3 ms·

Give it up dude, nobody cares that you disagree with his politics. He would not have been awarded the prize if his work wasn't important regardless of his poli

by olefoo 18y ago

Give it up dude, nobody cares that you disagree with his politics. He would not have been awarded the prize if his work wasn't important regardless of his politics.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
It's not that nobody cares, it's that people are actively pissed off that I questioned the selection. Sorry, I'm not giving up being able to make a simple observation the group may disagree with. I'm sick of the herd mentality, and you guys can vote me into the gutter and it's not going to stop me. I could care less about Krugman.
- davidw 18y ago
  Another thing for you to keep in mind: the same group handed out prizes at some point to Hayek and Friedman.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    I've been reading around some. As I was the first to admit, I am ignorant. FWIW, glowing reviews are running about 70-30 with critical reviews of their award. There's a nice glowing review over at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/13/krugman-economics-nobel-oped-cx_as_1013subramanian.html http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/13/krugman-economics-...) Even then, the author ends with: "But these days, even while disavowing overtly protectionist positions, Krugman's columns do sometimes have a protectionist tenor. Not only purists, but developing country policymakers, worry that Krugman is part of the shifting intellectual climate in the United States that has become ambivalent about keeping markets for goods and services open. Now that he also has the imprimatur of the Nobel Committee, Paul Krugman has a special responsibility to retain his cosmopolitan and internationalist credentials. At this time of financial crisis, Krugman should be reminding us that shutting down markets for trade helped transform the depression of the 1930s into the Great Depression." I'm open to discourse, just not impressed with the downmodding as a result of going against the herd over here. I've found economics a subject of some interest, but even with as much math as it takes, my _opinion_ is that it is far from a hard science like physics. So pointing out that politics and people's biases are involved shouldn't be such a freaking big deal, in my opinion. And that goes with Hayek, Friedman, and Krugman. My comment holds for all of them. That's the weird part about it.
    - davidw 18y ago
      > I'm open to discourse, just not impressed with the downmodding as a result of going against the herd over here. That sort of thing pretty much invariably happens with economics or politics on sites like this, whatever persuasion the 'herd' happens to be. Which is why I think discussion of said topics should be ruthlessly hunted down and driven away.
      - olefoo 18y ago
        And it's good to keep in mind that a downmod can mean anything from "I disagree with this." to "This whole line of discussion pro or con is stupid.".
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Can I point out again how stupid single-arrow voting is?
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Can I remind you that from where I sit, the title of the original post translated into something like "Famous left-leaning columnist awarded prize by committee slammed as being too political lately"? So I was hunting the articles down and driving them away. The problem is that it didn't look like that for the majority. If you don't want to see dissent and downmod it, then how can minority opinions ever sway the majority that they are wrong? Sure, in this case I'm probably smoking crack, but there's something really bad here.
        davidw 18y ago
        To me it looked like you were more irritated with his political orientation rather than the fact that the article was here at all. I don't want to see Krugman, or mises.org or Cato or Denis Kucinich or Nader or Brad DeLong, Tyler Cowen, or any of them here, even though I happen to enjoy reading some of the above some of the time (I'm not saying who), and in the right forum (over a bottle of good wine) would enjoy discussing them a great deal.

by olefoo 18y ago

Give it up dude, nobody cares that you disagree with his politics. He would not have been awarded the prize if his work wasn't important regardless of his politics.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

It's not that nobody cares, it's that people are actively pissed off that I questioned the selection. Sorry, I'm not giving up being able to make a simple observation the group may disagree with. I'm sick of the herd mentality, and you guys can vote me into the gutter and it's not going to stop me. I could care less about Krugman.

davidw 18y ago
Another thing for you to keep in mind: the same group handed out prizes at some point to Hayek and Friedman.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  I've been reading around some. As I was the first to admit, I am ignorant. FWIW, glowing reviews are running about 70-30 with critical reviews of their award. There's a nice glowing review over at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/13/krugman-economics-nobel-oped-cx_as_1013subramanian.html http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/13/krugman-economics-...) Even then, the author ends with: "But these days, even while disavowing overtly protectionist positions, Krugman's columns do sometimes have a protectionist tenor. Not only purists, but developing country policymakers, worry that Krugman is part of the shifting intellectual climate in the United States that has become ambivalent about keeping markets for goods and services open. Now that he also has the imprimatur of the Nobel Committee, Paul Krugman has a special responsibility to retain his cosmopolitan and internationalist credentials. At this time of financial crisis, Krugman should be reminding us that shutting down markets for trade helped transform the depression of the 1930s into the Great Depression." I'm open to discourse, just not impressed with the downmodding as a result of going against the herd over here. I've found economics a subject of some interest, but even with as much math as it takes, my _opinion_ is that it is far from a hard science like physics. So pointing out that politics and people's biases are involved shouldn't be such a freaking big deal, in my opinion. And that goes with Hayek, Friedman, and Krugman. My comment holds for all of them. That's the weird part about it.
  - davidw 18y ago
    > I'm open to discourse, just not impressed with the downmodding as a result of going against the herd over here. That sort of thing pretty much invariably happens with economics or politics on sites like this, whatever persuasion the 'herd' happens to be. Which is why I think discussion of said topics should be ruthlessly hunted down and driven away.
    - olefoo 18y ago
      And it's good to keep in mind that a downmod can mean anything from "I disagree with this." to "This whole line of discussion pro or con is stupid.".
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Can I point out again how stupid single-arrow voting is?
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Can I remind you that from where I sit, the title of the original post translated into something like "Famous left-leaning columnist awarded prize by committee slammed as being too political lately"? So I was hunting the articles down and driving them away. The problem is that it didn't look like that for the majority. If you don't want to see dissent and downmod it, then how can minority opinions ever sway the majority that they are wrong? Sure, in this case I'm probably smoking crack, but there's something really bad here.
      - davidw 18y ago
        To me it looked like you were more irritated with his political orientation rather than the fact that the article was here at all. I don't want to see Krugman, or mises.org or Cato or Denis Kucinich or Nader or Brad DeLong, Tyler Cowen, or any of them here, even though I happen to enjoy reading some of the above some of the time (I'm not saying who), and in the right forum (over a bottle of good wine) would enjoy discussing them a great deal.