true that models which are rejected by the data are necessarily useless doesn't mean that they are useful. I wasn't an economist in 1982, but by 1985 the argument that models were false by definition and could still be useful wasn't controversial. Furthermore, it has been an absolutely standard argument made by economists at least for well over a century. I think Williamson set up a straw 1982 economist. I am often very irritated by economists' use of made up intellectual history. If it matters enough to mention, it matters enough to get right. Assertions about what people wrote should be supported by citations. Also I'm trying to get to a clear statement of a sense I have about a catch 22 use of hypothesis testing. The point is that the argument that rejection of a model doesn't tell us anything interesting because it could still be useful is not followed by any discussion of anything which might tell us that it is useless. You note the argument that it doesn't matter if the models are not useful for forecasting, because they are for something else. I think an effort to see if the world looks roughly like the model is not going to be taken seriously at all, because it involves statistics whose distribution under the null is not known. I think that economic theory defends itself by arguing that hypothesis tests are irrelevant and also that anything which isn't a hypothesis test is invalid econometrics. I guess I have two questions for straw orthodox macroeconomist . I will make them narrow. 1) do you think it is conceivable that the Euler equation for optimal intertemporal consumption choices is no good -- not useful -- something else should be used in macroeconomics ? 2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, what would convince you that this conceivable possibility is the case ? I don't think that he will argue that we know a priori that good models must contain such an Euler equation. I don't think anything could possible convince him that a model without such an Euler equation is better than a model with such an Euler equation. I think that he has, and incorrectly denies that he has, absolute a priori faith.

Coberly is a Monad

Post deleted because Coberly wouldn't enjoy reading it and no one else would care.

Comment on Krugman

Commenting on Smith, Krugman wrote

"real business cycle theorists ... aren’t like French generals getting ready to fight World War I in 1939; they’re still working out how to repel cavalry charges."

(my thought but put eloquently)

"I think it puts Keynesians (of all stripes) in a better light than Noah grants."

and "Bottom line: I am not a French general!"

I comment.

I agree that you aren't a French General. You are, however, fighting an old war. You are fighting the Japanese stagnation of the 90s. Not a mistake (or a reflection on you) since it is the rich world wide problem of the 10s. History doesn't repeat itself but sometimes it rhymes.

But what about "I think it puts Keynesians (of all stripes) in a better light" hmm alll stripes ? It seems to me that new Keynesians are a war or two back (in 39 figuring out how to defeat the Prussians). In NK models, real variables are assumed to be stationarily distributed around an exogenous long run equilibrium. They didn't explain the European unemployment problem of the 80s and 90s. They decided that Europe wasn't a proper market economy so it is irrelevant to the mainstream of macroeconomics. Then reform made it OK. Now (without reversal of reform) there is extremely high unemployment for a long time without deflation (well maybe deflation in Greece).

Even you have had some intellectual discomfort. You tentatively forecast deflation and later noted that downward nominal rigidity was much stronger than you thought. Existing new Keynesian models can't deal with downward nominal rigidity, because they work in minus expected inflation space. It is easy to add downward nominal rigidity to an adaptive expectations augmented Phillips curve. The slow recovery (so far) creates no problems for old Keynesians. It creates a whole lot of problems for anyone who claims that new Keynesian economics is an advance on old Keynesian economics.

Bonus side Rant

Smith quotes House "We now know more about the details of price setting than any other field in economics. "--House I actually don't know if he meant "we macroeconomists know more than people in other fields" or "we macroeconomists know more about price setting than other things". It doesn't matter. I think new Keynesian models of price setting are total nonsense. I am not at all talking about Calvo alarm clocks. I am talking about the idea that price setting is rationally forward looking. I have 3 objections

1) expected inflation is equal to the true expected value of inflation given the policy rule so it changes when the policy changes and not just because past inflation changes. If the models are taken literally, this happens instantly. Of course all assume that there is really some learning dynamics -- but that is enough to weaken the claim enough for it to be untestable given historical data. Now I don't think that anyone could doubt Volcker's resolve in 1982. Survey data (of experts even) from the trough of the ruthless Volcker recession show they expected inflation to increase. This can be explained if one assumes that Volcker hadn't demonstrated resolve or that the survey participants were distracted by flying unicorns. The second story is much more plausible.

2) desired prices are a markup on marginal costs. This requires managers to have a firm opinion about what their marginal costs are and to believe that it is a useful concept. To believe that, you have to act as if "as if" were a convincing response to any fact. Notoriously managers either are not familiar with the concept or say they have no use for it. Micro foundations means ignoring what actual economic agents say about what they do. I have no idea (and have long wondered) how anyone can claim to believe in microfoundations and also use "as if" arguments. This is a plain obvious blatant contradiction.

