3 ms·

Now that we've debunked the claim that Krugman's assertion is "literally" false No, its literally false. You haven't "debunked" anything. Honestly, if you don

by 001sky 14y ago

Now that we've debunked the claim that Krugman's assertion is "literally" false No, its literally false. You haven't "debunked" anything. Honestly, if you don't understand any of this I cannot help you, further.

mpweiher 14y ago
"it is" -> "it's" ("its" is the possessive) What Krugman said is literally true (he gives examples in the article, I have given others). And the actual point that he makes about the relative nature of the debt and thus the question for governments as to wether to work on the numerator or the denominator is one that you yourself brought up, unprompted. Finally, his biggest point (AFAICT) is that this is debt that is largely internal, therefore it doesn't actually make the country poorer. In fact, you brought up pension funds: these actually have a big problem when there isn't any "safe" government debt to invest in. Heck, they are actually starting to get into trouble now, with the yields of that government debt so incredibly low (recent emissions of Danish and German debt had negative interest rates, so you paid some money to the government for holding onto your money for a while).
- 001sky 14y ago
  If you're not trained in economics, or experienced in finance, it is best to assume--based on your comments-- you have no idea what you are talking about. Reading the op-ed pages of the NY times, unfortunately, does not give you either the information or perspective to judge the games Krugman is playing. If you do have this kind of training and this is what you got out of it, it seems you didn't get your money's worth or you have a vested interest in polishing someones ego. But there is nothing original, insightful, or discriminatory in anything you have written in this thread. Which is pretty typical of Krugman's supporters.
  - mpweiher 14y ago
    Well, at least you are consistent, sticking to the ad-hominems and staying well clear of any kind of substantive support for your silly little claims.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      So far your best comment? Argument ad-hominem is, of course, not indicative of falacy. On the contrary, it is quite usefully devastaing. You can consult wikipedia. Or Neitszche. But I'll leave it to you to do the work.
      - mpweiher 14y ago
        No, my best comments were where I demolished everything you'd actually said point by point using these things called...wait...ah yes: facts! You may have heard of the concept in passing somewhere. Or not. Wikipedia: "Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an irrelevance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Yep, you're right about that, too. It's really not a falacy. It's a fallacy. And also Nietzsche, not Neitszche. And devastating, not devastaing. As to devastating ad hominems: I'd suggest they might become a trifle more devastating if you start with elementary spelling, work your way up via basic grammar ("its" vs "it's") and simple word semantics such as "quote" and "plagiarism" all the way to reading comprehension before attempting to tackle economics and philosophy. Just sayin'
        001sky 14y ago
        Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and ... in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words. Funny how that works, right? That must be the edge case.
        mpweiher 14y ago
        QED :-)

by 001sky 14y ago

mpweiher 14y ago

"it is" -> "it's" ("its" is the possessive) What Krugman said is literally true (he gives examples in the article, I have given others). And the actual point that he makes about the relative nature of the debt and thus the question for governments as to wether to work on the numerator or the denominator is one that you yourself brought up, unprompted. Finally, his biggest point (AFAICT) is that this is debt that is largely internal, therefore it doesn't actually make the country poorer. In fact, you brought up pension funds: these actually have a big problem when there isn't any "safe" government debt to invest in. Heck, they are actually starting to get into trouble now, with the yields of that government debt so incredibly low (recent emissions of Danish and German debt had negative interest rates, so you paid some money to the government for holding onto your money for a while).

001sky 14y ago
If you're not trained in economics, or experienced in finance, it is best to assume--based on your comments-- you have no idea what you are talking about. Reading the op-ed pages of the NY times, unfortunately, does not give you either the information or perspective to judge the games Krugman is playing. If you do have this kind of training and this is what you got out of it, it seems you didn't get your money's worth or you have a vested interest in polishing someones ego. But there is nothing original, insightful, or discriminatory in anything you have written in this thread. Which is pretty typical of Krugman's supporters.
- mpweiher 14y ago
  Well, at least you are consistent, sticking to the ad-hominems and staying well clear of any kind of substantive support for your silly little claims.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    So far your best comment? Argument ad-hominem is, of course, not indicative of falacy. On the contrary, it is quite usefully devastaing. You can consult wikipedia. Or Neitszche. But I'll leave it to you to do the work.
    - mpweiher 14y ago
      No, my best comments were where I demolished everything you'd actually said point by point using these things called...wait...ah yes: facts! You may have heard of the concept in passing somewhere. Or not. Wikipedia: "Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an irrelevance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Yep, you're right about that, too. It's really not a falacy. It's a fallacy. And also Nietzsche, not Neitszche. And devastating, not devastaing. As to devastating ad hominems: I'd suggest they might become a trifle more devastating if you start with elementary spelling, work your way up via basic grammar ("its" vs "it's") and simple word semantics such as "quote" and "plagiarism" all the way to reading comprehension before attempting to tackle economics and philosophy. Just sayin'
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and ... in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words. Funny how that works, right? That must be the edge case.
        mpweiher 14y ago
        QED :-)