7 ms·

Priceless dilletantism. TLDR: "I'm not an Economist", followed by quoting Paul Krugman.

by 001sky 14y ago

mpweiher 14y ago
I don't see him quoting Paul Krugman, though his point is similar to Joseph Stiglitz's. The "resource curse" is a well-studied phenomenon, and there is both symptomatic evidence and causal analysis that suggests it is starting to apply to developed countries. The examples I have seen were focused on the finance "industry", especially in the UK, but it definitely looks applicable to other countries and the non-distribution of the "automation-dividend".
- 001sky 14y ago
  Try cmd+f. The attribution, however oblique, was there...so I skipped the phrase "plagiarised his argument from". This is the relevant text from PK, in case you are curious: "First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base."[1] Which of course, if it isn't obvious, is, literally+legally false and figuratively BS. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-und...
  - mpweiher 14y ago
    OK, to sum up: You don't know what the word verb "to quote" means, nor the verb "to plagiarize". The author of TFA did neither. There was no quote, and the family vs. nation metaphor is much older than Krugman's article. And of course, Krugman is right, because what he says is descriptive of things that have already happened, and those things did, in fact, happen. Now I disagree somewhat with Krugman on the importance of debt (the state having too much seems to make it defer to much to the bankers, who should be reigned in much more) , but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist and I am a dude with an opinion.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false. The entire idea is false coming (literally) and going (figuratively). but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to.
      - mpweiher 14y ago
        "And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false." Your evidence being? Your say-so? "but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to." If you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote, I was comparing him to myself, not to you. But if the shoe fits...speaking of which: since you have given zero evidence for your opinion, reputation actually is the only thing we can go on...oh wait...Krugman actually did provide evidence for what he wrote, how typical of him!
        001sky 14y ago
        The US Government is required by law fulfill its lawful contractual obligations. Debt is such a form of legal contract. So, by <law> Krugman's premise is false. If that is not obvious (as it should be), then now it is spelled out for you. "First, [PQR borrower] have to pay back their debt. [XYZ borrowes] don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their [earnings] base." Second, to the extent this is even "metaphorically" true, it is only trivially true. For any borrower XYZ and PQR alike, I can make the same claim. eg, A corporation can "roll-over" its debt indefinitely under this constrain (for example, GE has done this for 100 years) or not. But also so can a family/business (eg. even a home roll-over a mortgage w. home equity loan or ect...then kids inherit house, etc). But all borowers as a mechanic do this through....paying back the old debt....first and issuing new debt....so again Krugman's is literally a false (as well as misleading) statement.
        mpweiher 14y ago
        Suddenly "Governments" became "the US Government", odd how that happens. First, governments have done so in the past. With this alone your point is trivially false by simple observation. Secondly, the US government, like other governments, can change the law. Thirdly, if you haven't noticed, governments are sort of at the top of the food chain, so they can (and do) not bother changing, but instead simply ignore the law, which they do all the time. So you have a judgement against a government, how are you going to enforce it? Ask the same government to send its own police against itself? Good luck with that. March on Argentina? BYOA - Bring Your Own Army. Fourth, one thing that countries like the US can do that neither families nor corporations can do is inflate away their debt. This is of course one of Krugman's criticisms against the Euro: that countries there have given up this ability, and so