A Note to a Comment Made by Rob

Rob recently wrote something that I believe is worth responding to. He derided my thoughts on stimulus in part due to my advocating the ideas of economist Russell Roberts, who has only published works of fiction, and stated his [Rob's] ideas were valid because he was advocating the ideas of a Nobel Laureate, Paul Krugman. This was an ignorant and arrogant thing to say, and as I know Rob quite well to not be either of these things, I am surprised he said it. But in my eyes he is reflecting two enormous problems in the mainstream economics community.

The first is methodology. The Nobel Prize in Economics is technically known as The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. So, is economics "science"? If so, is it more like physics or biology? I think with the rise of such folks like Paul Samuelson, economics imported much of the methodology of rigid systems like physics and consequently fostered a culture of mathematical zealotry. I do not believe this is the correct approach to the subject. In my view, economics should be approached from the bottom up and adapt to millions of unique variables and premises. It should focus on the incentives that drive individuals to interact, the consequences of those interactions, and the new incentives those interactions create. Every interaction is unique and to bundle them all together, as macro does, is counterintuitive in my mind. This is why I believe this in turn led to the second large problem in the community today: lack of diversity.

Take a look at Elinor Ostrom recently winning the Nobel Prize in Economics. She was derided by many (I read some particularly harsh comments from graduate students) for being a political scientist and using case studies to advance her studies and conclusions. Or take the smaller issue of Rob downsizing the worth of Robert's contributions for his outside the box approach to the subject. Along with writing works of fiction, all well-reviewed works that focus on individual economic interactions, Roberts regularly blogs, conducts a podcast, writes academic as well as more mainstream articles, and gives seminars. I have been following his work closely for the past three years or so and find it to have played an enormous role in my education; far more than any textbook or formal economics professor has ever done. There is no doubt he and others have done the same for many others. So should his contributions be diminished and marginalized because they do not conform to the mainstream in terms of methodology or ideology? Of course not. But as Ostrom's detractors and my good friend Rob illustrate, that is the close-minded state we are in.