« Words that are their own antonyms | Main | Michael Crichton on Robin Hanson »
Levitt responds to Noam Scheiber
Read the whole thing, it is called "Am I ruining economics or not?" Of course Alex and I already have weighed in on the "no" side. I am reminded of Jonathan Swift:
Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 26, 2007 at 11:22 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Hooray for superficial economics and the dilettantes that turn askew to real economic theory and the insights of austrian economists and others that actually talk about the things that really matter!
Levitt and his position on crime and abortion has already been totally annihilated.
Look, look I have a theory about turkeys and their displacement in the spring while on the hunt for the female of the species!
Forget about inflation, monetary policy, private property, distribution of wealth and scarce resources, or the institutions that create a civil society.
Go econometric crazed kids hooked on numbers and absurdity to find the lacuna in the inefficiency of purchasing four sticks of sweet cream, salted butter at 1 pound (453g)!
Ivy tenured track and Swedish central bank prize in honor of Alfred Nobel here I come!
Or maybe book sales up the wazoo as I prove PT Barnum right once again.
Posted by: Sam at Apr 27, 2007 1:18:56 AM
Wow, I'm glad Levitt had a co-author for Freakonomics! That response was haughty, petulant, and poorly argued.
Don't get me wrong: I like Levitt's work and I disagree with Scheiber's thesis. But even being well-disposed toward Levitt, I can't overlook how bad his post is.
Posted by: David Wright at Apr 27, 2007 2:33:10 AM
The trouble is that there doesn't seem to be much novelty left in the "big questions", and without novelty you have no publications and no tenure. To achieve novelty, it seems you can either write entertaining papers about 'clutch hitting' in baseball and soccer strategies, etc., or you can play Devil's Advocate and argue against the consensus views on topics like minimum wages, agricultural subsidies, free trade and rent control. The second sort of novelty gives politicians cover to enact bad public policy, while the first is generally harmless.
Posted by: Jeff at Apr 27, 2007 9:54:03 AM
Sam - how has that paper been annhilated? Other studies using different approaches have found evidence for it, even using the dreaded state-year effects. See this study for instance. The operating mechanism that they find evidence for is a cohort effect, rather than a selection effect. Not more disadvantaged individuals committing crimes; just fewer people who commit crimes, period. Other papers have examined substance abuse (Charles and Stevens 2006 JLE) and out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancy (Donahue, Grogger and Levitt 2002) and still find this result persisting.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Apr 27, 2007 2:26:36 PM
What amazes me is that Scheiber could accuse Emily Oster of being merely clever and unimportant. I've read some of her papers now linked from here and elsewhere, and it seems that almost every time I find myself wanting to shout the results from the rooftops. Talk about getting interesting answers to deep, provocative and politically important questions. Until somebody shows me feet of clay, she's a hero in my world.
Who is the economist that I would most like to meet and ask questions? Emily Oster. And she doesn't even blog (or if she does, I want to know where).
Posted by: Michael Sullivan at Apr 29, 2007 9:45:05 AM