the only way to try to get rid of the debt is so-called "austerity" measures, which aren't really working in those countries where they are being tried, as GDP drops faster than the debt and therefore the crucial debt-to-GDP ratio gets worse rather than better. Also: free entertainment in the form of riots in the street. Fifth, as Krugman keeps pointing out, the government is not really some separate entity. Most of the debt is debt we have against ourselves, within the family, to stick with the analogy, it doesn't actually make the family poorer. Unlike, say, a mortgage. Sixth, with the power to raise taxes, governments have a pretty secure way of ensuring their earnings base, unlike families or corporations.
drewwwwww 14y ago
do you care to respond to the argument or are you satisfied with simple ad hominem?
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Could you clarify the argument? Near as I can tell, he merely claims taxing the rich will benefit the economy, and provides no justification for this claim beyond vague allusions to the idea that it happened after WW2. I can't figure out what mechanism he is arguing. He also argues against straw-men such as this: Proponents of trickle-downism will argue that the little-taxed corporate executive will in fact share his wealth by spending it (Proponents of "trickle-downism" don't claim this.) and uses misleading definitions like this: A poor person, by contrast, needs more than he can afford. (By this definition there are virtually no poor people in America, thus his policy prescriptions are impossible. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf )
  - JoachimSchipper 14y ago
    He seems to be saying "take money sitting idle in the bank accounts of the rich and give it to the poor - this will get the money rolling". I don't think it's the greatest article to ever hit HN, and it's almost pure politics.
  - rdl 14y ago
    "Why was the US so successful after WW2, particularly compared to the decade before it" is a really complex question with many confounding factors in the analysis. I strongly suspect "everywhere else previously industrialized in the world had been largely destroyed" had a lot to do with it.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
antihero 14y ago
Well the fact that we're in worldwide recession despite being in a time of extreme productivity and technology, is perhaps a sign that the "real economists" and neo-liberals are fucking it all up. Elitism is counter-productive. So, care to actually present a counterargument or are you content to be an obnoxious blowhard?
- potatolicious 14y ago
  No, it really isn't a sign of anything. This is like blaming all professional plumbers for your bath tub leaking. This is a cynical and knee jerk commentary that's emblematic of the sort of middle brow dismissals we've been working to limit on HN. For all of the competing thoughts on economics, I don't think it's a stretch to say it's enormously complicated. Even on the most cursory examination it doesn't break down to "more productivity = better economy". "Real economists" and "neo-liberals" may in fact be fucking it all up, but I'm quite certain they'd have done no better if they modeled the economy like you have. When your world view requires that millions of highly educated, trained, and experienced people - who have pursued a rigorous, academic field of study for decades - are all simultaneously out to lunch, possibly maliciously, the onus is perhaps on you to provide more substantiation than "they're fucking it all up". Side note: At this point I'd be very happy with HN being refocused on strictly tech/startup related posts. Every time a more general or controversial topic comes up it ends up very much like this thread. Unsubstantiated knee-jerk ad hominem. Followed by equally unsubstantiated hyperbolic cynical equip.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jare 14y ago
    > This is like blaming all professional plumbers for your bath tub leaking A large amount of bath tubs and pipes are leaking, worldwide.
- kokey 14y ago
  Worldwide recession? The only time the recession was global was for a short while during 2009.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Priceless dilletantism. TLDR: "I'm not an Economist", followed by quoting Paul Krugman.

