The whole press conference is quite embarrassing for the economics profession.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18740/how-to-silence-a-nobel-prize-winning-economist-ask-him-about-the-economy/
How to silence a Nobel Prize winning economist: Ask him about the economy.
Previous post: News from the Mises Wiki
Next post: Outrage Is Growing
{ 37 comments }
glad you posted the full video. they DID actually say something, even if it wasn’t insightful.
schiff’s first question link starts at 14:07 in the full vid.
So basically these two guys are just a couple of do nothing tenured professors at an Ivy League school who wrote papers about something related to economics decades ago and haven’t turned their brains on since.
Hmmm. That has me wondering if their contributions to economics were about as noteworthy as Obama’s contribution to peace.
Have they made their acceptance speeches yet? It will be interesting to compare them with Hayek’s.
Unbelievable.
[Slap palm to forehead]
Did anyone really expect these guys to answer such politically-charged questions? They just won the Nobel Prize…The last thing they want is to turn this press conference into a public relations nightmare for themselves, let alone the Nobel committee. Peter Schiff can criticize them all he wants for not being willing to offer a response, but to then make the leap that these guys have not thought about these questions or have no idea what the answers are is totally unreasonable. Of course these two economists have thought about it, and you can be sure they have their own political viewpoints. They just are not about to take a huge risk of damaging their own reputation or that of anyone else by revealing their political ideologies. Peter Schiff should stick to the facts and not speculate, let alone incite anger.
How you can act like the argument you just made has merit is beyond me…
Greg,
You must be right.
Do you remember the movie “A Beautiful Mind” questioning Nash by the department boss if he would behave if he was awarded? It is a Nobel price!
So then what is the point of a press conference? To ask them about their favorite breed of dog? You get some Nobel economists into a room, you’re going to ask them about economics. If the profession is more than just cover for politicians to do whatever they want, then an economist should be able to answer the questions without their own political viewpoint coming into play.
@Greg
All the more reason to lambast them.
Should stick to the facts and not speculate? What the hell are you doing then but speculating why they wouldn’t answer?
But let’s even assume your speculation is correct. Aren’t you still missing Peter’s point that they had to know they’d be asked questions at a press conference? If they knew they wanted to avoid answering the question, why weren’t they prepared with some wishy-washy vague statements to use to weasel out of it with?
Personally I think Peter’s implication that they’re clueless about economics is correct, but the reason they looked dumbfounded was they probably didn’t know going in that they specifically would be answering questions and were caught off-guard. Which isn’t really an excuse for someone who’s been in the profession for decades and recently won a Nobel prize, but still.
Economic is science and thus it speaks of what is (or logical consequences of actions) and not of what we ought to do. Peter criticisms are well founded.
So how would you answer?
1) M. Swaringen: My argument has merit because if they say they approve of the US government’s response, they will anger some people. If they say they disapprove of the US government response, they will also anger some people. That’s a lose-lose situation. The wise thing to do for them was simply to shut up and refuse to answer the question.
2) Andras: I don’t understand your comment.
3) Other Greg: Words are never neutral. The point of THIS press conference for the two Nobel laureates was to answer the media’s questions regarding their work, how they felt about winning the prize, maybe a little about them personally. The point was probably NOT to answer questions about how to fix the US economy or Europe for that matter.
4) Mikey: I probably would have said the exact same things they did if I didn’t want to risk losing my job, damaging my reputation, or making enemies with some very powerful people. These guys had a lot to lose and little to gain by voicing their personal political opinions whatever those might be…
That said, I personally agree with everything I have read on this website (which is a lot). I own and value many of the great Austrian tomes (Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Paul, etc.).
I stand by what I said: Schiff’s criticism was unreasonable. Education and persuasion are always preferable to criticism and slander. It’s tempting to criticize people for not doing what we perceive to be the “right” thing, especially if they criticize us, but in doing so we lessen our own credibility and risk tarnishing our reputation in the long run. The ideas of freedom, liberty, sound money, property rights, etc. are too important and need to be kept separate from and above meaningless squabbles and arguments. Schiff seems to be getting angrier as time goes on. Never a good thing. Let’s stay positive by criticizing criticism.
Greg,
I have backbones for sale. Cheap. Hit me up.
