Headnote: I have just learned that the great scholar Jacques Barzun has died. It is hardly a life cut short -- he was born on November 30, 1907, so he was about a month short of turning 105. Still, for those of us to whom his life and work mattered, he had come to seem immortal. And in any sense that scholarship can secure: he is. For now, I will proceed with the material prepared for this and the following two entries in this blog. But I will have more to say about Barzun here soon enough.]
Stephen Jay Gould, the paleontologist who did a good deal to educate the non-scientists of the world about the biology of evolution, passed away back in 2002. He might be surprised to learn that his name has now become a bone of contention [a fossilized bone of contention?] among economists.
Of course it isn't all that surprising that there should be cross-fertilization between biology and economics. Ask Malthus about this. Ask Herbert Spencer. Still, my understanding is that this wasn't a list Gould wanted to join.
Economist Paul Krugman seems to see himself in terms analogous to those in which Gould saw himself: a guy who knows all the technical stuff yet who can write for the common folk without the specialized education, too. So much the stranger, then, that it was Krugman who years ago took some rather idle unnecessary shots at Gould, shots that have still more oddly only just now set off a kerfuffle.
In 1998, in an essay on why "intellectuals" don't seem to grasp certain economic theories, Krugman named Gould as someone who makes "a great show of offering new ideas" while leaving it "quite hard to pin down just what those new ideas really are." Krugman clearly preferred Dawkins over Gould as an explicator of biology. Gould "doesn't even think in terms of the mathematical models that inform the work of writers like Dawkins."
What Krugman was trying to say was this: science works and advances through mathematical models. People who don't 'get it' like to be re-assured that the mathematical models aren't really important. People with apparently good credentials who offer them that re-assurance are widening the gap between populace and experts. Shame on them.
The specific economic theory that Krugman was defending here was the Ricardian theory of "comparative advantage." The theory (without math) is this:
1) if England is better at making textiles than it is at growing grapes, and Portugal is better at growing grapes than it is at manufacturing textiles, then both countries and their populations will be better off if England sticks to making clothes and Portugal sticks to grape juice and wine. That way, England can send Portugal clothes, and Portugal can send England beverages
2) not only does international trade obviously result from specialization in such a context, but international trade also induces specialization: when and to the extent that there is open free trade between the two countries, the tendency will be for English vinyards and Portuguese textile mills both to go out of business, for laborers and other resources to move toward the comparative advantage in each case, and finally
3) that is itself a powerful argument for keeping trade free.
Krugman accepts that theory of free trade as essentially true, and his own Nobel Prize winning work has come from advancing understanding of the mathematical details that go with it.
But of late, Nassim Nicholas Taleb has taken shots at Krugman, and in attempted vindication of Gould.
Who is Taleb? He is a Lebanese-American writer on finance. One of his many academic affiliations is Distinguished Research Scholar, Said Business School, Oxford University. He has written two books for popular audiences, Fooled by Randomness, and The Black Swan. Next month he has a new book coming out, under the title Antifragile.
So what does he have against Krugman and/or Ricardo? or is he just defensive on behalf of Gould?
I'll continue this exposition tomorrow.
Comments
Post a Comment