by 001sky 14y ago

Priceless dilletantism. TLDR: "I'm not an Economist", followed by quoting Paul Krugman.

I don't see him quoting Paul Krugman, though his point is similar to Joseph Stiglitz's. The "resource curse" is a well-studied phenomenon, and there is both symptomatic evidence and causal analysis that suggests it is starting to apply to developed countries. The examples I have seen were focused on the finance "industry", especially in the UK, but it definitely looks applicable to other countries and the non-distribution of the "automation-dividend".

001sky 14y ago
Try cmd+f. The attribution, however oblique, was there...so I skipped the phrase "plagiarised his argument from". This is the relevant text from PK, in case you are curious: "First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base."[1] Which of course, if it isn't obvious, is, literally+legally false and figuratively BS. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-und...
- mpweiher 14y ago
  OK, to sum up: You don't know what the word verb "to quote" means, nor the verb "to plagiarize". The author of TFA did neither. There was no quote, and the family vs. nation metaphor is much older than Krugman's article. And of course, Krugman is right, because what he says is descriptive of things that have already happened, and those things did, in fact, happen. Now I disagree somewhat with Krugman on the importance of debt (the state having too much seems to make it defer to much to the bankers, who should be reigned in much more) , but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist and I am a dude with an opinion.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false. The entire idea is false coming (literally) and going (figuratively). but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to.
    - mpweiher 14y ago
      "And of course, Krugman is right -- Um, no. Its false." Your evidence being? Your say-so? "but hey, he's a Nobel-prize winning economist... == This is not even worth responding to." If you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote, I was comparing him to myself, not to you. But if the shoe fits...speaking of which: since you have given zero evidence for your opinion, reputation actually is the only thing we can go on...oh wait...Krugman actually did provide evidence for what he wrote, how typical of him!
      - 001sky 14y ago
        The US Government is required by law fulfill its lawful contractual obligations. Debt is such a form of legal contract. So, by <law> Krugman's premise is false. If that is not obvious (as it should be), then now it is spelled out for you. "First, [PQR borrower] have to pay back their debt. [XYZ borrowes] don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their [earnings] base." Second, to the extent this is even "metaphorically" true, it is only trivially true. For any borrower XYZ and PQR alike, I can make the same claim. eg, A corporation can "roll-over" its debt indefinitely under this constrain (for example, GE has done this for 100 years) or not. But also so can a family/business (eg. even a home roll-over a mortgage w. home equity loan or ect...then kids inherit house, etc). But all borowers as a mechanic do this through....paying back the old debt....first and issuing new debt....so again Krugman's is literally a false (as well as misleading) statement.
        mpweiher 14y ago
        Suddenly "Governments" became "the US Government", odd how that happens. First, governments have done so in the past. With this alone your point is trivially false by simple observation. Secondly, the US government, like other governments, can change the law. Thirdly, if you haven't noticed, governments are sort of at the top of the food chain, so they can (and do) not bother changing, but instead simply ignore the law, which they do all the time. So you have a judgement against a government, how are you going to enforce it? Ask the same government to send its own police against itself? Good luck with that. March on Argentina? BYOA - Bring Your Own Army. Fourth, one thing that countries like the US can do that neither families nor corporations can do is inflate away their debt. This is of course one of Krugman's criticisms against the Euro: that countries there have given up this ability, and so the only way to try to get rid of the debt is so-called "austerity" measures, which aren't really working in those countries where they are being tried, as GDP drops faster than the debt and therefore the crucial debt-to-GDP ratio gets worse rather than better. Also: free entertainment in the form of riots in the street. Fifth, as Krugman keeps pointing out, the government is not really some separate entity. Most of the debt is debt we have against ourselves, within the family, to stick with the analogy, it doesn't actually make the family poorer. Unlike, say, a mortgage. Sixth, with the power to raise taxes, governments have a pretty secure way of ensuring their earnings base, unlike families or corporations.

drewwwwww 14y ago

do you care to respond to the argument or are you satisfied with simple ad hominem?

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Could you clarify the argument? Near as I can tell, he merely claims taxing the rich will benefit the economy, and provides no justification for this claim beyond vague allusions to the idea that it happened after WW2. I can't figure out what mechanism he is arguing. He also argues against straw-men such as this: Proponents of trickle-downism will argue that the little-taxed corporate executive will in fact share his wealth by spending it (Proponents of "trickle-downism" don't claim this.) and uses misleading definitions like this: A poor person, by contrast, needs more than he can afford. (By this definition there are virtually no poor people in America, thus his policy prescriptions are impossible. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf )
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  He seems to be saying "take money sitting idle in the bank accounts of the rich and give it to the poor - this will get the money rolling". I don't think it's the greatest article to ever hit HN, and it's almost pure politics.
- rdl 14y ago
  "Why was the US so successful after WW2, particularly compared to the decade before it" is a really complex question with many confounding factors in the analysis. I strongly suspect "everywhere else previously industrialized in the world had been largely destroyed" had a lot to do with it.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

antihero 14y ago

Well the fact that we're in worldwide recession despite being in a time of extreme productivity and technology, is perhaps a sign that the "real economists" and neo-liberals are fucking it all up. Elitism is counter-productive. So, care to actually present a counterargument or are you content to be an obnoxious blowhard?

potatolicious 14y ago
No, it really isn't a sign of anything. This is like blaming all professional plumbers for your bath tub leaking. This is a cynical and knee jerk commentary that's emblematic of the sort of middle brow dismissals we've been working to limit on HN. For all of the competing thoughts on economics, I don't think it's a stretch to say it's enormously complicated. Even on the most cursory examination it doesn't break down to "more productivity = better economy". "Real economists" and "neo-liberals" may in fact be fucking it all up, but I'm quite certain they'd have done no better if they modeled the economy like you have. When your world view requires that millions of highly educated, trained, and experienced people - who have pursued a rigorous, academic field of study for decades - are all simultaneously out to lunch, possibly maliciously, the onus is perhaps on you to provide more substantiation than "they're fucking it all up". Side note: At this point I'd be very happy with HN being refocused on strictly tech/startup related posts. Every time a more general or controversial topic comes up it ends up very much like this thread. Unsubstantiated knee-jerk ad hominem. Followed by equally unsubstantiated hyperbolic cynical equip.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Jare 14y ago
  > This is like blaming all professional plumbers for your bath tub leaking A large amount of bath tubs and pipes are leaking, worldwide.
kokey 14y ago
Worldwide recession? The only time the recession was global was for a short while during 2009.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]