3 ms·

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I only mentioned Krugman because he's often vilified by the same people who get wound up in economics threads. People o

by weeksie 16y ago

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I only mentioned Krugman because he's often vilified by the same people who get wound up in economics threads. People on the Keynes side of the equation also get wound up over mentions of Chicago School stuff. That said, it is weird that you're saying Krugman is some sort of government designated expert when almost every column he writes is critical of the economic policies being made in Washington. He disagreed with the size of the stimulus (he wanted it to be larger), he thinks the Fed has its head in the sand, etc. . . . And as far as Paul Krugman being an expert, I find it very strange that you would disagree with that. You might disagree with his policy positions but he is most definitely an expert in the field. Notice I never made any judgements about policy itself. My remark was that people who are not qualified in economics dismiss people who are right out of hand: Krugman is just a good example because he really seems to rile up libertarians and Austrians. Personally my favourite opposing viewpoints to Krugman are made by Tyler Cowan, I like to read them both. Anyway, it's not my objective to get into a policy discussion, I was interested more in the meta-observation which you so handily provided reinforcement for.

lzw 16y ago
Always good to see a troll admit they were trolling.
- weeksie 16y ago
  Again, I don't understand the hostility. I wasn't in fact trolling, I was trying to get into a discussion about why economics gets people so riled up and then you came along and reinforced the point I was making without actually adding to the discussion. The thing is that I find myself charged up over the topic as well, which makes me wonder why exactly it's such a hotpoint issue, and why it makes people (myself included) feel like they are qualified in a field in which they are clearly not. I mean that in the sense that I (nor, likely you) have any formal economics education beyond reading columns, articles, and perhaps attending econ 101 many years ago.
  - lzw 16y ago
    Think about this- you define "qualified" as having "formal economics education" and yet you feel that you are qualified to say who is not qualified, without knowing whether they have the qualifications you just specified. You presume that I, and others, are not qualified. How would you know? Edit to ad: This is not meant as a characterization of you, or an attack, etc. It is food for thought. You think that I was not "adding to the discussion" so, I've attempted to construct as neutral of a point as possible.
    - weeksie 16y ago
      Well, are you qualified? How does your economics education differ from my guess? Was my assumption correct? Again, back to my original point, it's often people who explicitly aren't qualified who most vehemently argue the topic, particularly by dismissing out of hand various experts as stooges or imbeciles. I think there's something about the seeming simplicity of the topic that appeals to programmers especially. We tend to be smarter than average and have mastered a field that involves a large amount of self-study. The inner narrative is then "I'm an expert" and somehow that really kicks in when we start talking about economics.
hga 16y ago
Economics, especially macroeconomics, is a little too big to say which such certainty that "... he is most definitely an expert in the field." We're talking about the problem of recovering from a leverage based bubble, an area where Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke (Chairman of The Fed) is an expert. If you look at what Wikipedia cites for Krugman's areas of specialty, they will touch on some of the issues of this but they don't seem to be directly related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman
- weeksie 16y ago
  Expert; meaning he's studied macro economics, holds a PHD, teaches at Princeton, and is widely regarded as such, I'm aware his specialty is currency crises but it's not exactly like that's the only thing he knows. That doesn't mean he's right (any or) all the time but it does mean that his opinions, even when wrong usually have a strong basis in established research. I'm using it in the same way that I'd say Bernanke, Paulson, Tyler Cowan, Greg Mankiw, etc. . . are experts.

by weeksie 16y ago

lzw 16y ago

Always good to see a troll admit they were trolling.

weeksie 16y ago
Again, I don't understand the hostility. I wasn't in fact trolling, I was trying to get into a discussion about why economics gets people so riled up and then you came along and reinforced the point I was making without actually adding to the discussion. The thing is that I find myself charged up over the topic as well, which makes me wonder why exactly it's such a hotpoint issue, and why it makes people (myself included) feel like they are qualified in a field in which they are clearly not. I mean that in the sense that I (nor, likely you) have any formal economics education beyond reading columns, articles, and perhaps attending econ 101 many years ago.
- lzw 16y ago
  Think about this- you define "qualified" as having "formal economics education" and yet you feel that you are qualified to say who is not qualified, without knowing whether they have the qualifications you just specified. You presume that I, and others, are not qualified. How would you know? Edit to ad: This is not meant as a characterization of you, or an attack, etc. It is food for thought. You think that I was not "adding to the discussion" so, I've attempted to construct as neutral of a point as possible.
  - weeksie 16y ago
    Well, are you qualified? How does your economics education differ from my guess? Was my assumption correct? Again, back to my original point, it's often people who explicitly aren't qualified who most vehemently argue the topic, particularly by dismissing out of hand various experts as stooges or imbeciles. I think there's something about the seeming simplicity of the topic that appeals to programmers especially. We tend to be smarter than average and have mastered a field that involves a large amount of self-study. The inner narrative is then "I'm an expert" and somehow that really kicks in when we start talking about economics.

hga 16y ago

Economics, especially macroeconomics, is a little too big to say which such certainty that "... he is most definitely an expert in the field." We're talking about the problem of recovering from a leverage based bubble, an area where Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke (Chairman of The Fed) is an expert. If you look at what Wikipedia cites for Krugman's areas of specialty, they will touch on some of the issues of this but they don't seem to be directly related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

weeksie 16y ago
Expert; meaning he's studied macro economics, holds a PHD, teaches at Princeton, and is widely regarded as such, I'm aware his specialty is currency crises but it's not exactly like that's the only thing he knows. That doesn't mean he's right (any or) all the time but it does mean that his opinions, even when wrong usually have a strong basis in established research. I'm using it in the same way that I'd say Bernanke, Paulson, Tyler Cowan, Greg Mankiw, etc. . . are experts.