3) anticipated future marginal costs have to matter too. Brad asked "Thus your standard New Keynesian model will use Calvo pricing and model the current inflation rate as tightly coupled to the present value of expected future output gaps. Is this a requirement anyone really wants to put on the model intended to help us understand the world that actually exists out there? " He sure is insinuating nK models of price formation are nonsense, and I don't know of anyone answering the question.

Commenting Before Reading -- Personal Worst

This is getting out of hand. I felt the need to comment on this post by Noah Smith after reading the first paragraph

The eternally simmering blog debate over "microfoundations" has reached a sort of balance, with Simon Wren-Lewis and Paul Krugman on the skeptical side, and Chris House, Steve Williamson, and Tony Yates in support of the dominant paradigm. But "balance" doesn't mean "boring", so I encourage you to read the latest round, which is about the history of New Keynesian macro. Wren-Lewis and Krugman say that New Keynesians, by embracing the microfounded approach, gave up an important type of modeling tool unnecessarily; House and Williamson say that the thing that was given up was not useful at all, so it deserved to go.

My comment:

Balance ! We don't need no stinking balance ! Look I'm not in their league or anything but I am very vigorously participating in the discussion and I don't find my view there at all. I disagree with Krugman and Wren-Lewis because I think the approach for which new-Keynesians abandoned the old approach is worthless.

Now I guess my contribution to the debate hasn't gotten all that much attention, but I haven't gotten a one tenth of the way convincing answer to the question "what have microfoundations ever done for us." I am particularly pleased that you lumped Wren-Lewis and Krugman together because it gives me an excuse to embed this link (it really shows that their views are different -- it's here because it proves Krugman typed "Robert Waldmann" but it's relevant).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/microfoundations-micro-payoffs-wonkish/

One would think that being accused of offering "very thin gruel" by Krugman would stimulate some further effort. I do think that. I am confident that Wren-Lewis has devoted considerable effort to the search for payoffs from the micro-foundations approach. I think he hasn't found any, because there aren't any to find.

update: comment after reading

You wrote "And it seems to be rapidly erasing the "freshwater/saltwater" divide." You read Krugman. You know that the divide seemed to be rapidly vanishing way back in 2000-05. Then it reappeared with freshwater economists saying saltwater economists must be fools knaves or both because Calvo pricing was fine until models with it were used to justify Obama's fiscal policy and then it was known to be nonsense as it had been known for decades. If a macro consensus is patched up again, it will hold exactly until the next time there is a major partisan debate about macro policy.

you wrote "the stagflation of the 70s (which seemed to fit with RBC models) and the Volcker Recessions of the early 80s (which seemed to fit with New Keynesian models)."

Ah you are so young. I wish I was so young. The original RBC models didn't include a price level. They had nothing to do with inflation let alone stagflation. The model which seemed to fit the stagflation was, in fact, the Phillips curve as discussed by Samuelson and Solow in 1960. It was perceived to be the critique of a strawman made by Friedman and Phelps (who added nothing and subtracted hysteresis). Later it was thought that the stagflation era and earlier data might fit the Lucas supply function which was Huge for a while. Later it was noted that those data reject the Lucas supply function which was a clearly silly idea to begin with. As noted by Krugman, RBC emerged when freshwater economists had to come up with something new or admit that saltwater economists were right.

New Keynesian economics does not fit data from the Volcker deflation except to the extent that it is identical to old Keynesian economics (see above). Also over here (in Europe) the last war was the huge unemployment problem of the late70s 80s and 90s which is radically inconsistent with new Keynesian models (as note by, among other, leading new Keynesian O.J. Blanchard).

Macroeconomists are totally unprepared to fight the last war or the war before that.

Your idea that macroeconomics always changes so that it wouldn't be defeated in the same way again assumes that old macroeconomics was defeated in battles which newere macroeconomics would win. My view is that this is totally false and that not only have macroeconomists not gained the ability to predict the future but they have lost ability to fit past data.