I wouldn’t be so quick to judge or to think your own backbones are totally immune. For a million dollars, fame, prestige, and security, your backbones might well be for sale. It’s easy to say if you’ve got nothing to lose. You are no better or worse than anyone else. That kind of talk is exactly what we should avoid if we want to be taken seriously.
“they will anger some people.”…
Two old tenured profs worried about this? Give me a break! The truth is they know a lot about nothin’. They can take their data analyses and the “answers not likely to be simple” crap and shove it up where Bastiat’s sun don’t shine.
Then what the hell is the point of tenure?
“they will anger some people.”
Yes, and so what?
“That’s a lose-lose situation. ”
Lose some people’s opinions of you? If people choose what they say and don’t when asked entirely based on the fact some people may not like them as much they are worse than fools.
And also it’s a lose-lose-lose situation, because not answering made other people angry, and made them look stupid.
“The wise thing to do for them was simply to shut up and refuse to answer the question.”
The job of these people is teaching. Refusing to answer because some people might not like what you say is not a valid method of teaching anything.
“Lose some people’s opinions of you? If people choose what they say and don’t when asked entirely based on the fact some people may not like them as much they are worse than fools.”
When money, power, and reputation are involved, people will choose what they say and don’t say ENTIRELY based on how it will be received. Not doing this is “worse than foolish” if you want to get ahead. Nobel Prize-winning economists are not going to operate according to YOUR principles and values; they are going to be self-interested and look out for themselves. That is their prerogative.
They did answer the question with the conventional Keynesian line (which I disagree with) and they did not end up causing a major controversy, so they did not in fact come out looking “stupid.” Stop trying to view the world through the Austrian lens. It’s an ideal to strive for…not reality.
Their job at this press conference was definitely NOT to teach the world about what political solutions are necessary to help the US/European economies.
You have to make an effort to see it from their perspective, and not from your own value judgements. In academia, reputation is everything. One wrong public comment or statement can ruin your entire career. Would you really have gone out on a limb in their position?
“One wrong public comment or statement can ruin your entire career. Would you really have gone out on a limb in their position?”
Let’s see.
Old enough to retire. Check.
Sufficient resources to so do. Check.
Tenured anyway. Check.
Just won the Nobel Prize. Check.
Plenty more cash arriving in the inbox. Check.
An hailed and acknowledged expert in the field (hence the award of prize). Check.
Secure and safe future no matter what is said. Check.
Yup. I’d have said what I knew. Too easy!
Those damn weirdos were morally corrupt and quite cowardly. The World needs a lot less of these types of parasitic banality.
Greg, I ask you this. If you lived next to the gang down at the Hapu St tinny-house and they had grabbed a young virgin and were about to start a pack raping, would you stay silent? Would you not say something to someone who should know about it (like say the local security officers, the local constable, the neighbours etc.)? Would you have stated what you knew to be true? Or would you remain quiet since that might ruin your reputation with the gang? Would you stick to talking about how the neighbourhood looks all neat and tidy when everyone keeps the lawns mowed…?
Sione
“Yup. I’d have said what I knew. Too easy!” How can you be so sure? And you’re right, it is easy from where you are standing.
“Old enough to retire. Check.” Maybe they love their jobs too much to retire…?
“Sufficient resources to so do. Check.” How would you know?
“Tenured anyway. Check.”
Tenure can be revoked if you become a liability.
“Just won the Nobel Prize. Check. Plenty more cash arriving in the inbox. Check.”
Actually, that prize money is heavily taxed, so it’s a lot less than you think.
“An hailed and acknowledged expert in the field (hence the award of prize). Check.
Secure and safe future no matter what is said. Check.”
You are never safe and secure if you offend powerful people. If two Nobel Prize winning economists start declaring publicly that the Fed is the reason why monetary policy is all messed up, that during their entire careers they had been going along with a giant Keynesian lie, that government intervention is almost always harmful, not only would they have embarrassed themselves, they would have significantly diminished the credibility of all mainstream economists, the Nobel committee, and angered some of the most powerful people on the planet. The media would have had a field day. Would you really want to spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder?
“Those damn weirdos were morally corrupt and quite cowardly. The World needs a lot less of these types of parasitic banality.” So what? Don’t tell me you’re thinking of suing them? Would you have the government restrict freedom of speech?
