Krugman & Gould, Conclusion

Taleb (above) also, on October 19th, put his response to Krugman's dissing of Gould in twitter form: "How econ models fragilize (or how Krugman blames others yet does not understand much risk & economics)."

Daniel Davies then took up the twittering cudgels on behalf of Krugman, telling Taleb "your stuff always has one or two things in in that just can't be stood up."

Tweet fight! A wonky tweet fight about economic and evolutionary theory, but a tweet fight still. It came to my attention through Salmon's column, here.

And with that, I have said most of what I want to say on all this, except for three points: who is Daniel Davies? how much of a Ricardian is Krugman really? and, where do I stand on the underlying Krugman/Taleb debate over trade?

1. Davies? I don't know. His twitter account has nearly 3,000 followers, though.

2. Krugman and Ricardo. Here I admit my earlier reference was rather slighting. I said Friday that Krugman accepts Ricardo's theory "as essentially true, and his own Nobel Prize winning work has come from advancing understanding of the mathematical details that go with it."

Depends on what you mean by "essentially," and what you mean by "details." Krugman believes that Ricardo's theory requires at least one important qualification. Ricardo suggested that specialization and comparative advantage begin with differences in the countries involved that lend themselves to one sort of production rather than another: differences in the qualities of soil, or of climate, or the shape of a coastline amenble to navigation, or the like. Surely such differences exist, but Krugman's work has largely been aimed at making the point that economists don't need them in order to model the process of specialization. Specialization would happen anyway even if it had to work at first on accidents or or the results of a flipped coin. "We'll try the wine thing, we'll let you make clothes, if this comes up heads."

In Krugman's words, "both the embodied trade in resources - which allows countries in effect to trade abundant resources for scarce - and the ability, through trade, to concentrate industries (possibly arbitrarily) to achieve larger scale lead to higher purchasing power than countries would otherwise have." So Krugman is in a sense more Ricardian than Ricardo was.

3. Where do I stand? I'm not a great admirer of either Krugman or Taleb. I'm actually happy with the thought that they are taking each other down a peg.

I've expressed my own quarrels with Taleb in Proxy Partisans in a two-part discussion back in January 2009. I think the whole "fat tail" thing is a valid enough insight, but hardly as earth shaking as Taleb has often made it out to be, and his denigration of the contributions of other scholars (like Scholes or Merton) is both unjustified and tiresome.

Much the same thing is also often said of Gould, that the anti-gradualist "punctuated equilibrium" element of his thought, even among those of his colleagues who think it valid, is less momentous than he made it out to be while making his name.

I've also written about Krugman before: indeed, earlier this month in this very blog. So far as I can tell, he is right about trade, but wrong in his irrational fidelity to Keynsian fiscal rostrums especially in his more popular writings.

The most enjoyable fights are those where you hope they both lose.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog