4 ms·

Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation This is the kind of inflammatory rep

Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation This is the kind of inflammatory reporting that creates divisiveness rather than informing people. I don't doubt that Dow hired Stratfor. But isn't that exactly what a responsible corporation ought to do? Knowing that they've got some potential exposure to huge legal losses, they owe it to their stockholders (and are probably required by the SEC) to keep an eye open for the degree and size of that risk. There is no reason to read that as anything more than responsible, prudent business. We can see that the "reporter" is prone to think of this in one way, but we might just as well assume that they're keeping tabs on things in order to find ways to satisfy those affected without exposing themselves to huge liabilities. In my opinion, Chomsky and Krugman both ought to turn in their writing tools, and go back to the scientific pursuits that they're proven to be great at. (to be fair, there are hacks all across the political spectrum, but for some reason it seems that many people believe that these people, perhaps because of their excellent -- but unrelated -- scientific credentials, are above being manipulative)

pessimizer 14y ago
I don't understand your objection. Are you complaining that mentioning that Dow hired a private intelligence agency to monitor people expressing grievances makes Dow sound evil because most corporations would (or even should if they are "responsible") do the same, so it's not a particularly evil act amongst corporations?
- sp332 14y ago
  Yes. If you knew someone was trying to bring a legal case against you, wouldn't you research them and keep an eye on them? It would be irresponsible not to.
  - pessimizer 14y ago
    But you can see how people (non-corporate persons) might think that sort of extra-judicial asymmetry in dealing with questions of injury between individuals and corporations highly detrimental to any idea of regulating anything that a company wants to do to anyone, right?
JPKab 14y ago
Krugman's science is economics. Economics is pretty much the pinnacle of politics intersecting with science. His view on the science is that the Keynesian model is correct, and he sees an entire political party which has embraced the Austrian model which most economists disagree with. This is why he writes passionately in support of government spending during times of recession/depression. He argues, correctly in my opinion, that we are in a depression due to a collective debt paydown period, which is actually a healthy activity by itself, but in a collective form can wreak havoc on an economy.
- Create 14y ago
  You being are mislead. It is pseudoscience. http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks_at_the_festival_of_economics_trento_italy/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks... http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  I don't disagree with the essentials of what you said, and in fact Krugman himself sits pretty near the peak of economics, but... 1. Krugman-cum-commentator occasionally contradicts Krugman-cum-economist. For example, [1] 2. Krugman falls into the same trap as most economic commentators, in assuming that one side of the Keynes/Hayek divide has been proven right (which side depends on the commentator in question), refusing to acknowledge the lack of predictive success that the entire spectrum of macroeconomics suffers from. The truth of the matter is that neither side should consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs. And since this is the case, they ought to be a little more humble in their assertions. 3. The role of economics is to help us understand choices. It cannot tell us what choices are correct, only how they compare. Making policy requires that we overlay some value system to weigh those choices. Yet Krugman (and others) continue to overlook this part of it, and simply assuming the values, acting as if policy follows directly. 4. It's false that the GOP has embraced the Austrian model. Both the GOP and DEM are corporatist, and love regulation -- just of somewhat different sorts. Despite their rhetoric, except at the fringes, the GOP does not actually follow Austrian, Chicago, or any free-market ideology. [1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/krugman-v-krugman.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/kru... EDIT: full disclosure: I'm frequently guilty of #2 myself. EDIT 2: change "frequently" to "occasionally"; don't want to be too hyperbolic.

pessimizer 14y ago

I don't understand your objection. Are you complaining that mentioning that Dow hired a private intelligence agency to monitor people expressing grievances makes Dow sound evil because most corporations would (or even should if they are "responsible") do the same, so it's not a particularly evil act amongst corporations?

sp332 14y ago
Yes. If you knew someone was trying to bring a legal case against you, wouldn't you research them and keep an eye on them? It would be irresponsible not to.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  But you can see how people (non-corporate persons) might think that sort of extra-judicial asymmetry in dealing with questions of injury between individuals and corporations highly detrimental to any idea of regulating anything that a company wants to do to anyone, right?

JPKab 14y ago

Krugman's science is economics. Economics is pretty much the pinnacle of politics intersecting with science. His view on the science is that the Keynesian model is correct, and he sees an entire political party which has embraced the Austrian model which most economists disagree with. This is why he writes passionately in support of government spending during times of recession/depression. He argues, correctly in my opinion, that we are in a depression due to a collective debt paydown period, which is actually a healthy activity by itself, but in a collective form can wreak havoc on an economy.

Create 14y ago
You being are mislead. It is pseudoscience. http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks_at_the_festival_of_economics_trento_italy/ http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks... http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw
CWuestefeld 14y ago
I don't disagree with the essentials of what you said, and in fact Krugman himself sits pretty near the peak of economics, but... 1. Krugman-cum-commentator occasionally contradicts Krugman-cum-economist. For example, [1] 2. Krugman falls into the same trap as most economic commentators, in assuming that one side of the Keynes/Hayek divide has been proven right (which side depends on the commentator in question), refusing to acknowledge the lack of predictive success that the entire spectrum of macroeconomics suffers from. The truth of the matter is that neither side should consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs. And since this is the case, they ought to be a little more humble in their assertions. 3. The role of economics is to help us understand choices. It cannot tell us what choices are correct, only how they compare. Making policy requires that we overlay some value system to weigh those choices. Yet Krugman (and others) continue to overlook this part of it, and simply assuming the values, acting as if policy follows directly. 4. It's false that the GOP has embraced the Austrian model. Both the GOP and DEM are corporatist, and love regulation -- just of somewhat different sorts. Despite their rhetoric, except at the fringes, the GOP does not actually follow Austrian, Chicago, or any free-market ideology. [1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/krugman-v-krugman.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/kru... EDIT: full disclosure: I'm frequently guilty of #2 myself. EDIT 2: change "frequently" to "occasionally"; don't want to be too hyperbolic.