6 ms·

Ok... I'll bite. He predicted deflation as part of the economic crisis, which hasn't happened. He's mentioned that in several posts, most significantly in this

by cwp 13y ago

Ok... I'll bite. He predicted deflation as part of the economic crisis, which hasn't happened. He's mentioned that in several posts, most significantly in this one: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/missing-deflation/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/missing-deflatio... He also frequently writes about the state of macro economics, the politics involved, the different camps in the debate and what can be done about it. For example: So here’s what should have happened: economists propounding these other approaches should have said, “Gosh, I seem to have been wrong. I need to rethink my approach.” Oh, and by the way, I have done that. As I’ve written before, I rethought my views about liquidity traps and currency crises after the Asian crisis of the late 1990s; I rethought my views about advanced country debt and deficits after making a wrong prediction in 2003 (although in that case my mistake was in not taking my own model seriously enough). http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/varieties-of-error/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/varieties-of-err... And that same search will turn up many, many posts where he talks about intellectual honesty and validity of different arguments, ranging from "this guy is lying" to "I disagree, but this is a reasonable point of view".

dnautics 13y ago
"Notice how Keynesians responded to the partial failure of a prediction: by asking what they got wrong, and how their model of the world needed to be adjusted." One could make that argument about the ptolemaic system and epicycles. While krugman admits his prediction was wrong, it is a subjective argument as to whether what Krugman did in the end was to admit his model is really wrong, or if he decided it needed mere "adjustment". I know where I stand on that judgment.
- sentenza 13y ago
  I am a physicist working on complex systems. When I read Krugman I get the vibe of a scientific peer using the scientific method within the constraints of the information available. Pretty much all other economists that make it into the mainstream press fall very much short of that. Most don't even have a falsifiable model.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    I'm a biochemist engineering an enzyme, when I read Krugman I get the vibe of someone who uses the veneer of the structure of the scientific method to delude himself into thinking that he isn't operating in the realm of confirmation bias. I could also be biased: When I was a (math major) undergrad holding study sessions for lower-level mathematicians at a school with a very prestigious econ department, I recall the econ students coming to me with problems that seem to be specifically concocted to satisfy a culture that valued 'make a model such that you can take the gnarliest derivative possible so that you can remind everyone that you actually could pass calculus'. Gnarly derivatives, of course, rarely correspond to honestly measurable quantities (up to error). There was also NO dimensional analysis, so often equations would have the same term in an exponent, as a sum, and as a divisor. In the real sciences for 90% of useful things, we take advantage of taylor's theorem and call everything locally linear.

by cwp 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

"Notice how Keynesians responded to the partial failure of a prediction: by asking what they got wrong, and how their model of the world needed to be adjusted." One could make that argument about the ptolemaic system and epicycles. While krugman admits his prediction was wrong, it is a subjective argument as to whether what Krugman did in the end was to admit his model is really wrong, or if he decided it needed mere "adjustment". I know where I stand on that judgment.

sentenza 13y ago
I am a physicist working on complex systems. When I read Krugman I get the vibe of a scientific peer using the scientific method within the constraints of the information available. Pretty much all other economists that make it into the mainstream press fall very much short of that. Most don't even have a falsifiable model.
- dnautics 13y ago
  I'm a biochemist engineering an enzyme, when I read Krugman I get the vibe of someone who uses the veneer of the structure of the scientific method to delude himself into thinking that he isn't operating in the realm of confirmation bias. I could also be biased: When I was a (math major) undergrad holding study sessions for lower-level mathematicians at a school with a very prestigious econ department, I recall the econ students coming to me with problems that seem to be specifically concocted to satisfy a culture that valued 'make a model such that you can take the gnarliest derivative possible so that you can remind everyone that you actually could pass calculus'. Gnarly derivatives, of course, rarely correspond to honestly measurable quantities (up to error). There was also NO dimensional analysis, so often equations would have the same term in an exponent, as a sum, and as a divisor. In the real sciences for 90% of useful things, we take advantage of taylor's theorem and call everything locally linear.