“Greg, I ask you this. If you lived next to the gang down at the Hapu St tinny-house and they had grabbed a young virgin and were about to start a pack raping, would you stay silent?” When I was young and emotional, I used to think that in circumstances like these I would always “be a hero” and put a stop to it. Now I know better. First of all, what’s a young virgin doing alone in a dangerous neighborhood anyway? She’s either stupid or up to no good herself. Either way, not my responsibility. If it’s just a couple of young punks, I might do something. But if it’s a “gang” I probably wouldn’t do anything. If you’ve actually seen how ruthless gangs can be, you know that they wouldn’t hesitate to kill you for getting in the way. If I call the cops, and these guys get arrested, I would have to testify, their buddies would come after me, and when the perpetrators get out of prison they’ll try and kill me. No thanks. Why does this gang even exist? They must be dealing drugs…how else can they afford to employ a large loyal group of angry young men? In this case, best course of action is to let the rape happen. The girl herself may not even want the police to get involved…did you even consider that? She may be so afraid of reprisal from the gang that she doesn’t feel like she can go to the cops or even seek medical care. She might even refuse your help. The emotional knee-jerk response is never useful, you always have to think two steps ahead.
The argument you use here is exactly the same argument used by the collectivists and interventionists to make a case for government expansion. Freedom of speech dictates that these economists get to say whatever they want. I still maintain what I said: Better to follow Ron Paul’s example, and promote the ideas of liberty than to denigrate other people for not doing the same.
Greg
Re the Hapu St pack rape
There is an old saying that goes along the lines of when good men do nothing evil triumphs. There is a great wisdom contained in that singular saying.
It is disappointing to read your admission that, when challenged with a choice between acting to tell the truth or silently collaborating with evil, you personally would collaborate. Damn! That is poor. What is worse is to read that not only would you personally lack the courage to behave with moral integrity but that you actively defend silent collaboration with evil. If you really are a person like that (which I doubt), then I sure am glad not to know you.
As it happens, I have personal experience with a situation more than a little similar to that outlined in the question put to you. When I spoke up and acted I was informed that the girl was only some “hysterical ethnic”, “a breeder immigrant” (somehow that make it her fault- blame the victim) and in reference to the victim, “they like the action since that’s what they get from their own kind” (blame the victim some more). I was told not to put career and wellbeing and safety and reputation at risk. “Don’t burn for her”, one said. Go along with it was the advice. Don’t get involved. Do not speak the truth since that might prove dangerous. Stay silent and walk away.
Going by what you have written, you’d have been one of the ones demanding silence, demainding collaboration with the wrong. You’d have me compounding the wrong, joining it by protecting it. Well, I didn’t take such advice. There were consequences for me, but better to bear those than the despicable existence of a gutless silent collaboration. It remains saddening that you’d embrace cowardice and then serve up a dishonest follow-up of rationalisations and excuses. There is no defense. You merely lower yourself and destroy your own integrity.
Here is some advice. If the silent collaboration and dishonest cowardice you defend is indeed how you would and do behave, then do not expect to ever achieve anything of real value in this life. Moral dwarfism has expensive penalty.
Sione
Greg
Returning to the earlier portions of your post.
Re the two silent pretenders
You asked what I would do in THEIR position (which would be a nice easy place to be at that age). I answered with certainty. I guess you didn’t like the answer. Facts remain; you asked, I answered, job done.
You write, “Maybe they love their jobs too much to retire…?”
Well, perhaps they do. Hardly a defense for silent dishonest collaboration.
Regarding whether they have enough to retire, you asked, “How would you know?” Well, let’s see now. Excellent remuneration over a long academic career of some decades. Advanced pay grade over a long period of time. Super-fund; university and private and SS. Various generous “perks” and the like. Research accounts. Consulting work. Publications. Paid speaking engagements etc. Charge outs for certain “courses” and seminars. etc. By their late stage in life, it would be more than a little surprising if such “enterprising” professional academics were indigent, utterly unable to sustain themselves in a more than comfortable retirement. It would also be tragic indeed were they to prove not to have any friends, family or any people who cares for them.
