DISQUS

I largely agree with the original tirade. Here's an amusing quote from Stanely Fischer that sympathizers may find amusing:

Q: Why do you think there is more consensus amongst economists over microeconomic issues compared to macroeconomic issues?

A: In part because micro is less important and in part because, believe it or not, I think that the empirical standards are lower in microeconomics. Let me justify what I mean. When Rudi Dornbusch and I came to write our principles book I knew macro well but hadn't done much micro for a long time. I thought it was going to be a breeze, the macro part we know and the micro part is all clear - there would be a thousand empirical equations out there to illustrate demand and supply curves. Well the empirical backing isn't around very much - there are lots of stories and models but I don't think micro focuses on a set of issues in the same way that macro does. Microeconomists are not called upon to explain real-world phenomena to anything like the extent that macroeconomists are. They don't have a daily confrontation with policy makers, the newspapers and the capital markets. One of the very successful micro fields is finance, partly because they are really pushed to come up with something that will stand the test of a lot of very sceptical people.

From A Modern Guide to Macroeconomics, first edition.

What he writes next, however, is nonsense:

"They imagine that under divided government, the wise elders of both parties would sit around a table and 'rise above politics' with pragmatic solutions for everything."

Actually, I imagine that under divided government, there would be such vicious partisanship that nobody could come up with pragmatic solutions for anything. Sounds awesome.

Not only is it plainly true, but it's Friedman's justification for his work. He's saying, "I want to change your mind. I want to do so because, when the time comes, your and everyone else's minds are what's going to change national policy." It's a populist appeal rather than an elitist dictate. As Norberg points out several times in his short-but-sweet paper, Klein's interpretation is demonstrably the exact opposite of what Friedman actually says.

Fin: You know, after all these years, DC's license plates still say "Taxation Without Representation." But hey, what's one city?

I agree that you should press Hanson on the height tax issue. Bring up Megan McArdle's post ( http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/20... ) on why Mankiw's paper doesn't take everything into account, especially for women.

Since I know you follow the Intelligent Design debate, you might want to bring up Hanson's post on Expelled ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/expelled-... ). He seemed to like it quite a bit more than the average rationalist, especially in comparison to Sicko.

Finally! I know what I'm doing after class.