Point:
With my now famous never reason from a price change, I’ve revolutionized the field of epistemology.
Counterpoint:
Oh, come on, you didn’t even invent the phrase:
Point:
Associated with Friedman, but who coined the term?
As Tyler keeps saying, you need to ask follow-up questions to get to the truth.
Counterpoint:
Yes, but the idea is more important than the phrase, and you certainly didn’t invent the idea. The concept is widely understood by all competent economists.
Point:
Then why do so many economists assume that monetary policy was accommodative in 2008, when it was actually quite restrictive?
Counterpoint:
That’s what you say, but even your most distinguished supporter doesn’t buy that argument. Blogging doesn’t cut it; you need to publish in top journals.
Point:
This paper from 1989 was in the Journal of Political Economy, and is almost entirely an application of NRFPC. If everyone already knows this stuff, why was the paper treated as a significant new insight?
Counterpoint:
Even if you made a few contributions in the NRFPC area, that hardly counts as a major innovation in epistemology. That’s just one example; it would need to apply to a wide range of areas.
Point:
But I’ve also argued never reason from an interest rate change, and never reason from an exchange rate change and never reason from a wage change.
Counterpoint:
Interest rates, wages and exchange rates are prices.
Point:
I’ve argued never reason from a quantity change.
Counterpoint:
But that’s still a part of the broader identification problem. All those maxims are fundamentally about the need to avoid misinterpreting the supply and demand model.
Point:
What about never reason from an accounting identity?
Counterpoint:
Never reason from a tweet. Seriously, no competent economist would argue that you could reason from an accounting identity.
Point:
Peter Navarro has a PhD in economics from Harvard, and he used the national income identity to argue for high tariffs on imports. All signs point to Trump sharing Navarro’s view that imports reduce GDP. They just enacted one of the most consequential policy changes in recent memory, all based on the fallacy of reasoning from an accounting identity. That suggests it remains a major problem.
Even worse, textbooks often resort to reasoning from the GDP identity when they explain the Keynesian model.
Counterpoint:
OK, answer the following question: How is never reason from an X . . . any more impressive than other lame maxims like correlation doesn’t prove causation?
Point:
Correct, it is not more impressive. But correlation doesn’t prove causation is not a lame maxim, it’s really, really important insight. Think of these two maxims as follows:
If X and Y are correlated, don’t automatically assume that one caused the other.
Be careful assuming that a change in X will lead to a predictable change in Y.
In the first case, people wrongly infer causation from an observed correlation. In the second case, people wrongly predict correlation based on the movement of one of the two variables.
Counterpoint:
Let’s say I give you credit for the “Never reason from a . . .” phrase. It’s merely a bunch of words; what matters is the underlying model, and you haven’t made a name for yourself in the field of economics.
Point:
Deirdre McCloskey says that it’s not good enough to come up with boring technical models; you need persuasive arguments to capture people’s attention. Catchy rhetoric is not merely a bunch of words; it’s how we persuade our colleagues of new ideas.
Counterpoint:
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? If your idea actually had been influential, ChatGPT would not be citing Milton Friedman as the inventor of the “never reason from a . . . “ meme.
Face it, you lost. You’ve always been a nobody, and always will be.
Point:
When my commenters troll me in that fashion, I feel like I’ve won. Why would they feel a need to attack me so viciously if I really were a nobody?
Counterpoint:
But I’m not a commenter; I’m a figment of your imagination, like that Ron Vara guy created by Peter Navarro. Don’t you think it’s kind of pathetic to invent a debate with an imaginary person?
Point:
Pathetic? One more insult and I’ll start writing dialogue that makes you look really bad; I’ll humiliate you in front of my readers.
"Never reason from personal anecdotes" is in my head at least 5 times a day watching Fox and MSNBC.
I would like a list of even more things to never reason from. Perhaps "Never reason from the plot of a work of fiction."