“Tenure can be revoked if you become a liability.” That would be interesting. Two winners of such a distinguised prize, awarded for such a hugely heroic and important achievement to economics (or so it is promoted) have tenure revoked (more than a little unusual) because they reported their opinion. Imagine that. How would that one run. For a start, how would such an act square with “academic freedom”…?
“Actually, that prize money is heavily taxed, so it’s a lot less than you think.” Actually, that’s a damn good self-interested reason to stand up and speak out! Anyway, the “plenty more cash” I was referring to also included income from publications, speaking engagements, consulting work, seminars and so on. Taxed it may be, but it is “more cash arriving in the inbox.” Controversy has a way of making such things much more lucrative. As a famous man once opined, “There is no such thing as bad publicity!” Think on it.
“You are never safe and secure if you offend powerful people. If two Nobel Prize winning economists start declaring publicly that the Fed is the reason why monetary policy is all messed up, that during their entire careers they had been going along with a giant Keynesian lie, that government intervention is almost always harmful, not only would they have embarrassed themselves, they would have significantly diminished the credibility of all mainstream economists, the Nobel committee, and angered some of the most powerful people on the planet. The media would have had a field day. Would you really want to spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder?”
Shit-oh-dear! For a start mainstream economists have little or no credibility to lose these days. Ask around.
As far as “looking over your shoulder” is concerned, tell that to Lew Rockwell, Dr Murphy, Dr Shostak, Prof Resiman, etc etc etc etc etc, as well as all the academics and researchers and authors whose work appear on the VMI site, as well as anyone who is publically critical of the powerful.
It’s a shame Rothbard and Mises aint alive in these times. It’d be a riotious comedy to see you present your advice to the likes of them! Greg’s law, “stay quiet and address not the truth least ye offend”. For goodness sake Greg, get off your knees and start living as a man!
I ask you this, why do you spend YOUR life looking over YOUR shoulder? Because in your haste to stay silent, in your fear of what might happen if you annoy someone else, you ARE looking fearfully over your shoulder full time. No need to live like that.
I wrote, “Those damn weirdos were morally corrupt and quite cowardly. The World needs a lot less of these types of parasitic banality.” To which you responded, “So what?”
Greg, it’s a statement of fact, that’s what.
You continue, “Don’t tell me you’re thinking of suing them? Would you have the government restrict freedom of speech?”
What drugs are you on? You dredged these prime nonsenses wholly out of your own imagination. What an odd thing to do.
Sione
Since I can’t reply to you Sione, I will reply to myself in two parts.
I posted all of my comments partly as an experiment to see what people would say. There is rarely anyone playing the devil’s advocate on these forums. If you are so inclined, I would invite you to re-read what I have written, and what you and many others have said on this board. Everything you said has been written through the lens of moral righteousness and also by extension moral superiority, “There is an old saying that goes along the lines of when good men do nothing evil triumphs.” In reality, the world is much more complex and nuanced. It’s never as simple as we would all like to believe. Almost everyone on this thread has completely agreed with Peter Schiff, and denigrated/criticized/lambasted the two economists in question.
My purpose in posting was to offer a counter-argument defending the right of these two economists to say whatever they wanted to say, and to offer possible reasons why they acted the way they did. It surprises me that people who are supposedly libertarian, who believe strongly in the golden rule, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” seem to have so little empathy for those espousing other points of view. “Those damn weirdos were morally corrupt and quite cowardly.” Respect for others is paramount even if we don’t like what they say. Ask yourself, would you be willing to say that to their faces? While I disagree with what the two Nobel laureates said, I understand why they acted the way they did, and I bear them no ill will. They don’t have a responsibility to teach and educate people about how corrupt and tyrannical the federal government can be, and they certainly don’t have a responsibility to throw away their careers for your satisfaction.
Despite all your protests to the contrary, the concerns I mentioned still unfortunately remain quite real.
-Maybe they have enough money, maybe they don’t. You just don’t know. Maybe they have lots of dependents or gave away their wealth or blew it in Vegas or lost a lot during the recession…You can’t make assumptions about people you don’t know, and that should not be a justification to judge them personally one way or another.
-If you take a very unpopular political position, you can be fired. There are no guarantees in life. The mainstream media hates Austrian economics more than it loves “academic freedom.” Again, realism.
