5 ms·

Hopefully this will finally show that Paul Krugman is a hack. At this point do the exact opposite of everything he says. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opi

• boredumb 5y ago
  "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." He's shown himself to be a hack for decades.
  • asah 5y ago
    The backstory gets even worse for Krugman, as he pathetically tried to respond to this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-effect-economy/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-eff...
  • huskyperv 5y ago
    But he's right? Look at labor productivity since the 90s and let me know if you see a significant increase
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• thowaway1238431 5y ago
  krugman best described as hair pulling wildman
• asah 5y ago
  2c: 1. yes, inflation has spiked first due to stimulus and now to supply chain disruption, also triggered by the pandemic changing consumption patterns faster than suppliers could adapt. These will hopefully subside if COVID doesn't get worse e.g. vaccines/therapies stay ahead of the inevitable new variants. 2. yes, "transitory" is meaningless if it continues long enough. Specifically, the scary part about inflation is when market participants raise prices expecting future inflation, crushing consumers who can't capture higher wages at the same pace. IMHO we're not quite there yet, and prices are tumbling when supply-demand has returned to equilibrium, e.g. lumber. 3. anybody who pontificates as much as Krugman is bound to make lots of mistakes. IMHO the issue is with the publisher's need to create exciting headlines, i.e. that's on us for listening to newspaper columnists (I've largely stopped). Hit rates go up when you can choose your battles and sit on your hands the rest of the time. Less excusable to me are the guys who can sit on their hands but still put their feet in their mouths, e.g. Dimon, Buffett, etc. One of these days, the masses will wake up and realize that these old emperors aren't wearing clothes. (e.g. look at Buffett's 10 year return...) kind thoughts welcome.
  • ur-whale 5y ago
    > anybody who pontificates as much as Krugman is bound to make lots of mistakes Krugman does not "pontificate". Krugman has an agenda, which he tries his effing best to implement through his notoriety. He is measurably a complete hack : his prediction track record is worse than flipping a coin, and only time will tell the amount of long term damage politician listening to his delusions will inflict to the country.
    • boringg 5y ago
      What is the agenda?
      • thowaway1122337 5y ago
        keeping folks heads buried in the sand
      • ur-whale 5y ago
        > What is the agenda? Krugman is a socialist first and a Keynesian second. His goal is basically a nanny state, the prelude to full-blown socialism and massive loss of individual freedoms. And we're unfortunately almost there.
        • boringg 5y ago
          We are not even close to that my friend. How does this have any relation to a "Nanny" state, and which individual freedoms are you worried about?
        • dragonwriter 5y ago
          > Krugman is a socialist first and a Keynesian second. Yeah, no. Krugman might be a socialist by the broadest conceivable definition, but only because by that definition Keynesianism can itself be seen as a bourgeois socialism.
      • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Well, his column is titled "The Conscience of a Liberal". That's how he identifies himself - as a liberal. Not as an economist, as a liberal. (He's liberal in the pre-woke sense - government should spend more to fix everything.)
• misiti3780 5y ago
  Nothing will change. He has been a charlatan for most of his career, writing article after article that turns out to be complete wrong, yet he still has a job (and a following?)
• boringg 5y ago
  How does this have baring on this article? Are you just out to try and take down Krugman? Are you targeting Krugman because he works at NYT? Feels like a bit of a hit from the right/libertarian wing here. I will posit that almost every individual who makes future predictions on anything related to humanity is going to make some serious mistakes. That and our economy is beyond the capability for any people (or machines) on our planet to fully understand all the impacts maybe only the large flows. It's highly dynamic made up of many intelligent (and unintelligent) actors and national groups with sophisticated needs/wants. Let's not try and take down economists for trying to help understand the economy when they clearly do understand it at a greater level then most people. I also don't necessarily just put all my trust at the feet of any individual who says they know the future - thats a huge red flag.
  • csdvrx 5y ago
    From a Bayesian perspective, someone who's been wrong again and again and again may eventually be right (like a broken clock being right once per day) but I'd say it's unlikely. You may consider that an ad-honimem attack, I see that as providing vital contextual information to help readers update their priors.
    • boringg 5y ago
      It is an ad-hominem attack and Krugman isn't even mentioned in the article. Clearly OP has an agenda and it is to target Krugman (and I see other people jumping on board). Disappointing thats all.
• dmix 5y ago
  This is what happens when you get ideologically and publicly tied to a certain talking point that you argue it into the extreme.