3 ms·

there is a selection effect going on in the higher levels of economic analysis whereby those who tell politicians the narratives they need to justify power grab

there is a selection effect going on in the higher levels of economic analysis whereby those who tell politicians the narratives they need to justify power grabbing are the ones promoted into the public sphere. most economists will decry such shameless behavior (but who is to say how much of this is jealousy). the other economists you mention are guilty of the same thing. Keynes in particular just bases entire chapters of his General Theory on trivially fallacious theses. Marx isn't even wrong, he's just exploring a world that isn't related to reality (there is no working model of the labor theory of value that makes predictions).

lionhearted 17y ago
> there is a selection effect going on in the higher levels of economic analysis whereby those who tell politicians the narratives they need to justify power grabbing are the ones promoted into the public sphere. That makes sense, good point nazgulnarsil. Thanks. > Keynes in particular just bases entire chapters of his General Theory on trivially fallacious theses. Marx isn't even wrong, he's just exploring a world that isn't related to reality Definitely true - but both of them made observations that were true and correct, which lends a bit of credibility to their work. Keynes for instance, "workers resist a reduction in monetary wages, [but] it is not their practice to withdraw their labor whenever there is a rise in the price of wage goods" (General Theory, p9). Which is true and correct - laborers don't notice gradual inflation, so governments can use it to lower wages and increase tax revenues under a progressive tax system (wages gradually rise, tax brackets remain fixed, therefore a greater percentage of GDP goes to tax revenues without an official tax increase). These aren't good reasons to do what he advocates, but Keynes at least has some correct observations. Really insightful ones actually, if you listen to people who violently disagree with Keynesian economics, many of them have the utmost respect for him. (Friedman is the first one to come to mind, who always spoke well of Keynes). But bringing it back around - Krugman... I haven't seen anything intelligent from him, ever. Not a single observation of the way the world works or implication that seems correct. He seems like a two-bit fearmonger, and he doesn't back off when he's proven wrong. I'd like to be wrong though, if there's any admirers of him that have links to good work by him. It doesn't have to be popular economics either - a link to a good academic paper would work too, if there is one. I really cling to a hope that it's not possible for an economist to get mainstream recognition just by partisan sucking up - I really hope so, as economics has such huge implications for society.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  Krugman's contributions aren't widely discussed because they are in the realm of quantitative economic analysis. Heavy in math and not prone to simple explanations. Most of quant econ revolves around trying to use mathematical techniques to derive a more accurate model of what's going on with large scale scale economic aggregates (GDP and CPI are the most well known due to the media). Of course the critique of the entire field is that it is blatant curve fitting, descriptive rather than prescriptive. P.S. The nobel prize in economics was not one of the prizes originally enumerated by Alfred Nobel.
  - rms 17y ago
    Krugman was very influential in the development of a theory of international trade not involving perfect competition. Whatever you think about economics in general, it seems to be a pretty clear step towards more closely modeling reality.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      the problem is that it is impossible to audit said models. unlike real science the social sciences can't isolate variables in order to test predictive power.
      - berntb 17y ago
        Like e.g. palaeontology, economists can't do experiments. You must remember that about economy. I've read a bit too much criticism of economy as a science using the same argument you see from creationists against palaeontology. (That is, assumptions that all researchers are idiots and/or in a conspiracy against the creationists/left wing extremists.)
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        well pure paleontology is abduction is a sense. but the thing about paleontology is that it is based on biology in which we can do experiments.

lionhearted 17y ago

> there is a selection effect going on in the higher levels of economic analysis whereby those who tell politicians the narratives they need to justify power grabbing are the ones promoted into the public sphere. That makes sense, good point nazgulnarsil. Thanks. > Keynes in particular just bases entire chapters of his General Theory on trivially fallacious theses. Marx isn't even wrong, he's just exploring a world that isn't related to reality Definitely true - but both of them made observations that were true and correct, which lends a bit of credibility to their work. Keynes for instance, "workers resist a reduction in monetary wages, [but] it is not their practice to withdraw their labor whenever there is a rise in the price of wage goods" (General Theory, p9). Which is true and correct - laborers don't notice gradual inflation, so governments can use it to lower wages and increase tax revenues under a progressive tax system (wages gradually rise, tax brackets remain fixed, therefore a greater percentage of GDP goes to tax revenues without an official tax increase). These aren't good reasons to do what he advocates, but Keynes at least has some correct observations. Really insightful ones actually, if you listen to people who violently disagree with Keynesian economics, many of them have the utmost respect for him. (Friedman is the first one to come to mind, who always spoke well of Keynes). But bringing it back around - Krugman... I haven't seen anything intelligent from him, ever. Not a single observation of the way the world works or implication that seems correct. He seems like a two-bit fearmonger, and he doesn't back off when he's proven wrong. I'd like to be wrong though, if there's any admirers of him that have links to good work by him. It doesn't have to be popular economics either - a link to a good academic paper would work too, if there is one. I really cling to a hope that it's not possible for an economist to get mainstream recognition just by partisan sucking up - I really hope so, as economics has such huge implications for society.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
Krugman's contributions aren't widely discussed because they are in the realm of quantitative economic analysis. Heavy in math and not prone to simple explanations. Most of quant econ revolves around trying to use mathematical techniques to derive a more accurate model of what's going on with large scale scale economic aggregates (GDP and CPI are the most well known due to the media). Of course the critique of the entire field is that it is blatant curve fitting, descriptive rather than prescriptive. P.S. The nobel prize in economics was not one of the prizes originally enumerated by Alfred Nobel.
- rms 17y ago
  Krugman was very influential in the development of a theory of international trade not involving perfect competition. Whatever you think about economics in general, it seems to be a pretty clear step towards more closely modeling reality.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    the problem is that it is impossible to audit said models. unlike real science the social sciences can't isolate variables in order to test predictive power.
    - berntb 17y ago
      Like e.g. palaeontology, economists can't do experiments. You must remember that about economy. I've read a bit too much criticism of economy as a science using the same argument you see from creationists against palaeontology. (That is, assumptions that all researchers are idiots and/or in a conspiracy against the creationists/left wing extremists.)
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        well pure paleontology is abduction is a sense. but the thing about paleontology is that it is based on biology in which we can do experiments.