Murdochracy vs Quiggin: One last snark

In citing Steve Williamson’s negative but content-free review of my book, the Oz Cut and Paste section decided to puff Williamson’s credentials as an expert (an interesting move in the light of Paul Krugman’s evisceration of this kind of rank-pulling argument from authority).

Sad to say, the Oz proved as unreliable as ever on this topic. It described Williamson as “the doyen of modern monetary policy”. “Modern monetary policy” (and, even more, “modern monetary theory”) is a term most closely associated with the post-Keynesian chartalist school.[1] Williamson’s actual claim to fame is something called “New Monetarism”, which is about as strongly opposed to Keynesianism as you can get (at least while still doing DSGE-style macro). But such subtle distinctions are lost on the knee-cappers at News Limited.

fn1. I guess the Oz could be claiming that the term “modern’ here just means contemporary, and that Williamson is the dominant figure in guiding monetary policy today. It’s hard to know whether this more insulting to Ben Bernanke or to Williamson himself, who isn’t exactly a fan of actually existing modern monetary policy.

39 thoughts on “Murdochracy vs Quiggin: One last snark

  1. Ernestine,

    What’s to be embarrassed about? If I had written a poorly-researched rant concluding we should throw out great swaths of careful and pathbreaking science, for the purpose of fluffing up my bank account at the expense of the reputations of mainstream economists with the lay public, that would be embarrassing.

  2. what’s this “science” of which Steve Williamson speaks? An unfalsifiable theory which “has no implications”? Calling this groundbreaking is what’s embarrassing.

  3. @gerard

    When one has such and comprehensive cheer squad in one’s self (and adog that thinks he’s a food doyley) who needs facts, falsifiability, or anyone else.

  4. @Freelander
    Freelander, my good friend. Thanks for asking about me. No, that wasn’t me. As you must have heard, I been put in Quiggin’s prison. Apparently free speech is allowed in Quigginland. Well, this is the final goodbye. Don’t cry for me Freelander.
    Goodbye Friend.

  5. @Steve Williamson

    There is nothing in your paragraph which would require me to change my mind. I refer you to an earlier thread on this blog site for my detailed comment on one item, namely the EMH. This item is sufficient to establish my point.

  6. The handbook title is a bit of a misnomer. First, you would need giant sized hands. Second, the volumes tend to provide an authoritative and encyclopedic review of theory and research in a particular area rather than being books of guidance or instruction. (Encyclopedic, although topics not indexed alphabetically in the ToC).

  7. While Williamson was a bit rude toward Quiggin, his bottom line is correct: Zombie Economics is bad work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s