It's second only to Krugman-Ferguson in matchups of a highly respected economist versus a non-economist who nonetheless displays an great deal of economic expertise: Brad DeLong versus Richard Posner. I'll refrain from contradicting either man's arguments on the merits, given that I've not read the book in question (Posner's A Failure of Capitalism) and that they both know far more about economics than I, but DeLong's review, as is the case with much of his writing that I've seen, is oddly and unnecessarily personal. The review hinges on the idea that Posner is a leading Chicago School figure (which Posner denies), and compares him both to a little white mouse and one of Copernicus' Jesuit adversaries. DeLong is so focused on tearing down the Chicago School that he neglects to do a thorough job in rebutting the book itself. I understand that DeLong thinks Posner has a misguided understanding of irrationality, but assuming that's correct, why is bankers' irrationality inconsistent with Posner's causes, i.e. lax regulation? Or why is irrationality alone a better explanation? I'd love to know.
It's a bit like DeLong's habit of turning every error from a beat reporter working on deadline into a woe-is-me lament about the state of the American news media. But not every mistake is a sign of the end of days. Just tell us what the error is, why it is important, and move on. Broadening your attack to the point of besmirching the entire press corps makes the argument less compelling, not more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment