>Faustine grumbled (among other blather):
>Nothing good enough to get mentioned at NBER, the veritable gold standard (if
>you'll allow) of academic research in economics.
>
>I think Friedman's popularity must have something to do with having a ready-
>made audience for his works--people who care more about the fact that he's a
>libertarian theorist than whether he's a responsible economist.
>I get to hear enough bad economics like this used to justify trammelling my
>liberties. Enough.
"bad economics like this"? Like what, publications from NBER? You just insulted
William Vogt here on the list, you know. It almost sounds as if you believe
everyone who cares about being responsible is out to trammel liberties. And
where you got the idea that I support Keynes, I'll never know.
Whether or not Friedman is a responsible economist is a separate issue from
whether or not people read him primarily beacuse they decided they agree with
his basic premises ahead of time.
I just have a real problem with the kind of mentality that says it's okay to
let other people pre-digest the issues for you as long as you know they have
good premises and "their heart is in the right place". It's just not enough.
How do you know good analysis from bad unless you know the technical means to
put it to the test? Nobody gets a free pass.
Earlier in this thread, another poster said that any good theory has to promote
human life, that a sound philosophical basis has to come first. I certainly
agree--but without facts and data to signal how it's being implemented in the
real world, the best theory in the world doesn't mean much: it can be
interesting, but not truly useful. For instance, a lot of people thought The
New Deal and The Great Society looked like they could make for a fair, just and
equitable system (on paper)--and we all know how they turned out when the
rubber met the road. Intentions are one thing, real-life applications are
another. And how do you begin to untangle that kind of messy complexity and
make informed decisions? With informed analysis.
Another example--Alan Greenspan can't chair the Federal Reserve Board on
philosophy alone: he has to use a huge range of economic data to make specific
choices about what to do, quarter by quarter, decision by decision. And true,
that econometric data was gathered by people who probably cared far more about
learning how to use math and statistics than any of the the broader issues.
Does this lack of perspective create bias? Of course. But bias is something you
can't get away from no matter where you stand: all you can do is know how to
watch out for it and make informed decisions with as much intellectual rigor as
you can. Good theory, good methods and good data are inseperable.
It shouldn't be seen as some kind of heretical thoughtcrime to question the
quality of libertarian scholarship. I don't think anyone should be granted ANY
slack in this area at all just because I happen to want to agree with their
conclusions. Method matters. That's all I was saying!
~Faustine.
