Pri nas so razprave med različno mislečimi akademiki zelo akademske. Zelo vljudne v stilu: ‘spoštovani kolega, z vsem spoštovanjem, toda vaš argument ne zdrži kritične presoje‘. Ekstremni primeri akademskega nestrinjanja, bi utegnili naplaviti izjave v stilu: kolega X morda ni najbolj na tekočem z najnovejšimi dognanji na tem področju‘. To je v resnici zelo žaljiva izjava, to je akademski način nekomu reči, da je zaostal v razvoju ali celo, da je mentalno retardiran.

Toda to so še vedno zelo vljudne in benigne razprave v primerjavi s tistimi, ko je Ken Rogoff javno napadel ideje nobelovca Josepha Stiglitza kot “voodoo economics” (vzrok je bila Stiglitzeva ostra kritika delovanja IMF) ali tiste, ki smo jih lahko ta teden spremljali med ameriškimi ekonomisti. Natančneje, med ameriškimi liberalnimi ekonomisti na eni ter konzervativnim Niallom Fergusonom, sicer profesorjem (ekonomske) zgodovine in kolumnistom, na drugi strani. Ferguson je sicer znan po izjavi, da Keynesu (avtorju znamenitega stavka “Na dolgi rok smo vsi mrtvi“) ni bilo mar dolgega roka, ker je bil gay in brez otrok.

Zadeva se je sicer kuhala že nekaj let. Predvsem na relaciji Paul Krugman – Niall Ferguson (denimo v 2009, 2010, 2012 in letos).

Zgolj za vzorec, najprej Krugmanova okarakterizacija Fergusona (povzeto po Telegraphu):

For the record, I don’t think that Professor Ferguson is a racist. I think he’s a poseur. I’m told that some of his straight historical work is very good. When it comes to economics, however, he hasn’t bothered to understand the basics, relying on snide comments and surface cleverness to convey the impression of wisdom. It’s all style, no comprehension of substance. And this time he ended up choking on his own snark.

In odgovor Fergusona (povzeto po Business Insider):

In my view Paul Krugman has done fundamental damage to the quality of public discourse on economics. He can be forgiven for being wrong, as he frequently is–though he never admits it. He can be forgiven for relentlessly and monotonously politicizing every issue. What is unforgivable is the total absence of civility that characterizes his writing. His inability to debate a question without insulting his opponent suggests some kind of deep insecurity perhaps the result of a childhood trauma. It is a pity that a once talented scholar should demean himself in this way.

Do izbruha širših razsežnosti pa je prišlo ta teden. In sicer zaradi dveh stvari. Prvič, Ferguson je sredi tedna objavil kolumno v Wall Street Journalu, kjer je (ponovno) narobe interpretiral podatke kongresnega proračunskega urada (CBO) o gibanju ameriškega javnega dolga (da bo dosegel 200% do leta 2076). Na kolumno so se odzvali številni ekonomisti (denimo Matthew O’Brien, Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, Econospeak) in ga opozorili, da ni ekonomist in da je narobe bral ali da ne zna brati poročila CBO.

In drugič, ta teden je Ferguson v mavričnem Huffington Postu objavil obsežno trilogijo obračuna s Krugmanom in “somišljeniki” pod naslovom “Krugtron the Invincible“:

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 1

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 2

Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3

Rdeča nit je osebno obračunavanje s pomočjo selektivne uporabe in analize preteklih zapisov. Kdo se je kdaj zmotil in kolikokrat in kdo se nikoli ni zmotil. Trivia, katere poanto bi sicer lahko strnili v naslednje odstavke

Motivacija:

Why have I taken the trouble to do this? I have three motives…to assert the importance of humility and civility in public as well as academic discourse..

…his hero John Maynard Keynes did not go around calling his great rival Friedrich Hayek a “mendacious idiot” or a “dope”.

The “Always-Wrong Club” is just the latest of many ad hominem attacks he has made on me since 2009. On one occasion he implied that I was a racist and then called me a “whiner” when I objected. On another he referred to me as a “poseur”, adding for good measure that I had “choked on [my] own snark”. Last year he wildly accused of making “multiple errors and misrepresentations” in article for Newsweek, only one of which he ever specified. More recently I was accused of “trying to flush [my] own past statements down the memory hole” – a characteristically crude turn of phrase – and of being “inane”. Re-reading these, I can only marvel at the man’s hypocrisy, for Krugman often sanctimoniously denies that he “does ad hominem” – and once had the gall to accuse Joe Scarborough of making such an attack on him when Scarborough merely quoted Krugman’s own words back at him…

…

In punchline:

As I pointed out yesterday, Paul Krugman’s right to consign others to the “Always-Wrong Club” , and routinely to insult anyone who dares to disagree with him, is fatally vitiated by his own embarrassingly bad record of commentary on the European phase of the financial crisis. His repeated and erroneous predictions of the European Monetary Union’s imminent collapse constitute a perfect example of what he and his cronies childishly call “derping”: to “take a position and refuse to alter that position no matter how strongly the evidence refutes it, who continue to insist that they have The Truth despite being wrong again and again”.

Regrettably, Krugman – also known to himself and his cronies as “the Invincible Krugtron” – has not found time in his busy schedule of blogging to make the apologies that I believe are due, not only for his incivility and hypocrisy, but also for his own personal contribution to the crisis of confidence that afflicted Europe in 2011 and 2012. Seldom in the history of the economics profession can one man in a crowded theater have shouted fire more often and more loudly, apparently indifferent to the real economic consequences of his actions.

Why, you may ask, did Krugman feel the need to be so bold (and so wrong) in predicting the euro’s collapse over and over again, in his column, on his blog and to every media outlet that would give him an interview? The answer is because he and his beloved economic models had so completely failed to predict the U.S. financial crisis and he did not want to repeat his mistake.

Tukaj pa je nekaj odzivov tistih, ki so kolateralna škoda in ki jih je Ferguson označil kot “Krugman’s cronies” oziroma “acolytes“:

Dean Baker, Niall Ferguson and What Passes for Intellectual Argument at Harvard and the Wall Street Journal

Josh Barro, Niall Ferguson Is Mad That Paul Krugman ‘Acolytes’ Like Me Are Mean To Him

Noah Smith, Not Quite Noahpinion: KrugTron the Invincible

John Cochrane, Krugtron parts 2 and 3

In Krugman? Hja, tokrat se je vzdržal komentarja. No, ne čisto povsem:

Some readers have been asking when I’m going to reply to certain rants aimed my way. The answer is, never.

Zdaj pa recite, da so (ekonomski) akademiki dolgočasneži in da o njih ne bi mogli posneti dveh ali treh serij latino-ameriških žajfnic. Zelo dober začetek bi bila zbirka “chatty” kolumen konzervativnega ekonomista Roberta Barra iz University of Chicago, zbranih v Nothing is Sacred. Sploh tista o Bonu Voxu ali tista o Nobelovi nagradi Garyju Beckerju.

Tudi (akademski) ekonomisti so ljudje. Verjamem pa, da vas bolj zanimajo trivialnosti iz sveta šovbiznisa in politike kot pa verbalna obračunavanja med akademiki.