Earlier this week, Dubner linked to a terrific New Yorker piece by John Cassidy, which explores the state of the “Chicago School.” Following up, Cassidy has posted some very revealing interview transcripts.
All the interviews are with truly great economists. The very best come across as trying to build insight that is both rigorous and empirically relevant. But some come across as obtuse; others as arrogant; and some oblivious, or uninterested in evidence. Time and again I was surprised at how readily the interviews slipped from careful insight into personal ideology and dogmas. In each case, the interviews are revealing. (The charitable interpretation is that perhaps what they reveal is how seriously each took Cassidy’s interviews.)
Read them all, and come to your own judgments:
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Many in the Chicago School (the school-of-thought) have been arrogant, obtuse, and ignorant of evidence for over 25 years. If something contradicts their evidence, it’s an “outlier” even when dozens of studies begin to pile up – they are outliers. The Chicago School economists have mastered the art of confirmation bias, and they couple that with the Dunning-Kruger effect and some arrogance thrown it – it makes a truly remarkable show. Somewhere in the 1980s the Chicago school stopped caring about evidence and how the world actually worked – it’s just the public is finally getting the opportunity to witness it.
Rajan and Heckman were the only two that came off even remotely well in those interviews (unsurprisingly really). The rest either came off as arrogant, completely oblivious, or in about three of those interviews – both.
The Chicago economics department should be embarrassed.
the ‘Chicago School’ is just the apologist arm of the imperialist economic policy of aggressive capital investment/turnover under the guise of ‘free trade’ or ‘free market’- powerful global investment capital siphons off local capital, via subverting any social regulations to stop such concentration of wealth at the expense of the citizenry- this is how you get shills like Fama saying ‘what housing bubble?’ after the large capital shift from taxpayers to bankers, under the auspices of the ‘free market’
@Kyle,
What was wrong with Posner’s interview? In your view, was he arrogant, completely oblivious, or both? Personally, I thought his answers were cogent.
I’ve only read Becker’s so far, but I didn’t find him obtuse or arrogant.
Kevin Murphy’s explanation of why the stimulus doesn’t work is the least ideological argument I’ve seen made by either its proponents or opponents.
As far as “uninterested in evidence,” I can’t think of a single academic paper written by any of the above that is not entirely about evidence. (though I really haven’t read much by Posner).
Such criticism is, I think, very much out of place considering this was a casual magazine interview… Paul Krugman is arrogant (and occasionally obtuse) on his blog everyday. He happens to be a much less difficult target than the Chicago School economists – who’s views (however accurate) have been widely shunned by many who prefer government involvement in markets.
It would be more salacious if you named names.
interesting set of interviews
What was wrong with Posner’s interview? In your view, was he arrogant, completely oblivious, or both? Personally, I thought his answers were cogent.