-Certain kinds of controversy in the media are acceptable and encouraged: minority rights, immigration, abortion, women’s rights/glass ceiling, etc. However, should the fed be abolished? Should we eliminate the income tax? Should we have a gold standard? These things are big no-no’s. It doesn’t matter who you are or how important. The media is controlled by certain people, and those people have certain interests, simple as that.
-”For a start mainstream economists have little or no credibility to lose these days.” If that were true, then the mainstream media would stop inviting Keynesian economists to speak for fear of public reprisal. That’s obviously not the case. The mainstream media still has massive influence among the general public.
-As for comparisons to Mises/Rothbard, etc. I will say this: It is much easier to publicly state your opinions when 1) you have little to lose 2) you have always maintained said opinion 3) you were never given the implicit or explicit approval of the ruling establishment, in this case, getting tenure and winning the Nobel, respectively. Don’t expect people to make a 180 degree change when they’re almost 70 years old.
Regarding the rape scenario, good for you for doing what you perceived to be the right thing. However, the line between courage and foolhardiness is thin. Mises fled Switzerland/Europe when he thought the risk of Germany invading was too great. Was he being cowardly? Of course not. Not only did he end up having a very successful career in the US, he made more of an impact here than he would have had in Europe had he stayed there. Similarly, I can think of a great number of situations in which letting that hypothetical girl get raped would be preferable to trying to prevent that single rape, let alone going around and telling other people or the police about it. Maybe you try and identify the gang members and record the crime as it takes place. Maybe you offer the victim medical care and gather DNA samples. Maybe, with the evidence, you take the time to build relationships with powerful allies interested in taking the gang down, or you could leak it to the press anonymously. These are realistic and practical solutions for “fighting evil” without foolishly risking your life in the process. In any confrontation there are always good moves and bad moves. The trick to seeing which is which lies in emotional self-control, not blind adherence to principles or integrity.
What a couple of morons. I feel so happy that our economic future is in the hands of such incredibly intelligent people. No wonder every major bank in the USA had to be bailed out with our money.
I was curious about the area of expertise of these two economists – perhaps it was something obscure, such as the effects of bimetallism in the 1800s? Well, no. According to the article here: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S31/82/88E23/ , they won the prize for “questions regarding the causal relationship between economic policy and different macroeconomic variables such as GDP (gross domestic product), inflation, employment and investments,”
“Economic-policy decisions are influenced by expectations about developments in the private sector,” the Nobel announcement said. “The laureates’ methods can be applied to identify these causal relationships and explain the role of expectations. This makes it possible to ascertain the effects of unexpected policy measures as well as systematic policy shifts.”
Using historical data about economic events, Sargent and Sims have independently worked to develop and critique models that seek to analyze the cause and effects of monetary policy. The laureates’ work has been largely based on the U.S. economy and has provided consistent results when applied to other economies.
Seems like this was not far out of their field of expertise at all.
Anyone here claiming they are clueless about economics seems to be a hypocrite.
Poor Peter. Trying so hard to mock smart people just to get famous. But really, being nobel laureates they are naturally reluctant to give out answers with sub-par accuracy, which is unlike politicians and lay people like Peter, who are dying to blurt answers and try to sound smart even if it means to mock and deride others.
Also, when hit with questions as vague as the entire U.S. economy, I think what Chris really wanted to say was “I don’t have a laymen answer to that question on top of my head”.
Layman?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
Unfortunately, the lefty professors now know better than to go toe-to-toe with Peter Schiff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnKsgelpuHU
Noisy,
As I recall, Peter Schiff is already very famous. Even way over here in what you would regard as foreign climes. Something about predicting the collapse of some bubble or other……..
Sione
The idea just occurred to me.
What would be cool if in order to receive your Nobel Prize, you had to undergo a PhD dissertation type defense on national TV with Peter Schiff asking the questions.
Some poor sap has indebted himself for life to pay for junior to sit and listen to these guys peddle their theories that have zero practical application in the real world.
Greg
Near every decision one makes- how one lives life, what actions one takes, how one treats other people, the manner with which one trades, how honest one’s efforts, what one produces and provides, the means one employs to progress through life, the values one chooses and holds etc etc etc- all of it has moral component. The great challenge of living is to perfect one’s own life. That is a matter of application of morality. There is no evasion of it. It IS exactly as simple as that.
