The MIT Gang
nytimes.com
The MIT Gang
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: The MIT Gang
#2The distinction is usually referred to as saltwater vs freshwater economists (referring to the geographical location of the university's). Apart from MIT there is also Princeton and Stanford in the saltwater camp.
And Krugman is right that the saltwater economists were vindicated by the recovery from the GFC.
However Krugman is not a good spokesperson for saltwater economists. Most econ professors I know from saltwater university's say they cannot even understand his points (note that Krugman did not win his Nobel prize for macro, but for trade).
In particular he is wrong to bundle together views on debt crises, recessions, and general attitudes to the free market. By the time you are in a debt crisis, it's a bit late to stimulate the economy with even more government debt. At some point you actually have to figure out a way to pay money back.
Re: The MIT Gang
#3The distinction is usually referred to as saltwater vs freshwater economists (referring to the geographical location of the university's). Apart from MIT there is also Princeton and Stanford in the saltwater camp. And Krugman is right that the saltwater economists were vindicated by the recovery from the GFC. However Krugman is not a good spokesperson for saltwater economists. Most econ professors I know from saltwat…
On a tangential note, I ran across Dr. Hall's personal page[1] last night and learned (at least according to him) that he coined the "saltwater v. freshwater" classification in his 1976 essay.[2]
FWIW, it's refreshing to hear that eggheads can't follow Krugman. It puts me in good company!
[1] http://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/
[2] http://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/Notes%20Current%20State%20Em...
Re: The MIT Gang
#4It's hard to take anything Krugman writes seriously. All his writing is so intertwined with his politics It's impossible to sort the factually sound parts from the rest and he has a track record of saying some truly wrong things with great conviction.
Re: The MIT Gang
#5The distinction is usually referred to as saltwater vs freshwater economists (referring to the geographical location of the university's). Apart from MIT there is also Princeton and Stanford in the saltwater camp. And Krugman is right that the saltwater economists were vindicated by the recovery from the GFC. However Krugman is not a good spokesperson for saltwater economists. Most econ professors I know from saltwat…
We really need a way to simulate how the economy will react under certain policies. The current model is based on one hypothesis about how the economy works, when such policies may have been only tested once or twice before, AND when the test conditions were different in a lot of ways. Because of the complex nature of economic systems, prediction is extremely difficult.
We have yet to see if the monetary policies being used today will be a success or not. Many people point to signs of weakness and cracks in the economic foundation. Until interest rates are brought back to 2007 levels, we cannot say that the economy is stable. What happens to high levels of debt when interest rates begin to go up? People begin to default, credit is restricted, and spending drops. It will certainly bring higher volatility across the entire global economy, and the FED is nervous about how much.
While MIT might be today's most influential powerhouse of economic thinkers, we still don't know how successful they were at applying theory to practice. The debate about Keynes is still up in the air.
Re: The MIT Gang
#6The distinction is usually referred to as saltwater vs freshwater economists (referring to the geographical location of the university's). Apart from MIT there is also Princeton and Stanford in the saltwater camp. And Krugman is right that the saltwater economists were vindicated by the recovery from the GFC. However Krugman is not a good spokesperson for saltwater economists. Most econ professors I know from saltwat…
On a tangential note, I ran across Dr. Hall's personal page[1] last night and learned (at least according to him) that he coined the "saltwater v. freshwater" classification in his 1976 essay.[2] FWIW, it's refreshing to hear that eggheads can't follow Krugman. It puts me in good company! [1] http://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/ [2] http://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/Notes%20Current%20State%20Em...
The problem with Krugman is that he used a very "old school" Keynesian intellectual framework, while the rest of the field has moved on. The ideas of Keynes were not abandoned, but they were rendered in a form that is more consistent and coherent with neoclassical economics. Meanwhile Krugman has never been a prominent researcher in macroeconomics, but his Nobel prize and outspoken views on macroeconomics lead many people to that erroneous conclusion.
Re: The MIT Gang
#7The distinction is usually referred to as saltwater vs freshwater economists (referring to the geographical location of the university's). Apart from MIT there is also Princeton and Stanford in the saltwater camp. And Krugman is right that the saltwater economists were vindicated by the recovery from the GFC. However Krugman is not a good spokesperson for saltwater economists. Most econ professors I know from saltwat…
Can you give specific examples of other economists making better predictions than Krugman by avoiding the mistakes you claim he makes?
Re: The MIT Gang
#8It's hard to take anything Krugman writes seriously. All his writing is so intertwined with his politics It's impossible to sort the factually sound parts from the rest and he has a track record of saying some truly wrong things with great conviction.
What do you think are his political views, and how do they influence his economic writing?
Re: The MIT Gang
#9It's hard to take anything Krugman writes seriously. All his writing is so intertwined with his politics It's impossible to sort the factually sound parts from the rest and he has a track record of saying some truly wrong things with great conviction.
[deleted]
Re: The MIT Gang
#10The distinction is usually referred to as saltwater vs freshwater economists (referring to the geographical location of the university's). Apart from MIT there is also Princeton and Stanford in the saltwater camp. And Krugman is right that the saltwater economists were vindicated by the recovery from the GFC. However Krugman is not a good spokesperson for saltwater economists. Most econ professors I know from saltwat…
Can you give specific examples of other economists making better predictions than Krugman by avoiding the mistakes you claim he makes?
Not sure if there are any examples. Economists have never been very accurate because of the nature of economic systems. They are complex adaptive systems, which means that they are very sensitive to initial conditions. Because of the inherent unpredictability we have yet to discover an economic policy that works in the long-run.