Monday, February 13, 2012

Quote of the day

While I’m somewhat sympathetic to Sachs in this particular case, part of me just thinks that these three deserve each other. And indeed, if the Krugmans fire back by noting some of the (alleged) deficiencies in Sachs’s work on development, we might see a net increase in collective human understanding. 


The Ancient said...

In part, this a Harvard-trained Keynesian criticizing a MIT-trained Keynesian, and it reflects a long-standing institutional distaste for the over-simplicity of MIT models. It's also Sachs not so subtly pointing out that he's bothered to get his hands dirty over the years and Paul hasn't. (Krugman understands very little about how government works in practice, and it often shows.)

But it's something else, too -- a small bit of elbow-throwing in a decades-long rivalry. Once upon a time, there were three very young, very bright, fiercely ambitious economists who recognized each other as natural rivals. At least two of them were still on their first wives, and all three wives were like Army colonels' wives -- doing whatever they could to help their husband beat out the others on his way to becoming Army chief-of-staff. (This image comes from one of the principals, long ago.) Two of them, for similar reasons, abandoned academic economics for something else, leaving Paul to pick up the most glittering of all prizes. But one of them plainly doesn't think Paul knows as much as he does, and the other still doesn't think Paul is as smart as he is.

The Ancient said...

David Brooks plays whack-a-mole with one of his Op-Ed Page colleagues.

(Good luck with that, kid.)

The Ancient said...

The mole writes:

I wonder if Paul has ever heard of the "91-day employee"? I suspect not.

FLG said...

I bet David rankles Paul to no end.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.