Over at The Atlantic, Richard Posner writes:
I am concerned with the fact that academic economists, when they become either public officials or public intellectuals (like Krugman), leave behind their academic scruples.
In a later paragraph, he expands on his theme:
This raises the question of the ethical responsibility of academic economists, such as [CEA Chair Christina] Romer (and Krugman, and Lawrence Summers, and many others), who write for the media or join the government, either to adhere to academic standards in their nonacademic work or to make clear to the public that they are on holiday from those standards and that what they say in their public-intellectual or governmental careers should not be thought identical to their academic views.
And then, with an astonishing lack of awareness of the irony involved, Judge Posner — who is also a highly-regarded scholar at Chicago Law School — spends the rest of his article opining on the economic effects of the stimulus.
Yes, this is the same Judge Posner who has never, as far as I can tell, received any training in macroeconomics. Having recently re-read much of the modern literature on fiscal policy, I found myself underlining several of his claims that either reflect an incomplete understanding of the issue or are simply at odds with the current views of mainstream macro. Yet they are stated as simple truths, with no hint of qualification. And he cites not a single number nor builds a serious theoretical argument in support of any of his conclusions.
In fact, it’s a fun game to read his whole piece (available here) and assess just how far Posner falls short. Post your favorites to the comments.
Update: At Economist’s View, Mark Thoma begins by listing the obvious shortcomings; Brad DeLong finds at least seven major problems; and over at EconBrowswer, Menzie Chinn piles on, finding six-and-a-half major shortcomings. And for eagle-eyed readers, there are still more problems waiting to be highlighted; let’s call it an intellectual “Where’s Waldo?”
Finally, an aside: This isn’t about which side of the debate Posner is on; on the substantive issue of whether fiscal stimulus is worthwhile, I actually agree with Posner. No, it’s about the very issue Posner raises: how to engage in serious economic debate.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
“I find it rather shocking that none of the Keynesians were able to predict the upcoming crisis, while the Austrians were shouting at the top of their lungs.”
^^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Anyway,
Justin – you say,
“I found myself underlining several of his claims that either reflect an incomplete understanding of the issue or are simply at odds with the current views of mainstream macro.”
Can you please provide examples and elaborations?
Charles, I believe the scientist you would want to guide your spaceship to the moon would be someone that studied Astronomy (or some branch of Physics or Engineering), not Astrology. You would want an Astrologer to tell you if it is a good day to ask your boss for a promotion, not guide you through the cosmos. Giving an Astrologer this task would leave you “lost in space,” which is why academic credentials are important. Credentials are not elitist; they are evidence of approved training in a particular academic or professional discipline, regardless of whether or not you care about them.
How can so many people miss Posner’s point? He simply said that Krugman and Romer reached one conclusion when they did academic research and an opposite conclusion when they avocated for a certain public policy.
Whether Posner’s economic analysis is brilliant or stupid is competely irrelevant.
I’m no economist; I deal in actual sciences.
I see no reason the stimulus should work unless the laws of microeconomics are as different from the laws of macroeconomics as the laws of quantum mechanics are from classical mechanics.
He seems to debate Gary Becker pretty well on a whole host of issues.
If he can take him on, why can’t he take on Romer or Summers or anyone else for that matter?
Apart from the macroeconomics issues:
1. He writes about other public intellectuals without discussing or in any way describing his personal perspective. It’s as though he’s appointed himself as the objective observer when he isn’t one and can’t be one.
2. Because he doesn’t disclose and discuss his biases, his comments about a Paul Krugman, for example, aren’t meaningful. In what way has Krugman not disclosed his bias? In what has he not noted his slant? So you have a person who hides his own biases then complaining about others. That would be funny if this weren’t a major judicial figure.
“Yes, this is the same Judge Posner who has never, as far as I can tell, received any training in macroeconomics.”
Since you’ve sent us on a Where’s Waldo error-finding chase, let me point out two errors in your single sentence. First, you assume that Posner has never received economics training. Although your assumption is possibly true, it seems unwarranted, given that he has been surrounded by some of the brightest economics minds for 40 years.
Second, you imply that a degree in economics is necessary to understand, critique, or make meaningful contributions to the field. Just ask Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Frank Ramsey, or Daniel Kahneman if this is true.
I’m also amused that you expected the readers of this blog to sympathize with your Posner-bashing. The blog’s co-founder, like Posner, is a self-proclaimed price-theory adherent.
Though Judge Posner may not have “formal macroeconomic training”, he has undoubtedly earned the respect of some very credentialed economists. With apologies to you, Mr Wolfers, that respect is worth far more than a degree in the field.
In any case, critique his position, not his credentials. That’s how you “engage in serious economic debate.”