5 ms·
Obligatory quote from the same author made in 1998: > The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’ — which states that the
by 21 8y ago
Obligatory quote from the same author made in 1998:
> The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’ — which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants — becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s
EDIT: Really? Downvoted for stating a true context fact?
- CPLX 8y agoI dunno. I think it's fair to say he had a point about people running out of things to say to each other. His main mistake seems to have been not to realize that people would carry on doing it anyways.
- 21 8y ago> I think it's fair to say he had a point about people running out of things to say to each other Reddit, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Whatsapp even HN disagree.
- arcbyte 8y agoI've always felt a little apprehensive about things Krugman has said, but I'm not an economist and he seems to be held in pretty high regard generally so I've tried to struggle to listen to his viewpoint. This quote pretty much seals the deal that I was right all along and he's not worth paying attention to.
- bittcto 8y agoHe’s not held in high regard by economicists or even economics. He has been proven wrong repeatedly. He’s held in high regard by socialists because he white washes the death and destruction their socialism causes. That’s his purpose. That and virtue signaling. Your instincts are right. Go to Mises.org for real economics.
- maneesh 8y agoErr...he won a nobel prize in economics
- tcbawo 8y agoThat's the problem with making bold predictions. You're sometimes wrong. He's also made some very prescient predictions. Another thing people pull out is his dire predictions on the eve of Trump's election. He was quick to point out his error (I think the next day, maybe). He does seem to admit when he's wrong and adapt his views.
- bittcto 8y ago5 years ago he claimed bitcoin was evil. He hadn’t adapted. He can’t adapt. He’s just a fraud.
- cwkoss 8y agoHe also previously wrote "Bitcoin is Evil" in 2013 https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil...
- bokonon12 8y agoProbably because the argument "but he was wrong about other stuff" doesn't invalidate this article at all and doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you disagree him on Bitcoin then state why
- kybernetikos 8y ago> Downvoted for stating a true context fact? You did not provide the context at all, and I'm surprised that you would imply you did. The context is that he said that as part of an article about why economists make incorrect predictions. In context, it was clearly (in my opinion) intended to be a provocative possibility, rather than taken as something the author thought would definitely happen.
- bittcto 8y agoHN leftists can’t abide any facts that put Krugman in a bad light. I pointed out he advocated a housing bubble I’m getting downvoted too. HN is a farm for socialist sheep and explicitly anti-intellectual.
- dragonwriter 8y agoKrugman is both an intellectual and neither a leftist nor a socialist (he's somewhere, economically, between centrist and center-right), so even if HN was a leftist camp of socialist anti-intellectuals, that wouldn't explain a fondness for Krugman.