The collapse of intellectual standards in macroeconomics is truly amazing...
John Quiggin does some intellectual garbage pickup:
“Not even wrong” is not praise: [A] commenter pointed me to this piece by Stephen Williamson of Washington University at St Louis, who has apparently been asked to review the book for the Journal of Economic Literature. Williamson claims that I am badly confused about the EMH, and that
Market efficiency is simply an assumption of rationality. As such it has no implications. If it has no implications, it can’t be wrong.
He follows up with “Like the “efficient markets hypothesis,” DSGE has no implications, and therefore can’t be wrong.””
That’s right, Williamson not only defends the EMH on the basis that it’s not even wrong, but follows up by making the same claim about the whole of modern macro. Those are, quite literally, his only criticisms of these chapters. His commenters (none of whom seem particularly favorably inclined towards me) try to suggest that isn’t the most effective line of attack, but he comprehensively misses the point.
Williamson’s comments on my other chapters aren’t much better. He doesn’t present a single piece of empirical evidence. Responding to my chapter on Trickle Down, his only argument is
On some level, it seems obvious that economic growth benefits all residents of a country. Whatever my skill set, I would rather ply my trade in the United States than in Malawi.
Honestly, my lamest blog commenters can do better than that, and the same is true his snarky comments on the privatisation chapter.
"
Comments