4 ms·

Have we still not agreed to stop paying attention to Paul Krugman altogether? It's been sad watching the quality of his column tumble since 2009 or so - one col

Have we still not agreed to stop paying attention to Paul Krugman altogether? It's been sad watching the quality of his column tumble since 2009 or so - one column in January 2014 actually referred to Amy Adams's cleavage[0]. > But data never tell a story on their own. They need to be viewed through the lens of some kind of model, and it’s very important to do your best to get a good model. And that usually means turning to experts in whatever field you’re addressing. His first two sentences are spot on - data must be matched with a story (I might not use the word "story" here, but the general principle is right). The amusing part though is that he assumes that Nate Silver isn't an expert at this point. I've been following 538 since before 2008, and the quality of analysis from a non-statistical level was consistently far higher than almost any other publication (except perhaps the Economist). If anything the quality level once 538 signed with the Times decreased slightly, but only because a number of the other contributors (Andrew Gelman, etc.) stopped contributing at that time. [0] Krugman hit an impressive low in January with this column - a rather vapid dismissal of the Silk Road as (and I quote) "libertarian derp", devoid of any actual analysis or supporting arguments whatsoever: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/derp-pirate-roberts/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/derp-pirate-robe...

nateabele 13y ago
> Have we still not agreed to stop paying attention to Paul Krugman altogether? Are you kidding? I love Paul Krugman. He's my favorite comedian!
grej 13y ago
The irony of Krugman writing this is palpable. He is exactly the type of pundit that the world needs Nate Silver to counterbalance. He on the left, and his ilk on the right of the political spectrum, never miss an opportunity to try and fit cherry-picked facts within their predetermined political views. This is precisely why I think 538 might be a solid alternative. With the Fox News, MSNBC, and yes, Paul Krugman's of the world editorializing and pontificating, it's refreshing to see a news source that at least claims to take a non-biased, data driven approach to determining the truth.
Amezarak 13y ago
>The amusing part though is that he assumes that Nate Silver isn't an expert at this point. I've been following 538 since before 2008, and the quality of analysis from a non-statistical level was consistently far higher than almost any other publication (except perhaps the Economist). Krugman isn't disagreeing that Silver is good at political analysis. In fact, Krugman has been a huge supporter of Silver and his work, because (at least to my eyes) Krugman identifies with him. Keep reading the post. "In that case, he pitted his statistical approach against campaign-narrative pundits, who turned out to know approximately nothing. What he seems to have concluded is that there are no experts anywhere, that a smart data analyst can and should ignore all that. But not all fields are like that — in fact, even political analysis isn’t like that, if you talk to political scientists instead of political reporters." If you've read the new 538, there are a great deal of non-political analysis stories - covering, for example, climatology and economics - that just have it all wrong, for the very reasons Krugman is talking about. Krugman is not the only one saying this. >Krugman hit an impressive low in January with this column - a rather vapid dismissal of the Silk Road as (and I quote) "libertarian derp", devoid of any actual analysis or supporting argument That's not a column, it's a blog post. Krugman posts lots of unserious stuff on his blog, like his undying love for Arcade Fire. He's spent plenty of other posts giving as much thought he as a Keynesian who readily admits he's not technologically saavy to Bitcoin-related matters should. If you want serious analysis, read his economics-related posts. If you care about what Krugman the man feels about something (and I don't know why you should, unless you know him personally), read the others.
rquantz 13y ago
And yet, he's been right about the consequences of the financial crisis, austerity, and debt hysteria where everyone else in the punditry has been wrong. I'm sorry that he thinks Silk Road and bitcoin are stupid. I happen to agree with him, but even if I didn't, I think with his track record you ignore his analysis on macroeconomics at your peril.
- pdonis 13y ago
  he's been right about the consequences of the financial crisis I'm not so sure. He did predict that quantitative easing would not cause inflation; but the reason QE has not caused inflation is that banks are not making loans; they are letting $2.4 trillion of QE money sit in their accounts at the Fed instead of loaning it out. Krugman most certainly did not predict that outcome; he said QE would cause a recovery in the loan market. It hasn't. Getting one prediction right by accident because you got another prediction egregiously wrong doesn't make you a good predictor.
  - rquantz 13y ago
    he said QE would cause a recovery in the loan market. Can you provide a citation for that claim? Because my recollection is that he said QE would have limited effects. I can't find much supporting this memory right now, aside from this entry about QE2[1]. He definitely supported QE, but I don't think he ever argued it would fix everything by itself. He's consistently argued that the Fed can't fix things by itself. On the other hand, here's this entry where he says that, contrary to what you suggest, the whole point of QE is to cause inflation [2]. [1] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/how-to-think-about-qe2-wonkish/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/how-to-think-abo... [2] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/fiscal-aspects-of-quantitative-easing-wonkish/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/fiscal-aspects-o...
    - pdonis 13y ago
      my recollection is that he said QE would have limited effects You're correct, he did say that back in 2008. See Amezarak's post in response to me upthread. he says that, contrary to what you suggest, the whole point of QE is to cause inflation I think he meant that the Fed thought it would cause inflation. But he has said a number of times that if the economy is in a "liquidity trap", printing more money will not cause inflation. (QE is one way of effectively printing more money.)
snowwrestler 13y ago
Nate Silver is not an expert on the scientific study of climate change, and neither is Roger Pielke. Silver built his reputation by taking the results of professional pollsters seriously, rather than attempting to spin them as most political reporters do. It was not a high bar to clear. If he's going to report on climate change, or indeed any area of scientific study, then he needs to start with what actual scientists are reporting, just like he started his political reporting with what actual polls were saying.
- pdonis 13y ago
  How about these actual scientists? http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.html http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.htm... Also, Pielke's article referenced the IPCC AR5's own conclusions about the lack of evidence for an increase in extreme weather events.

