3 ms·

Sadly, this didn't sound very intelligent to me. And I can't seem to understand what significant things he did.

cousin_it 18y ago
All right, I read up a bit. Downmodders, I fucking dare you, read this piece by Krugman http://www.slate.com/id/9593 http://www.slate.com/id/9593 and tell me again that he isn't a quack.
- rms 18y ago
  http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/pundits-as-mole.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/pundits-as-mole.html
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    I read that link four times. Are you saying that Krugman was a spy who actually published and worked his way up the right side of the political spectrum in order to make a stand for his true left-leaning views? Or the other way around? I found the "Pundits as Moles" post murky. I'm not so sure it helps in overcoming bias as much as finding excuses for behavior we don't like. Pundits could be moles, they could just sway with the partisan wind. Or they could just be businesspeople looking at their daily ratings. A plug-and-play system for determining motivations is not something that will help you overcome bias.
    - rms 18y ago
      I wasn't saying that Krugman was a spy for one side left or right -- he worked his way up the academic spectrum of quantitative economics, in fact, all the way to the very top. Now he gets to write about politics and literary economics using the authority earned from his academic career. His current motivation is getting Barack Obama elected and generally advocating higher taxes and more government services. I'm not reading into that "Pundits as Moles" post overly much -- I just thought it funny that it seemed to apply to Paul Krugman.
  - cousin_it 18y ago
    Worse. The article I linked to wasn't even about politics - it was about the economy. Reading it was like hearing a Fields Medal winner publicly explain that 1.999... does not equal 2. When a guy who advocates printing money and lending it, gets the Nobel Prize in economics... you know something's wrong.
    - rms 18y ago
      What's wrong with printing money and lending it? Isn't increasing the money supply standard policy in a recession? Certainly the US government is doing that right now. It will help the recession at the cost of inflation. Krugman is a liberal economist. I am guessing that you are more in favor conservative economics. I believe that both conservative and liberal economics work perfectly well. It's a matter of convincing the people participating in the financial system that the theory in place or the one to be adapted is the best one. It all comes down to faith. If you have enough faith, liberal economics probably works better. Conservative economics doesn't require nearly enough faith to work.
      - cousin_it 18y ago
        > Krugman is a liberal economist. Term hijacking alert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism I guess you mean Keynesian.
        deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]

All right, I read up a bit. Downmodders, I fucking dare you, read this piece by Krugman http://www.slate.com/id/9593 http://www.slate.com/id/9593 and tell me again that he isn't a quack.

rms 18y ago
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/pundits-as-mole.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/pundits-as-mole.html
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  I read that link four times. Are you saying that Krugman was a spy who actually published and worked his way up the right side of the political spectrum in order to make a stand for his true left-leaning views? Or the other way around? I found the "Pundits as Moles" post murky. I'm not so sure it helps in overcoming bias as much as finding excuses for behavior we don't like. Pundits could be moles, they could just sway with the partisan wind. Or they could just be businesspeople looking at their daily ratings. A plug-and-play system for determining motivations is not something that will help you overcome bias.
  - rms 18y ago
    I wasn't saying that Krugman was a spy for one side left or right -- he worked his way up the academic spectrum of quantitative economics, in fact, all the way to the very top. Now he gets to write about politics and literary economics using the authority earned from his academic career. His current motivation is getting Barack Obama elected and generally advocating higher taxes and more government services. I'm not reading into that "Pundits as Moles" post overly much -- I just thought it funny that it seemed to apply to Paul Krugman.
- cousin_it 18y ago
  Worse. The article I linked to wasn't even about politics - it was about the economy. Reading it was like hearing a Fields Medal winner publicly explain that 1.999... does not equal 2. When a guy who advocates printing money and lending it, gets the Nobel Prize in economics... you know something's wrong.
  - rms 18y ago
    What's wrong with printing money and lending it? Isn't increasing the money supply standard policy in a recession? Certainly the US government is doing that right now. It will help the recession at the cost of inflation. Krugman is a liberal economist. I am guessing that you are more in favor conservative economics. I believe that both conservative and liberal economics work perfectly well. It's a matter of convincing the people participating in the financial system that the theory in place or the one to be adapted is the best one. It all comes down to faith. If you have enough faith, liberal economics probably works better. Conservative economics doesn't require nearly enough faith to work.
    - cousin_it 18y ago
      > Krugman is a liberal economist. Term hijacking alert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism I guess you mean Keynesian.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]