4 ms·

Krugman has repeatedly been very bad at predicting inflation in recent years. https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-inflation-chart-food-energy-gas-housi

Krugman has repeatedly been very bad at predicting inflation in recent years. https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-inflation-chart-food-energy-gas-housing-prices-economy-2023-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-inflation-chart... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/paul-krugman-inflation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/paul-krugman-infl...

tclancy 2y ago
Which is fine, just look at the relevant charts that discuss inflation vs trade/ manufacturing deficits.
- layoric 2y ago
  It baffles me why an economist constantly making wrong predictions “is fine”. If their analysis leads to incorrect outcomes, what use is it? I think if you are good, you’re a trader and told to keep your mouth shut and make money. If you’re bad but well connected, it seems you become a professor or public figure/speaker. The charts are handy all in one place, but if regularly incorrect, likely means looking at wrong data, or just using it wrong. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and all, and this isn’t meant to be an attack on anyone, just an observation that I find frustrating. Seems to be very little to no negative feedback for some economists making bad predictions or analysis.
  - taeric 2y ago
    Well, for one, you have to establish that he is constantly wrong without any reflection on his decisions? Do you have numbers showing how often he is wrong? For two, if you are punishing people for being willing to put thoughts out there, all you will succeed at is getting fewer people putting thoughts out there. Your observation here, though, is largely that public figures have public records of failures. You jump from there to the idea that they only have failures. This is as useful as thinking they only have public success. Which is clearly false.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      If they have a lot of failures, then their credibility wanes accordingly.
      - taeric 2y ago
        Sometimes? I'd be interested in a study on this, but it really seems that things are unsurprisingly more complicated? My gut is going to be that some reputation can be more easily laundered than others. And recency, as well as strength, of criticism will play a strong role in how bad failures impact credibility. For that matter, availability of alternatives?
        WalterBright 2y ago
        The Law of Supply and Demand is complicated, just like the Law of Gravity is. But it holds, regardless.
        taeric 2y ago
        Supply and Demand has to largely take into effect the impacts of marketing. And, not shockingly, we go out of our way to not directly use supply/demand in some markets. (In particular, I'm looking at concert tickets. Scalping is a direct consequence of this law, yet we go through great efforts to reduce its impact.) Gravity, of course, is still one of the most mysterious forces/properties of nature. Such that I'm not really clear how trying to pull that one in is anything other than sophistry? To the point of this subthread, I'm not clear what your aim is. I was pushing back on the idea that public academics don't know what they are talking about. They can, of course, be wrong. But so can largely anonymous actors online. I think there is almost certainly a useful model that can explain why some people are more trusted than others. My assertion is that you will have to bring in aspects of what we call marketing. Along with a general awareness of who is driving criticism. But, specifically, relying only on having a history of pure success is easy to disprove. For an easy example, Newton was a failed alchemist, just like every other alchemist. I'm guessing you don't view him as a failure.

tclancy 2y ago

Which is fine, just look at the relevant charts that discuss inflation vs trade/ manufacturing deficits.

layoric 2y ago
It baffles me why an economist constantly making wrong predictions “is fine”. If their analysis leads to incorrect outcomes, what use is it? I think if you are good, you’re a trader and told to keep your mouth shut and make money. If you’re bad but well connected, it seems you become a professor or public figure/speaker. The charts are handy all in one place, but if regularly incorrect, likely means looking at wrong data, or just using it wrong. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and all, and this isn’t meant to be an attack on anyone, just an observation that I find frustrating. Seems to be very little to no negative feedback for some economists making bad predictions or analysis.
- taeric 2y ago
  Well, for one, you have to establish that he is constantly wrong without any reflection on his decisions? Do you have numbers showing how often he is wrong? For two, if you are punishing people for being willing to put thoughts out there, all you will succeed at is getting fewer people putting thoughts out there. Your observation here, though, is largely that public figures have public records of failures. You jump from there to the idea that they only have failures. This is as useful as thinking they only have public success. Which is clearly false.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    If they have a lot of failures, then their credibility wanes accordingly.
    - taeric 2y ago
      Sometimes? I'd be interested in a study on this, but it really seems that things are unsurprisingly more complicated? My gut is going to be that some reputation can be more easily laundered than others. And recency, as well as strength, of criticism will play a strong role in how bad failures impact credibility. For that matter, availability of alternatives?
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        The Law of Supply and Demand is complicated, just like the Law of Gravity is. But it holds, regardless.
        taeric 2y ago
        Supply and Demand has to largely take into effect the impacts of marketing. And, not shockingly, we go out of our way to not directly use supply/demand in some markets. (In particular, I'm looking at concert tickets. Scalping is a direct consequence of this law, yet we go through great efforts to reduce its impact.) Gravity, of course, is still one of the most mysterious forces/properties of nature. Such that I'm not really clear how trying to pull that one in is anything other than sophistry? To the point of this subthread, I'm not clear what your aim is. I was pushing back on the idea that public academics don't know what they are talking about. They can, of course, be wrong. But so can largely anonymous actors online. I think there is almost certainly a useful model that can explain why some people are more trusted than others. My assertion is that you will have to bring in aspects of what we call marketing. Along with a general awareness of who is driving criticism. But, specifically, relying only on having a history of pure success is easy to disprove. For an easy example, Newton was a failed alchemist, just like every other alchemist. I'm guessing you don't view him as a failure.