I know that in the spirit of playing the ball and not the man you have to add caveats to these sorts of pieces about their subject being a good guy etc., but in the case of Noah he has exhibited a track record of intellectual dishonesty across many, many different topics that is truly startling. At some point such a consistent record of bad faith argumentation should make it not so controversial for him to be labelled a bad actor. He is of course free to write whatever he likes but anyone remotely close to the levers of power should be warned away from listening to him.
We can argue whether Noah consistently fields bad takes that enable and give permission structures for the abuses of silicon valley and other wealthy interests out of “ignorance or intentional malice.”
But the collective effect of his contributions are the same, regardless of his motivations.
To this outside observer he seems like an illustration of the old Upton Sinclair quote about it “being difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it.”
I suspect in coming years we will learn where Noah’s bread is getting its extra butter and subs, and it will all make more “sense,” even as his takes continue to stubbornly defy real world logic.
There is no one writing on these topics today who has a greater disparity between the size of their audience and the quality of their analysis than Noah Smith.
My first experience with him was 6 years ago, back when he was purporting to be a professional "China Watcher" (he does not know any Chinese, does not understand Chinese culture) and he repeatedly humiliated himself with basic misunderstandings. His approach has always been to double down or ignore obvious errors and contradictions. I do not know why people read him. He is not a good writer, he is not funny, he is not insightful.
My assessment is a little more nuanced: sometimes he makes sense, and sometimes he makes arguments that are ridiculous on their face. The latter is true often enough that I also mostly don't bother reading him. As with China, He also sometimes comments on Japan, where he apparently has spent some time, but the understanding of Japan he demonstrates is also usually superficial and flawed.
I've also noticed that his substack is one of the few that limits comments to subscribers only, and I wonder why.
I think your differences with Noah come down to differences between graduate education in economics (in the narrow post-war neoclassical model), versus graduate education in political economy and graduate education in just about any other social science other than economics or psychology. Noah is further hampered by having only done physics as an undergrad.
In effect, he has only studied a certain conception of wealth (and progress defined through aggregate national productivity), and never really studied power. As you point out in the neoclassical model competition has nullified power inequities, and their is no endogenous concept of power. At best power is a an exogenous exception, studied only through the lens of market failure. Equally they really only study a very abstract model of one social institution, markets, and never really studied any other one, unless it can be understood in terms of rational choice theory.
In that sense, it is not a personal failing on Noah's part, just a failing of the incredibly narrow and unrealistic models of "society" dominant in econ.
While ideas are important, a crucial step is the conversion of ideas into property because without property you can’t seek rents. The wealthy have overwhelming access to the levers of government that handle that conversion. Just look at the continued extension of copyright to protect Disney and others.
"There's a Club and you aint in it". This is the essense of Acemoglu and Johnson's argument, and they're not wrong. This is a frontal assault on the Market and efficiency as its supreme value so I can see why some economists would have a problem with that. From the essay the ideas of power vs influence seem to be used interchageably on both sides which I think hopelessly confuses the argument. I imagine power as dictating an outcome rather than influencing it. But influence is far more valuable in manufacturing consenus for an outcome, which is desirable if you're the one making all the money.
Thank you for sparing me the drudgery of reading Noah's review. I found both his review and your critique in my inbox at the same time. I don't always disagree with Noah, but his sycophancy, especially of Mu卐kRat - as exemplified by your opening image - but also the other billionaire oligarchs, quite frankly makes me sick.
Ideas at the right time by the right folks. Well....
My sense is that ideas are a product of timing, and there could have been many individuals that thunk it! for example, crudely speaking, the idea of traveling to the moon or exploiting near-space sure ain't new. But its fruition happens when the circumstances allow exploitation; i.e., timing.
When that happens a lot of similar "ideas" will occur to many people. At that point success accrues to the person with the means, the work ethic, charisma, luck, force or any combination.
I can remember many examples of "co-incident" discovery in math/science that are examples; calculus, natural selection, dna helix structure. And the story of who what when have the same blend - in differing amounts- of intrigue, coincidence, luck, hard work, skullduggery, etc.
I know that in the spirit of playing the ball and not the man you have to add caveats to these sorts of pieces about their subject being a good guy etc., but in the case of Noah he has exhibited a track record of intellectual dishonesty across many, many different topics that is truly startling. At some point such a consistent record of bad faith argumentation should make it not so controversial for him to be labelled a bad actor. He is of course free to write whatever he likes but anyone remotely close to the levers of power should be warned away from listening to him.
