4 ms·

Krugman is 70+ with a successful career behind him. I don't think he needs Substack to make a living. And what world to we live in if that should stop him from

Krugman is 70+ with a successful career behind him. I don't think he needs Substack to make a living. And what world to we live in if that should stop him from criticising?

vessenes 1y ago
It’s sad when such a brilliant credentialed economist starts criticising things he’s either uninformed about or pretending to be. It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. There’s plenty of real things to complain about for almost any given tech titan; this was lazy incorrect journalism and it’s beneath Krugman.
- rainsford 1y ago
  > It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. Nah, I think we need health skepticism of disruptors, since by definition "change" can be in either a positive or negative direction. Nobody should reject new ideas out of hand simply because they are new, but neither do shitty ideas get a free pass just because they're new and different. And the reality is that a lot of the push-back "change makers" get is because the change they are trying to make is bad.
  - vessenes 1y ago
    My worry with this approach is that you don’t get enough people who believe change making is good, and society loses out. Calling out shitty plans and people is great. But probably it should be less than like 10% of the time spent if we want to encourage more change making. My own belief - we need a lot more people who care trying to make good change - I don’t want to discourage them before they start.

Krugman is 70+ with a successful career behind him. I don't think he needs Substack to make a living. And what world to we live in if that should stop him from criticising?

vessenes 1y ago

It’s sad when such a brilliant credentialed economist starts criticising things he’s either uninformed about or pretending to be. It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. There’s plenty of real things to complain about for almost any given tech titan; this was lazy incorrect journalism and it’s beneath Krugman.

rainsford 1y ago
> It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. Nah, I think we need health skepticism of disruptors, since by definition "change" can be in either a positive or negative direction. Nobody should reject new ideas out of hand simply because they are new, but neither do shitty ideas get a free pass just because they're new and different. And the reality is that a lot of the push-back "change makers" get is because the change they are trying to make is bad.
- vessenes 1y ago
  My worry with this approach is that you don’t get enough people who believe change making is good, and society loses out. Calling out shitty plans and people is great. But probably it should be less than like 10% of the time spent if we want to encourage more change making. My own belief - we need a lot more people who care trying to make good change - I don’t want to discourage them before they start.