Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    “a discussion with the likes of Brad DeLong is not productive”

    “a discussion with the likes of Brad DeLong is not productive”

    That’s the title of a post by Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge about Economics Professor Brad DeLong, of U.Cal Berkeley, in which Bainbridge collects links about DeLong from a variety of academic bloggers who have had the misfortune of having to deal with DeLong.

    I really don’t know much about DeLong, except that everytime I read about him someone is pointing out what an offensive person he is.

    So I guess I should be flattered that DeLong has written a blog post entitled “Cornell University Has Some Explaining To Do: Why Oh Why Can’t We Have Better Academics?/William Jacobson Edition.”

    Prof. Bainbridge ended his post with this wish about Prof. DeLong:

    “With luck, this’ll be the last time his toxic style of intellectual thuggery and execrable personality will be mentioned in these pages.”

    Me too.  Except somehow, I doubt it.

    (By the way, other than the invective, the DeLong post consists mostly of regurgitating a piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates, which I refute here.)

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    William,

    The attached link provides some of the best writing about Brad DeLong on the internet. I highly recommend reading it. For a bonus read click through to the related articles on Krugman.

    http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/11/contradictions-in-life-of-fluffer.html

    Krugman and DeLong are the Batman and Robin of Keynesian economics. The pathetic duo.

    Correction to entry above:

    @Brad, I don't think you read my prior post carefully. My point was and is that Yglesias' characterization of Haley Barbour as having "affection" for the Citizens' Councils was not supported by the sentence Yglesias quoted, and that Yglesias made a leap from a factual statement by Barbour to an expression by Barbour of support for the Citizens' Council's segregationist policies in order to portray Barbour as racist. Ta-Nehisi Coates did not address that point, instead he simply reiterated that the Citizens' Council's were segregatist (never in dispute) and added in other factors not mentioned by Yglesias or me (e.g. that Barbour has a Confederate flag in his office) which he then used to claim I was not being honest. Apples and oranges. My post was about a specific statement by Barbour as characterized by Yglesias, and the Coates post was about other things. Coates' post was effective as seen in your reaction, but it was incorrect to the extent it was a criticism of me. Cheers.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend