A long time ago, Scott Sumner claimed he was not a “natural blogger”.
I’ll address the comments tomorrow, but I can see that some people don’t understand how blogs work. A blog post is not a dissertation. If I or any other blogger comments on a particular assertion made by someone else, we are under no obligation to drone on for 20 pages discussing every point in the paper. That’s what academics do, not bloggers.
I have other posts discussing other assertions by Saez that I disagree with. I even linked to one in this post. You are free to examine those other posts. Every other blogger, including those on the left who agree with Saez (like Krugman) often point out a particular argument in a paper that they disagree with. If you don’t like that style, you shouldn’t read blogs. So don’t come over here and tell me what his “real point is”. I can discuss any point I wish.
So what if Saez was interested in income distribution–I said I agreed that the tax system should redistribute income. Why should I discuss something I agree with?
And why do I keep ending sentences with prepositions?
And he makes good points in the post.