What John Irving said about post-modernist authors applies to economists as well

[Mike 03]

It's easy to be obscure, arcane, and impossible to understand. The hard part of writing is being clear, communicative and meaningful.

Quibbles with Irving aside, he preferred a Cheever, Updike, Dickens, Fitzgerald or Hemingway to a Pynchon, Coover, Barth or Barthelme.

So I'm getting tired of listening to interviews with esteemed economists who leak criticism but are loath to produce a single, valuable, relevant or pertinent kernel of advice that is actually usable by President Obama, the Treasury or the Federal Reserve.

This is just like Hollywood. If you are a suit, you never lose your job so long as you say "no" to a screenplay. You only risk losing your job if you say "yes" to something that fails.

And to quote Wayne Gretzky who said it best:

"You lose 100% of the shots you don't take."

That seems to be the mentality of our economists now. They are blowing up like dirigibles with their criticism, but have not one iota of usable advice.

[Taverner]

1. Ahhh but the glory in Postmodernism is when you can be CLEAR and POSTMODERN

Case in point: Chuck Palahniuk.

He never minces words.

And he is Postmodernism to a tee.

[Mike 03]

2. Good point. I would love this thread to grow, because I need to be exposed to new authors. NT

[Taverner]

3. There have been a bunch of Postmodernists who have not been obscure and arcane

Palahniuk in lit

Ween in music

Hell, I would even go as far as saying Ralph Ellison was the FIRST Postmodernist, and his stuff was VERY clear

[ulysses]

4. but did they understand postmodernism?

[Taverner]

7. Does it matter?

Although I think they did

But in the true sense of Post Modernism, or Dadaism - why should it matter :P

[Stevepol]

5. Listen to Geithner, then to one of these: Krugman or Chomsky or Stiglitz.

Then tell me which of them is "obscure, arcane, and impossible to understand."

I find Krugman perfectly sensible and lucid. He says basically the same thing every time, gives perfectly reasonable suggestions, and he agrees with every other competent economist I've heard, all of whom I find quite lucid and specific in their suggestions. Chomsky isn't an economist but he's quite lucid and reasonable and his suggestions are similar to Krugman's.

Maybe it's just me.

[terisan]

6. The economists have become quite clear to me. The government hasn't. nt

[fishwax]

8. it's the "meaningful" part that's difficult

It's no more difficult to be clear than it is to be obscure, arcane, or impossible to understand. Being meaningful (and communicative) on the other hand ...

As for modernism vs postmodernism, "obscure, arcane, and impossible to understand" is hardly the exclusive domain of the postmodernists.