Global Savings Glut Skit Pitch

Three planets walk into a bar. It's the dive where planets grow to guzzle cubic megameters of beer and complain about the kids these days. Mars complains about kids these days riding around on rovers and littering jelly donuts (he'd tell them to get off of his lawn but he hasn't had one since the water dried up). Earth says that's nothing, she's dealing with a (threatening music) Globalll Saaavings glut The other planets ask what exactly that is. Earth explains that the fundamental problem is that there are all of these incredibly hard working and productive Chinese who recently were incredibly hard working and poor Chinese so they haven't figured out that to be happy they need to consume as much as Japanese (they don't even believe the crazy stories they hear about how much Americans consume). So they produce all this stuff and the only way to get it all bought is for to big to fail banks to lend to bound to default consumers in countries where people know how to consume. Also too, the hard working Chinese who don't expect to consume much are spewing huge amounts of C02 and S02 and kitchensink02 out into the atmosphere. So the other planets laugh until they spill gigaliters of beer and say that all planets should have such problems. And Mercury says so Earth howsabout you get those incredibly hard working productive Chinese who don't consume enough to spend their energy making antipollution equipment and mwindmills and photovoltaic cells ? And Earth says "I never thought of that (except for the photovoltaic cells)" and all the other planets laugh until they spill teraliters of bear and say "Wait Earth you have too much production of goods, too little consumption of goods and huge problems which require gigantic amounts of work which could otherwise go into producing goods and you haven't put two and two together ? Are you stupid Earth ?" I mean are you stupid Earth ?

I like this Ed Kilgore post

Ed Kilgore wrote (among other things) "accept the validity of other religions", " Erick Erickson’s denials that I’m a Christian at all", "the confusion of belief with fundamentally secular efforts to advance laissez-faire capitalism, American nationalism (and sometimes militarism), partriarchal family structures, and what God-hater Ayn Rand called “the virtue of selfishness.” " and "the very old but much-forgotten historical fact that secularism has been very good for religion in America." I meant to write an approving comment to make up for yesterday but the interested reader (if any) can read what I actually wrote. There is something about Kilgore that sets me off. In other words, I find him extremely intellectually stimulating. I don't know what it is. My comment

I think this is a brilliant essay. It is very beautiful. I also think you are fundamentally right.

Some thoughts

1) your belief that Christianity implies social solidarity and help for the least among us is different from their belief that Ayn Rand was a Christian. Your interpretation is based on the text. But if their goals are secular, so are yours. Its none of my business (I'm an atheist) but it seems to me that Erick Erickson isn't a Christian at all. So it seems to me that his view that you aren't one is dead wrong, but not at all in the way you think he is dead wrong. Now as a practical matter, I think that one should never tell someone who thinks he is a Christian that he doesn't know what the word means. It is rude and leads only to bad consequences. That typed, there is no doubt in my mind that Erick Erickson doesn't know what the word "Christian" means (note I trust he won't read this comment [blog] thread).

2) what does "validity" as in "validity of other religions" mean ? To me a set of claims are valid if they are true *and* we have good reason to believe they are true.. Believing in the validity of two different religions seems to me to be logically impossible. I think the limit of sane toleration is to believe that believers in different religions haven't made a mistake -- an intellectual error. I suppose I would accept "equal validity." I don't think any religious beliefs are valid (I'm an atheist). But I don't think atheism is valid -- I have no proof that there is no God and no doubt that there is no God. I think I can manage to be tolerant (and even at times polite) without accepting the validity of your faith. I think that the issue of religion causes liberals to abandon language and logic. In any case, I ask for your definition of "validity" in that context.

3) Is the key role of religious freedom in promoting religion really forgotten ? The argument was made (also eloquently) by Mill in "On Liberty" . Also by Walter Mondale -- OK you may have a point there -- "aid by Mondale" and "ignored" are closely related concepts. But surely people have noticed the fact that the US separation of church and state was extraordinary and almost incredible at the time (and for almost a century, somewhere Marx, for example, noted the astounding fact that in some states Jews could be elected and didn't grasp the incredible fact that this was true in all states) and the other fact that the US is much more religious than other rich countries. But yes you are right -- it is almost impossible to believe that people could be so blind that the fail to notice the two facts, but people manage.

