View source for Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman school Tyler Cowen

<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
[[Category:Tyler Cowen]]
[[Category:Brad DeLong]]
[[Category:Paul Krugman]]
{{DES | des = [[Tyler Cowen]] criticized IS-LM to undermine rival economists' arguments.  [[Brad DeLong]] and [[Paul Krugman]] explain why such criticisms are foolish even if true -- because there is no real substitute for starting with IS-LM.  Ignoring IS-LM leads to serious errors. | show=}}
<!-- insert wiki page text here -->

There is a huge demand for rebuttals to Keynesian arguments about how to fix the economy.  Anti-government right-wingers and libertarians oppose Keynesian interventions, and they have vast wads of money to throw at such issues.

[[Tyler Cowen]], at the [[George Mason University Economics Department]], is employed by the [[Charles and David Koch|Kochs]] for just that purpose.  Apparently, one of his jobs is to undermine rival economists' arguments.  

Now, it is well known that no economics model is perfect, and it is easy to assemble a list of problems and a list of people describing those problems.  But the fallacy is to use this list to denounce an imperfect model in favor of worse models or none.  Voltaire wrote "the perfect is the enemy of the good", meaning that we should not discard effective solutions for pie-in-the-sky perfectionism.

DeLong and Krugman explain why Cowen's criticisms are foolish even if true -- because there is no real substitute for starting with IS-LM.  This is an argument between applied economics on the Krugman and DeLong side and theoretic wishful thinking motivated by ideology on Cowen's side.

It is interesting to note Cowen's typical strategy, which like most public relations strategies is not aimed at "proof" but at convincing onlookers with incessant repetition of ideas such as "problems with IS-LM".  Cowen throws a bombshell, and then cites one vaguely similar viewpoint after another without answering any questions about how they relate to the original argument or explaining his own position at any point.  A ploy to attempt to retain academic credibility in the midst of vigorous dog-whistling.  He wishes to use his academic authority without being responsible to the academic community.

From the standpoint of reasonable argument, it looks as if Krugman and DeLong win.  You can identify that even without any understanding of economics simply by the fact that Cowen never addresses any of their points directly, never cites what they actually said, and doesn't have his own coherent answer.  Few people notice these tactics.

From a public relations standpoint, it looks as if Cowen has won.  He has achieved his goal of repeating his memes numerous times and showing that other academics make somewhat similar criticisms.  Basically, this is a variant of the tarbaby strategy from Uncle Remus.  Trick your opponent into a fight with a tarbaby.  The opponent may get in all the good licks and totally destroy the tarbaby, but afterwards is exhausted and coated with goo.  The rabbit that set up the tarbaby is untouched and laughing.
<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them.  Use these explicit workarounds. -->
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}}  -->
{{List|title=Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman school Tyler Cowen|links=true}}
{{Quotations|title=Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman school Tyler Cowen|quotes=true}}