The latest intellectual embarrassment from the pen of Brad DeLong.
The transparent effort here is to drive a “respectability” wedge between Friedman-loyal Chicago economists and the micro-based conceptions of Austrian economists, with the ultimate goal of marginalizing non-Keynesian analysis in the debate over the wisdom of a cargo cult approach to the economic bust.
DeLong does all this with the talent of a practiced mortgage broker, presenting a false explication of Hayek’s work to the point of making it the supposed direct kin of the beyond-the-pale economics of such reviled figures as Karl Marx and Herbert Hoover (even while getting Hoover’s economics wrong in the process).
How DeLong can produce work like this and maintain his reputation in the profession is something of a mystery, even granting the ubiquitous ignorance of the history of economic thought prevailing among economists. One would hope that somewhere along the line even the most historically illiterate economists would pick up on the fact that — when the topic is Hayek — Brad DeLong is talking through his hat. But without economists stepping up to expose DeLong’s disgraceful effort at marginalization for what it is, this unfortunately will likely remain simply a hope.
A decade ago Paul Krugman attacked Austrian business cycle theory as the modern economic equivalent of “phlogiston theory”, but it’s almost impossible to imagine a leading professor of chemistry publicly explicating phlogiston theory with the confusion and incompetence that Krugman showed in his discussion of Friedrich Hayek’s business cycle work. A chemistry professor publicly airing such confusion in a pose of superior understanding would be drowned in an avalanche of public corrections. But among the economic elite, Krugman’s naked thrust at professional marginalization against other colleagues was met with nary a raised eyebrow.
In this context, DeLong effort against Hayek looks a bit like the pathetic “follower” kid who imitates the lead of the bully head of the pack in giving the “outsider” kid a punch in the gut. And don’t miss just how easy this is, considering that DeLong is merely following his leader Krugman in foul punching a man who’s dead.
{ 15 comments }
DeLong is a joke. Krugman is bad enough but has some redeeming features (his work on trade), but this guy has all the worst but none of the good. Good point on the “Phlogiston” theory nonsense Krugman spewed, though. It reminds me of the arrogant (and very ignorant) punks that pretend to know everything about everything, because they can open wikipedia…
Sorry to be so blunt, but my first reaction to the notion of a Marx-Hoover-Hayek Axis is simply: what the fuck?
“Unlike most post-World War II recessions—the red arrows in the figureabove—the current recession was not caused or courted or triggered by central banks that have shifted state and decided that fulfilling their mission as guarantors of rough price stability is job number one. The current recession has come about because of (a) unexpected losses and defaults in the housing market produced by unwise loans made during a period of irrational exuberance, and (b) a collapse in the risk tolerance of the private sector. These have pushed asset values down, and it is falling asset values that have triggered this global recession.”
Don’t these charlatans posing as economist have nothing but “animal spirits” to fall back on?
Also I am tired of calling the science of economics as “Austrian Economics”, implying that these cranks are also economists.
These idiots are like astrologist where real economists calling themselves Austrians are astronomers and no sane person would call astrologist, scientists.
DeLong. Lots of fireworks and lies, but no damage.Quick sample:
-says that central banking started in 1844 (p13).
Bank of England started 1694; USA had two banks before 1844 …etc
-uses the term ‘overinvestment’ when describing Austrian theory- instead of malinvestment.
Maybe purposeful obfuscation, maybe ignorance.
-says that the Marx-Hoover-Hayek ideology is a belief rooted in political opposition to Obama et al.
Of course, this is a time-tested political tactic. DeLong is like a rapist trying to get the jury to concentrate on the clothing the victim was wearing, spewing lie after lie in effort to build his facade. DeLong, a political rapist, has attempted to victimize the Austrian school via misrepresentation for political gain.
Greg, DeLong definitely wants to be Krugman’s little bitch.
He’s a California state employee. He can’t be fired, can’t be disciplined and can’t be silenced. His scribblings say more about his employer than they do about him.
Gots to love DeLong’s social democratic enlightment propaganda: the Germans and the Southerners and their Christian moralistic attitudes are the problem, and the threat is a return to pre-industrial age, witch hunts and whatever, if these weirdos are not ignored.
“How DeLong can produce work like this and maintain his reputation in the profession is something of a mystery, even granting the ubiquitous ignorance of the history of economic thought prevailing among economists.”
I would argue that, to a considerable degree, the fact that DeLong and those like him can produce this type of work reflects the ethical and intellectual shambles that constitute much of the mainstream economics profession. Honesty, integrity, objectively searching for the truth, and accurately explaining our world are of little importance to many of those in the mainstream economics profession, and in academia in general.
You know, I’ve been meaning to point this out for some time, but do you people realize that DeLong’s blog is LINKED TO AT MISES.ORG?
Seriously, I’m all for exploring dissenting opinions, but this really gives the impression that mises.org at least somewhat endorses DeLong’s economics.
They had, or still have, that supply-sider Larry Kudlow linked too.
What a pile of morass by Professor DeLong.
DeLong: “The second factor that I want to blame is the second-century A.D. John of Patmos, author of the last book of the Christian Bible, the Revelation of Saint John the Divine. That book deeply inscribed in western culture the beliefs that transgression is sin, that sin is judged, that the outcome of judgment is punishment, and that punishment is inescapable—that the order of the universe is such that those who transgress cannot escape the due consequences of their transgression.â€
DeLong has many problems. It would take a good psychiatrist years to untangle them all. Chief among them is that he thinks he is psychic, that he can read people’s minds and discern the deep motives unreachable even by them. A second problem is that he is simply dishonest. He claims to understand Austrian economics when clearly he doesn’t. So he presents to his readers a dishonest version that is easy for him to defeat.
The above quote demonstrates the depths of DeLong’s depravity. He desperately wants to associate economists who disagree with him as extreme right-wing foaming-at-the-mouth ignorant Bible thumpers. So he drags in the last book of the Bible. Everyone knows how much the left hates religion of any kind, so DeLong wants to make sure that his readers find his opponents arguments as disgusting as they view all religion. Earlier he used the same technique of guilt by association in linking Hayek with Marx.
His brief summary of the Biblical attitude toward sin is correct; it’s not just the message of the Book of Revelations, but of the entire Bible. However, in modern language the Biblical concepts can be translated as cause and effect. Every effect has a cause and every cause generates effects. In theology, the effect of sin is judgment. In economics, policies have effects, some good some bad. But DeLong thinks the principle of cause and effect works in only one direction with the Feds: the effects of all Fed policies are good; they are incapable of policies that have bad effects. DeLong’s irrational faith in the Feds is astounding.
This idea that Austrians think the recession/depression “should” happen as some kind of moral comeuppance vs. the idea that they think the recession/depression “must” or “will” happen as a result of government intervention in the setting of interest rates demonstrates either profound ignorance or intent to deceive. Either way the effect is to postpone the general understanding of our situation.
“Irrational exuberance”–they dismiss the explanations of Austrian economics, but when they bother to try to explain the causes of the problems (as opposed to merely ignoring them), they have no explanation, just some mumbo-jumbo technical terms they try to pass off as economics.
Wow that was horrible. It’s amazing that someone who publishes such misrepresentations of (Austrian) economics, knowingly or not, can call himself an economist.
I don’t think he only misrepresented Austrian econ in the process, though…
Comments on this entry are closed.