I've been very busy lately finishing up a few research projects and getting ready for a new semester. This has curtailed blogging. But this piece by Mark Thoma is unbelievable and I couldn't let it pass.
Thoma criticizes Richard Posner who, in this Atlantic commentary, expressed concern that some academic economists, once in public office or as media stars, altered and even outright contradicted their previous academic writings. Case in point is Christina Romer who as an academic economist at U.C. Berkeley argued that fiscal policy was largely ineffective as a countercyclical policy tool, but once in office as chair of Obama's CEA, contradicted herself by promoting the stimulus package as necessary and effective.
I remember Joseph Stiglitz when he was part of Clinton's economic team had argued in favor of increasing the minimum wage. This contradicted the lessons from in his principles textbook, which argued that minimum wages reduce employment opportunities, especially for the least skilled. When queried about this contradiction, Stiglitz responded by saying, (and I paraphrase) "Sometimes you change your mind." I'm sure you do Mr. Stiglitz.
Thoma berates Posner and accuses him of doing exactly the same as what he accuses academic economists of doing. Here is Thoma's allegation of Posner's hypocrisy.
In his discussion of macroeconomic policy, he doesn't even get the basics right (to name just one obvious example, his definition of investment in Y=C+I+G includes financial assets, something principles of macro courses make abundantly clear shouldn't be done, and he talks about foreign demand for US goods, but doesn't include NX in his definition of output). Yet, nowhere does he say “I don’t know what I am talking about because I am a judge, not a macroeconomist.” Instead, in his role as a public intellectual, he acts like he is an expert in the field. Ethics indeed.
There is a huge difference between an academic who writes and publishes something with a stated position and then once in office or as a "public intellectual" takes a completely different position, and that same person commenting on something about which they have little expertise. To comment in error on a subject about which one is not completely familiar is not equivalent to someone who, as a result of their academic record achieves some public status, and the platform that consequently goes with that status, affects public policy using blatant contradictions of that same academic record. For Thoma to not realize this difference is pathetic.
I don't care if the contradiction comes from someone on the left or on the right. As Posner argues, there has to be some adherence to - some enforcement of - academic standards. But adding more to the ineptitude displayed in Thoma's original post is this comment by Richard Serlin. Very typical of Right wing propagandists. They tell outrageous lies and/or mislead outrageously, and they have the nerve to accuse the other side of what they do themselves to the extreme, and immensely more than the left. It's like the National Enquirer accusing the New York Times of serial dishonesty.
What he said fit immensely better with right wing economists than left, or center. Greg Mankiw's the quintessential example.
Really. Here is a challenge for Mr. Serlin. Provide one explicit example of Professor Mankiw, in his position as chair of Bush's CEA, contradicting a position he formerly took in his academic writings.