–
In the case of these prize winners, they had choice. Either they speak the truth as they understand it or they act dishonestly. The alternatives presented to them on this occasion were either to admit that Schiff, Von Mises, Rothbard, Paul and so as correct, or to make an admission of ignorance of the subject they are supposedly so expert in (which means admission of not knowing that which they pretend to know about- a deception), or they behave with dishonesty. What they are enaging in is a matter of morality. What they choose to do demonstrates their moral position clearly. As with any action any man takes, they can expect to be judged on what they do. So, do they engage in fraudulent practice or do they not? In the end the questions for an observer are these. Are these men honest? Can I trust them? Do they have integrity? Do they really know what they present as knowing or are they fraudulent con-men, merely contemptible pretenders? Should I believe in them and their utterances?
Turning now to the reasons for engagement in fraud or deceptive practice. Whether the reasons for it are the result of a professional lifetime of error, or of fraud, or pig ignorance, or even for personal gain, they are not a valid justification for such behaviours. The point is that the expressed behaviour (their actions) is available to be judged and it will (and should) be. Sure, one can come up with all sorts of reasons why these men may done as they did. So what? They behaved as they have. They did as they did (and over an extended period of time). Schiff called them out. They failed and now are revealed either as fraudulent or dishonest or both. Those are the consequences for what they have been doing.
There can be but little sympathy for a pair of well-fed tricksters getting publically exposed. Sympathy is best directed to those who are presently experiencing the tragic results of what the tricksters have wasted a lifetime promoting and enabling.
There is a moral to all of this and it is simple. Do not be investing a lifetime in deception and fibs. Ther are costs and consequences to that sort of thing.
–
Some housekeeping.
Would I be prepared to say what I think to those guys? Sure. Were I to meet them and discuss economics I would be certain to let them know what I think. Are you suggesting I should fib to them?
Re respect.
Respect is something one has to earn. One earns it by how one acts- by how one leads one’s life. Engaging in frauds, deceptions and the like is not a way to earn respect.
The mainstream media
There is limited integrity there. Ask around. Anyway, it would be a grave mistake to consider the mainstream media as a barometer of morality, let alone to establish what is truth or fact of reality.
Speaking truth and doing the right thing
It can take courage on occasion. Should one abandon virtue when it has the potential to be unpopular?
Making changes in life
I have met people who have made great alteratioins in their lives. Some became quite well known. Indeed, they came to see life as a process of change, right up to the end. There are womanisers who come to see the importance of a stable family, alcoholics who come to see the value of controlling their consumption of alcohol, wild men who come to see the value of peace and regret the hurts they have inflicted, thieves who come to see the immorality of what they have been doing, spendthrift who come to understand the value of savings, impulsive who come to the understanding of retraint and control, dillitantes who come to understand the value of directed self-discipline…
Seven years old or seventy, no-one is too old to learn from reality and make changes. Perfecting your life is not easy. Changes will be necessary. Errors can and do occur and require correction. Never give up on yourself though. Keep striving.
Sione
I like your latest response. Well said. And I completely agree with you in principle. Keep in mind though that while we both (apparently) are in favor of Austrian economics and the principles of liberty, all the arguments I made could have very easily also been made by those who support the mainstream Keynesian point of view.
By criticizing these Nobel laureates, instead of simply electing to disagree with them and focus on promoting the ideas of liberty, one comes out looking arrogant and intolerant. This is the point I’ve been making (or trying to make) all along. This is why criticizing others on a personal level always backfires. This is why I called out Peter Schiff in the first place. Demonizing others will capture the crowd’s attention in the short run, but in the long run, you end up damaging your own cause, open yourself up to attack, and risk losing yourself in the process. It’s never a good idea to believe you are intrinsically superior to others simply because they are promoting lies while you are promoting the truth.
Couple things: 1) Every human being no matter how screwed up deserves respect. This is the essence of all spiritual teachings. Once you make respect and by extension, love, conditional, you open the door to suffering both for yourself and others. 2) The mainstream media is not a barometer of morality or truth for that matter, but it is a good indicator of what the general population currently believes. And the majority are not in favor of abolishing the Fed. I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the way it is…
Comments on this entry are closed.