I agree Dolores.
We can argue whether Noah consistently fields bad takes that enable and give permission structures for the abuses of silicon valley and other wealthy interests out of “ignorance or intentional malice.”
But the collective effect of his contributions are the same, regardless of his motivations.
To this outside observer he seems like an illustration of the old Upton Sinclair quote about it “being difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon not understanding it.”
I suspect in coming years we will learn where Noah’s bread is getting its extra butter and subs, and it will all make more “sense,” even as his takes continue to stubbornly defy real world logic.
There is no one writing on these topics today who has a greater disparity between the size of their audience and the quality of their analysis than Noah Smith.
My first experience with him was 6 years ago, back when he was purporting to be a professional "China Watcher" (he does not know any Chinese, does not understand Chinese culture) and he repeatedly humiliated himself with basic misunderstandings. His approach has always been to double down or ignore obvious errors and contradictions. I do not know why people read him. He is not a good writer, he is not funny, he is not insightful.
My assessment is a little more nuanced: sometimes he makes sense, and sometimes he makes arguments that are ridiculous on their face. The latter is true often enough that I also mostly don't bother reading him. As with China, He also sometimes comments on Japan, where he apparently has spent some time, but the understanding of Japan he demonstrates is also usually superficial and flawed.
I've also noticed that his substack is one of the few that limits comments to subscribers only, and I wonder why.
What’s more nuanced about this?
I think you’re being too kind to Noah by a fair margin. He doesn’t deserve it at this point.
I also think it’s ironic that Noah plays an active role in how big tech wields power. He’s just a courtier, with all that entails.
Noah Smith, unintentionally I believe, comes across as an odious individual online. I aim to avoid his writing at all costs.
I think your differences with Noah come down to differences between graduate education in economics (in the narrow post-war neoclassical model), versus graduate education in political economy and graduate education in just about any other social science other than economics or psychology. Noah is further hampered by having only done physics as an undergrad.
In effect, he has only studied a certain conception of wealth (and progress defined through aggregate national productivity), and never really studied power. As you point out in the neoclassical model competition has nullified power inequities, and their is no endogenous concept of power. At best power is a an exogenous exception, studied only through the lens of market failure. Equally they really only study a very abstract model of one social institution, markets, and never really studied any other one, unless it can be understood in terms of rational choice theory.
In that sense, it is not a personal failing on Noah's part, just a failing of the incredibly narrow and unrealistic models of "society" dominant in econ.
While ideas are important, a crucial step is the conversion of ideas into property because without property you can’t seek rents. The wealthy have overwhelming access to the levers of government that handle that conversion. Just look at the continued extension of copyright to protect Disney and others.
"There's a Club and you aint in it". This is the essense of Acemoglu and Johnson's argument, and they're not wrong. This is a frontal assault on the Market and efficiency as its supreme value so I can see why some economists would have a problem with that. From the essay the ideas of power vs influence seem to be used interchageably on both sides which I think hopelessly confuses the argument. I imagine power as dictating an outcome rather than influencing it. But influence is far more valuable in manufacturing consenus for an outcome, which is desirable if you're the one making all the money.
They're really two magnitudes of the same thing. Power occurs when influence reaches 100%.
Thank you for sparing me the drudgery of reading Noah's review. I found both his review and your critique in my inbox at the same time. I don't always disagree with Noah, but his sycophancy, especially of Mu卐kRat - as exemplified by your opening image - but also the other billionaire oligarchs, quite frankly makes me sick.
the “Do Not Like” link is broken, unfortunately. Do you have an archived version?
Link is now fixed - thanks.
Ideas at the right time by the right folks. Well....
My sense is that ideas are a product of timing, and there could have been many individuals that thunk it! for example, crudely speaking, the idea of traveling to the moon or exploiting near-space sure ain't new. But its fruition happens when the circumstances allow exploitation; i.e., timing.
When that happens a lot of similar "ideas" will occur to many people. At that point success accrues to the person with the means, the work ethic, charisma, luck, force or any combination.
I can remember many examples of "co-incident" discovery in math/science that are examples; calculus, natural selection, dna helix structure. And the story of who what when have the same blend - in differing amounts- of intrigue, coincidence, luck, hard work, skullduggery, etc.
The circular firing squad forms up.