In which I get pissed off again by the same Kilgore post

OK I read on and got to " if, on the other hand, she just doesn’t think HRC is progressive enough, or anti-Wall Street enough, or “passionate” enough to get the job done in the White House, she might want to spend some time wondering why Clinton is so popular among Democrats, " and then "if no one has a prayer of beating Hillary Clinton, it’s probably a pretty good sign she’s not the grossly inappropriate nominee Ball makes her out to be." I comment. On the actual substance, I should start by saying I cringed when I read (a bit about) what Ball said. I plan to vote for Clinton in the primary and (of course) the general. But I don't think detect any logic in the argument that Clinton is way ahead in polls of Democrats and so must be an appropriate candidate*. The argument seems to be that the majority is always right so the minority should shut up. Sorry, I mean to write that if there is any reasoning at all behind your argument, it must be that the majority is always right so the minority should shut up. In contrast, I think debate is healthy and questions of what should be done are not finally answered by polls (or elections). The argument that we are more numerous than you so shut up, is inconsistent with liberalism (by which I mean the set of opinions shared by Bernie Sanders and Friedrich von Hayek). Your argument that Clinton is a good Democratic candidate implies that you think that Reagan was a good presidential candidate in 1984. To be consistent, you must argue that if he weren't an appropriate choice for US president, he wouldn't have had such support. Of course you don't accept that absurd illiberal argument. But it is exactly the argument you made. *update: Only a posting the comment and then cutting and pasting context here did I notice that the claim is that the opinions of poll respondents who intend to vote in Democratic primaries mean that Clinton is not a "grossly inappropriate nominee." I think I could just update and ask Kilgore if he thinks that Reagan wasn't a grossly inappropriate candidate for president. It is a bit delicate to stress this even more having just misquoted Kilgore, but I notice that he puts words in his opponents mouth again (as I did and I just admitted it). This is the named opponent Krystal Ball, but did Ball use the words "grossly" and "inappropriate" ? Crap now I have to read Ball to check. OK I was unfair to Ball -- the essay is very reasonable. It includes "To be clear, I would back Clinton with all my heart against any Republican, and I would even support her over most Democrats. But she is much less than ideal." That is just not consistent with Kilgore's false assertion that Ball said that Clinton would be a "grossly inappropriate nominee" I assume no one has read this far. I have a worry. I generally ignore reading Kilgore,find his arguments reasonable and nod my head. He is usually criticizing Republicans. I now fear that I enjoy reading him, because he critiques a made up caricature Republican. I have no particular opinion of Krystal Ball (I just checked the spelling of her first name although, come on, you don't expect me not to know that there is a famous political reporter who does, among other things horse race reporting whose name rhymes with chrystal ball). Kilgore attempted to critique her post by asserting that she had written something grossly massively inconsistent with what she actually wrote. It is easy to win arguments if you feel free to claim that someone said something different from what they said. I now fear that I enjoy reading Kilgore, because I generally agree with his conclusions and his willingness to make shit up makes the debate fun and easy to read him so long as one agrees with his conclusions.

In which I get pissed off at Ed Kilgore again

I have a very high opinion of Ed Kilgore. I also agree with most things that he writes. But, for some reason, most of my comments there are negative and often quite angry in tone. He has a strange ability to irritate me. I am regularly irritated by his hippy punching. Or, in other words, I often wonder how such a reasonable person got along at the DLC and sometimes I don't wonder at all. I think it the current US political debate, there really isn't a significant movement of people clearly to the left of Ed Kilgore. He is much more likely to criticize Obama (and other prominent elected Democrats) from the left than the right (in fact I can't recall Kilgore ever criticizing Obama from the right). I think I will check, but I can't remember a recent case of someone Kilgore criticized by name for excessively left wing policy views (I do recall such a criticism of Ezra Klein -- yes Ezra Klein). On the other hand, he often criticized un-named unreasonable lefties. I think he is neither willing to defend what the DLC became in the end or accept that its critics aren't unreasonable. But the DLC hasn't existed for years. I guess it isn't surprising that Kilgore can't let it go, having worked there, but I should be able to do so. Anyway my latest comment (there is no real need to click the link -- the comment really is a comment on the quoted passage and not on his post). You write " some progressives think the ... obviously a “populist” campaign that refuses to “blur the differences” with the Right is ... forever the sure path to victory. " If by "some" you mean "more than ten" then I agree. However, you are clearly asserting that this view is widespread enough to matter. To quote someone I admire, "that’s probably something we should talk about, not simply assume." I have an honest question (and actually hope for an answer). You set up a straw man. I think putting the word "sure" into your fictional debate opponent was sufficient. Anyone who thinks there is a sure path to victory is wrong (I mean what if [favored progressive candidate] is photographed in bet with a goat a week before election day). Why did you add additional obviously absurd words "obviously" and "forever. To be frank, I assert that such excessively dishonest rhetoric is a sign of intellectual discomfort. Typically people who put words into the mouths of imaginary opponents are satisfied with fewer than three words each of which is strong enough to make any argument false. Another question. If you are really sure there are such progressives and have google, why didn't you spend a few minutes to find and quote one ? It couldn't be that you know perfectly well that you will not find any actual text in a comment thread to a blog which is as easily refuted as your imaginary opponent.