David Ndii has a brilliantly crafted essay in the Saturday Nation of January 18, 2013. But I suspect that those who have taken leave of objectivity, and choose to "see a thief behind every bush" - meaning reading mischief whenever somebody they do not like makes an argument, however persuasive - will go shrill that the case that he makes is simple and therefore unable to address serious economic challenges that we face.
I argue that if you find Ndii's essay, and in particular the 'model', to be simple then you should be relieved that it underpins serious discourse. Simple is different from simplistic, and it is those ideas in the latter category that are buttressed by the laughable believe that though issues of policy and discourse should be solemnly addressed with big words and elegant models and graphs.
In any case, trying to appear serious by making discussions complicated is an attempt to negate the logic behind the submission that "a map is not a territory".
If you have no idea how simple though experiments can make powerful arguments, then you need to read economist Paul Krugman's "The Accidental Theorist" commentary in Slate Magazine that was subsequently the flagship essay in an acclaimed book.
No comments:
Post a Comment