nateabele 13y ago

> Have we still not agreed to stop paying attention to Paul Krugman altogether? Are you kidding? I love Paul Krugman. He's my favorite comedian!

grej 13y ago

The irony of Krugman writing this is palpable. He is exactly the type of pundit that the world needs Nate Silver to counterbalance. He on the left, and his ilk on the right of the political spectrum, never miss an opportunity to try and fit cherry-picked facts within their predetermined political views. This is precisely why I think 538 might be a solid alternative. With the Fox News, MSNBC, and yes, Paul Krugman's of the world editorializing and pontificating, it's refreshing to see a news source that at least claims to take a non-biased, data driven approach to determining the truth.

Amezarak 13y ago

>The amusing part though is that he assumes that Nate Silver isn't an expert at this point. I've been following 538 since before 2008, and the quality of analysis from a non-statistical level was consistently far higher than almost any other publication (except perhaps the Economist). Krugman isn't disagreeing that Silver is good at political analysis. In fact, Krugman has been a huge supporter of Silver and his work, because (at least to my eyes) Krugman identifies with him. Keep reading the post. "In that case, he pitted his statistical approach against campaign-narrative pundits, who turned out to know approximately nothing. What he seems to have concluded is that there are no experts anywhere, that a smart data analyst can and should ignore all that. But not all fields are like that — in fact, even political analysis isn’t like that, if you talk to political scientists instead of political reporters." If you've read the new 538, there are a great deal of non-political analysis stories - covering, for example, climatology and economics - that just have it all wrong, for the very reasons Krugman is talking about. Krugman is not the only one saying this. >Krugman hit an impressive low in January with this column - a rather vapid dismissal of the Silk Road as (and I quote) "libertarian derp", devoid of any actual analysis or supporting argument That's not a column, it's a blog post. Krugman posts lots of unserious stuff on his blog, like his undying love for Arcade Fire. He's spent plenty of other posts giving as much thought he as a Keynesian who readily admits he's not technologically saavy to Bitcoin-related matters should. If you want serious analysis, read his economics-related posts. If you care about what Krugman the man feels about something (and I don't know why you should, unless you know him personally), read the others.

rquantz 13y ago

And yet, he's been right about the consequences of the financial crisis, austerity, and debt hysteria where everyone else in the punditry has been wrong. I'm sorry that he thinks Silk Road and bitcoin are stupid. I happen to agree with him, but even if I didn't, I think with his track record you ignore his analysis on macroeconomics at your peril.

pdonis 13y ago
he's been right about the consequences of the financial crisis I'm not so sure. He did predict that quantitative easing would not cause inflation; but the reason QE has not caused inflation is that banks are not making loans; they are letting $2.4 trillion of QE money sit in their accounts at the Fed instead of loaning it out. Krugman most certainly did not predict that outcome; he said QE would cause a recovery in the loan market. It hasn't. Getting one prediction right by accident because you got another prediction egregiously wrong doesn't make you a good predictor.
- rquantz 13y ago
  he said QE would cause a recovery in the loan market. Can you provide a citation for that claim? Because my recollection is that he said QE would have limited effects. I can't find much supporting this memory right now, aside from this entry about QE2[1]. He definitely supported QE, but I don't think he ever argued it would fix everything by itself. He's consistently argued that the Fed can't fix things by itself. On the other hand, here's this entry where he says that, contrary to what you suggest, the whole point of QE is to cause inflation [2]. [1] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/how-to-think-about-qe2-wonkish/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/how-to-think-abo... [2] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/fiscal-aspects-of-quantitative-easing-wonkish/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/fiscal-aspects-o...
  - pdonis 13y ago
    my recollection is that he said QE would have limited effects You're correct, he did say that back in 2008. See Amezarak's post in response to me upthread. he says that, contrary to what you suggest, the whole point of QE is to cause inflation I think he meant that the Fed thought it would cause inflation. But he has said a number of times that if the economy is in a "liquidity trap", printing more money will not cause inflation. (QE is one way of effectively printing more money.)

snowwrestler 13y ago

Nate Silver is not an expert on the scientific study of climate change, and neither is Roger Pielke. Silver built his reputation by taking the results of professional pollsters seriously, rather than attempting to spin them as most political reporters do. It was not a high bar to clear. If he's going to report on climate change, or indeed any area of scientific study, then he needs to start with what actual scientists are reporting, just like he started his political reporting with what actual polls were saying.

pdonis 13y ago
How about these actual scientists? http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.html http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.htm... Also, Pielke's article referenced the IPCC AR5's own conclusions about the lack of evidence for an increase in extreme weather events.