Is Kantoos aware of all internet traditions ?
(Update: Dan here…Brad DeLong takes note)
I think this is a totally fair excerpt from this post by Kantoos
I realized this three years ago, in early 2009, when I read John Cochrane’s piece on fiscal stimulus . It is a little convoluted, unfortunately, but an interesting read nonetheless. I would have loved to read a proper response by Paul or Brad DeLong, but only found unjustified rants that had little to do with John’s arguments – if you actually read the whole piece.
Update: Kantoos retracts his assertion that DeLong’s post and Krugman’s post were unjustifiable rants here http://kantooseconomics.com/2012/01/06/de-convoluting-john-cochranes-2009-piece-on-fiscal-stimulus/#entry . Thus my post is interesting for the study of the history of Kantoos but not of his current views.
Also here and especially in comment threads here and there, I was rude and I apologise for that.
As far as I can tell from his recent post, Kantoos and I agree that DeLong and Krugman’s posts were not unreasonable rants and Kantoos should not have written that they were.
Note that he dismisses and denounces a post by Brad DeLong and a post by Paul Krugman asserting that they were not thorough and well enoughh argued criticisms of a post by John Cochrane, yet provides no quotes, evidence, argument or explanation of his dismissal of their posts.
I don’t think I have read a more dramatic demonstration of lack of self awareness on the internet. The previous record holding text was “I am aware of all internet traditions.”
If anyone can think of more blatant projection (including especially this post) he or she is asked to link to it in comments. Note this is not a post about Cochrane’s arguments. I merely note that Kantoos criticism of DeLong’s and Krugman’s is a much more valid criticism of itself than of their posts, since he provides explanation at all of why he condemns those posts
Kantoos notes that Brad is insanely patient
[Update: Brad DeLong replies in a long post, which is remarkable, given that John’s piece is three years old. Impressive! Thanks, Brad.]
Note there* is no comment on whether Kantoos wishes to reconsider his harsh condemnation of Brad’s earlier post.
*update spelling corrected
To be fair, sometimes Delong writes long and reasoned commentaries. Sometimes he calls names and rants like a playground bully.
Krugman usually sticks with the subject. Usually.
I may close to one those “median readers” that Kantoos depicts in his posting so I read the referenced Cochrane, Krugman and DeLong postings, again. Cochrane’s posting struck me, the unsophisticated non-expert, as chock-full of unsupported, questionable assertions and assumptions. I found it harder to swallow with each sentence. DeLong and Krugman offered some rants but, compared to Cochrane, they did a much better job of trying to explain and justify their positions to me. That doesn’t mean that Krugman and DeLong are correct–after all, I am no Mankiw or Greenspan or anywhere close to that level of expertise. It only means that I find Krugman and DeLong to be compelling.
The Kantoos posting is very much in the Cochrane style (I entirely agree with Robert here) and maybe that’s the style that he prefers and finds compelling. He seems to think that the median reader prefers, and is persuaded by, arguments in this style. If he’s correct, I guess I’m further below the median than I thought.
I was discussing only the Kantoos post, the specific Krugman post to which he linked, the Cochrane document to which he linked and that specific DeLong post to which he linked. I made no claims about anything else.
Thanks for the comment. I really honestly have no clue as to why Kantoos wrote that post. I think he will explain (he has promised to reply to Brad’s long post explaining why Brad is sure that Cochrane’s web document is chock full of elementary errors and contradicts itself. As far as I can tell, Cochrane typed and posted without serious thought. This happens often (I do it often) but I don’t see what Kantoos sees in the Cochrane document. I don’t think Kantoos has ever given any explanation of why he thinks it isn’t stupid (he certainly didn’t link to any such explanation).
As to Kantoos on Brad and Krugman, I think the point is that he considers himself to be giving them friendly advice, so he doesn’t have to back up his friendly constructive criticism. The problem is that his criticism of them is totally invalid so he can’t back it up. I don’t know why he doesn’t just apologise and move on.
You want a ‘no’ before ‘explanation’:
“he provides explanation at all of why he condemns those posts”
Mr. Waldmann,
Kantoos has written in a comment on his post citing what he sees as Cochrane’s main point (http://kantooseconomics.com/2012/01/04/the-political-economics-of-being-paul-krugman/#comment-6343). Doesn’t appear in a main post (or not yet). Some comments further, DeLong answers, noting that Cochrane himself seems to take this point back.
this home-page is absolutely stunning as well as the list can be super i’m able to uncover all whatever would like within the to begin with watch, i mean highly excellent. i adore this. l8rs ok bye
tempurpedic rhapsody breeze