Here is how Romer reacts to a perfectly reasonable point in response to his latest blog post. In a community that values truth and intellectual integrity, he would immediately lose all credibility after that, but instead many economists are *praising* him for it. 
The saddest thing about this is not even what it reveals about the state of economics, which is far from the worst field in that respect, it's how willing Romer and so many others are to debase themselves by jettisoning truth and intellectual honesty for ideological reasons.
Indeed, this isn't just intellectual corruption, it's *moral* corruption. Romer knows perfectly well that it's a good point, but he is a coward and a fraud, so he prefers to side-step the issue and reply with abuse to flatter the prevailing opinion among his peers.
Plato's view that people who do evil things are harming themselves just as much as others is often mocked, but this is the sort of things that make me think it still has a grain of truth, because I have to believe that deep down Romer knows that he is a piece of shit.
I see academics engage in that kind of behavior on a regular basis and I honestly don't know how they can look at themselves in a mirror after that. Openly denying something you know to be true seems to be one of the worse forms of self-debasement I can imagine. It's very sad.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
