''Claudia Sahm is the Elizabeth Holmes of economics. Media is desperate for a woman macroeconomist. Doesn't matter what the actual qualifications are.''
Stigler's Law of Eponymy (of which I had never heard, grateful to you!) is going in my little container of treasures, alongside J.B.S Haldane's description of the steps of scientific advance:
1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
“We know this because Claudia Sahm angrily tweeted out an email she received from Dudley, in which he politely points her toward the same rule that he came up with 20 years prior, in a Goldman Sachs research report:”
------------
I’ve stopped reading paperback thrillers these days. I just look forward to Chris’ latest takedown.
And to think I shuddered, fifty years ago, when my friend Peggy told me I’d love studying economics.
Well, I was half-right. Takedowns in economics is what I’ve been waiting for, and I got ‘em now.
Academic plagiarism is an unending pursuit. And it's obvious to me that the loser "justifies" herself by exhibiting extreme anger toward the person that presented the concept the first time around. But anyone that lists Christine Romer and Janet (I'm not shoutin', I'm) Yellen as economics "heroes" (or did she call them "heroines") is stuck in Loserville, population 1.
How about we ALL do the RIGHT THING and call it what it should be called! It should be the ORIGINAL identification, naming and convention that the FIRST PERSON TO WRITE THE RULE DOWN and identifies as such IS THE RIGHT NAME TO APPLY. If it’s a bloody RULE OF ECONOMICS, it HAS NO IDEOLOGICALLY DETERMINED RULES OF APPLICATION. This is a BULLSHIT ARGUMENT.
I like when they put the definition in the parentheses after saying the rule because no one will ever remember the rule then after you read the definition its like "well, that's dumb"
Dudley should say that HIS rule CAN be used at the state level. You use 1/3 of a point at the state level for the Dudley rule, and 1/2 percent at the national level for the SAHM rule. It's a troll but would maybe actually work, since SAHM is disavowing usage at the state level.
Stigler's Law of Eponymy (of which I had never heard, grateful to you!) is going in my little container of treasures, alongside J.B.S Haldane's description of the steps of scientific advance:
1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so."
Money well spent in this substack!
Yet another example that being left or "woke" is a synonym for mental illness. Dudley must have the patience and kindness of a saint.
Clearly we should apply the Dudley rule to state statistics and reserve the Sahm rule for national ones
Another reason to discard your cell phone and all the apps. Salm seems like a petty young woman.
" We are going to Hell in a Handbasket ". Author anyone?
“We know this because Claudia Sahm angrily tweeted out an email she received from Dudley, in which he politely points her toward the same rule that he came up with 20 years prior, in a Goldman Sachs research report:”
------------
I’ve stopped reading paperback thrillers these days. I just look forward to Chris’ latest takedown.
And to think I shuddered, fifty years ago, when my friend Peggy told me I’d love studying economics.
Well, I was half-right. Takedowns in economics is what I’ve been waiting for, and I got ‘em now.
Academic plagiarism is an unending pursuit. And it's obvious to me that the loser "justifies" herself by exhibiting extreme anger toward the person that presented the concept the first time around. But anyone that lists Christine Romer and Janet (I'm not shoutin', I'm) Yellen as economics "heroes" (or did she call them "heroines") is stuck in Loserville, population 1.
How about we ALL do the RIGHT THING and call it what it should be called! It should be the ORIGINAL identification, naming and convention that the FIRST PERSON TO WRITE THE RULE DOWN and identifies as such IS THE RIGHT NAME TO APPLY. If it’s a bloody RULE OF ECONOMICS, it HAS NO IDEOLOGICALLY DETERMINED RULES OF APPLICATION. This is a BULLSHIT ARGUMENT.
why include Sahm's name at all?
Up with Dudleys
I like when they put the definition in the parentheses after saying the rule because no one will ever remember the rule then after you read the definition its like "well, that's dumb"
Dudley should say that HIS rule CAN be used at the state level. You use 1/3 of a point at the state level for the Dudley rule, and 1/2 percent at the national level for the SAHM rule. It's a troll but would maybe actually work, since SAHM is disavowing usage at the state level.