tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4533557389802478076.post8113131257221232731..comments2011-01-06T09:54:13.923-08:00Comments on The New Economics Project: An Economic RenaissanceJacob Clerehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569432290280785890noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4533557389802478076.post-33981382906813253872010-12-18T13:53:10.808-08:002010-12-18T13:53:10.808-08:00hi jacob! you write like a blockbuster, i'm de...hi jacob! you write like a blockbuster, i'm definitely following. :) <br /><br />incidentally, i was able to follow the levitt and dubner bit on your comment thread because, despite never having read freakonomics, i recently subscribed to their podcast. it was entertaining, but definitely lacking in rigour. (and i haven't studied economics in more than five years, so hardly in a position to judge the rigours/lack thereof of economic theory!) <br /><br />will definitely look up hartford, seabright etc. (do namedrop! i'm always on the lookout for new and interesting reading!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4533557389802478076.post-68028706746284434512010-12-14T15:30:52.800-08:002010-12-14T15:30:52.800-08:00Fair points, Dominic. I've sketched out about...Fair points, Dominic. I've sketched out about 10 future topics to cover in this blog, and one of them is a discussion of economists who seem to be "doing it right." Tim Harford and Dan Ariely were already on my short list, so it's interesting how close our thoughts are on the subject. Jared Diamond, while I like reading the guy, is not an economist but a geographer. <br /><br />You're right, as well, about Levitt and Dubner. They seem to have taken that leap from the intellectually interesting to the popularly absurd. They've consistently stretched logic and investigative technique as far as possible in pursuit, it seems, of book sales. I'm not a fan of such an approach.<br /><br />Indeed, the only disagreement I have with your comment is that one should be "gentle with economic academia." This blog is an affront to the discipline, as are excellent economists like Ariely, Harford and Seabright. They are notable not because they reflect the status quo, but because they represent new approaches. It's exciting that such researchers are gaining traction, but the discipline of economics remains, in the words of economist Carmen Reinhart, an "inbred" profession.<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/economy/04econ.html<br /><br />Anyhow, I welcome all criticism. I don't pretend to be the last word on the subject. Many of the thoughts I share will be shared because they are only half-complete. I would love for readers to actively engage with this blog. So yes, thank you Kathryn, thank you Dominic, and thank you anyone else who finds this blog useful or entertaining.Jacob Clerehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569432290280785890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4533557389802478076.post-43790486018721787502010-12-14T04:38:59.425-08:002010-12-14T04:38:59.425-08:00Where were you when I was doing a crash course in ...Where were you when I was doing a crash course in economic theory for my dissertation? :-) I'm looking forward to reading more!Kathrynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16272917122026666298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4533557389802478076.post-11491591469345430962010-12-14T04:04:12.979-08:002010-12-14T04:04:12.979-08:00An interesting approach, Mr Clere, and most challe...An interesting approach, Mr Clere, and most challenging to traditional economic theory as such. Although, or perhaps because I am not an economist myself, or say, if that can be said, only a third of an economist, I should have to challenge what you write in turn.<br /><br />There are several economists that are branching out of their 'economicese' sphere--Tim Hartford, Paul Seabright, Dan Ariely, Jared Diamond etc. to name only a few. However, despite of their ability to pose their economic questions in an interdisciplinary realm, and, beyond that, their talent of making economic content largely accessible to even the uninformed public, they are often times subject to criticism with regards to the trade off between populism and academic accuracy. To offer an example of a scholar whose populist work has been devastating to his academic career, you might want to look at <br /><br />http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/superfreakonomics-gw-controversy/page/2/<br /><br />For those who do not care to click on the link: Levitt has afforded himself a major faux-pas by jumping to controversial conclusions with regards to climate change and economics. Such a trade off is neither desirable nor useful. It is of no help to have Jim and Joe know stuff that frankly is a whole load of bollocks and it gets worse if they go tell their mates about it.<br /><br />My concluding remark is therefore that, on the one hand, it would be wise to be more gentle with economic academia per se, as some very good stuff does indeed come off it already (e.g. Seabright's 'The company of Strangers'), and on the other, that making economic theory accessible to non-economists must by no means compromise academic accuracy.<br /><br />I hope that was not too off-putting? For I shall be happy to follow whatever lively thing this blog is going to turn into!Emanuel Roycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04654529361022402778noreply@blogger.com