4 ms·

From that perspective I agree with the protesters, though I'm coming from the right of the mainstream instead of the left. Economics, particularly that of the

by tsotha 12y ago

From that perspective I agree with the protesters, though I'm coming from the right of the mainstream instead of the left. Economics, particularly that of the academic variety, seems like an exercise in starting with a view of the world and fitting the data to it instead of the other way 'round. But I agree with DanielBMarkham in that economists are generally working in good faith (though I have my doubts about Krugman). It's just not very easy to see your own biases.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
I have a guilty pleasure: I enjoy watching economists. I read the financial opinion columns, and I enjoy the policy debates. But that's just because I like watching smart people argue. Economics is a great place to watch this. Krugman looks to me like a political shill, not an economist (Somebody said once that most of his columns should start with "Fools!") He'll say something outrageous, and then over the next several days other economists will try to sort it all out. Many times it's just political bickering, but there have been times where it looks like he's crossed the line: I see folks who don't do politics try to come out publicly and reason with him. It's most always a mistake. The more they pile on the more he revels in it. Having said that, I'm fine with him continuing to opine. The dangerous thing I'm seeing is politicians who don't seem to be responsible for anything: everything they do is based on experts somewhere who are more than willing to back them up on whatever decision they make. The real discussion we should be having here is the role of academia and the role of elected leaders in a democracy. That's where the lines are blurring, and that's the reason you see well-meaning (but perhaps not-so-well-educated) folks protesting who can work the job of basically "a guy that tells me things I didn't know". It's because they view professors as some sort of priesthood that decides what the policy should be. That's not true -- and it should never be true.
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  For example, in today's reading: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/01/12/krugmans_wrong_about_the_volckerreagan_inflation_triumph_101480.html http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/01/12/krugmans...
- dmix 12y ago
  > The real discussion we should be having here is the role of academia and the role of elected leaders in a democracy Not only in politics but also in courts. The more cases I read through involve technology the more I'm convinced there is a greater disconnect between judges/jury vs understanding of technology, than political economics vs the public. This is particularly dangerous these days as cybercrime becomes a hot topic and a bunch of 80yr+ olds will have the final say. People who never grew up with computers and rely heavily on 'experts'. And I highly doubt you'll find many protesters outside of a case-by-case basis. Although I suspect science and politics has always been dichotomous throughout history. Hopefully(?) in the future AI-assisted policy will help negate this..

by tsotha 12y ago

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

I have a guilty pleasure: I enjoy watching economists. I read the financial opinion columns, and I enjoy the policy debates. But that's just because I like watching smart people argue. Economics is a great place to watch this. Krugman looks to me like a political shill, not an economist (Somebody said once that most of his columns should start with "Fools!") He'll say something outrageous, and then over the next several days other economists will try to sort it all out. Many times it's just political bickering, but there have been times where it looks like he's crossed the line: I see folks who don't do politics try to come out publicly and reason with him. It's most always a mistake. The more they pile on the more he revels in it. Having said that, I'm fine with him continuing to opine. The dangerous thing I'm seeing is politicians who don't seem to be responsible for anything: everything they do is based on experts somewhere who are more than willing to back them up on whatever decision they make. The real discussion we should be having here is the role of academia and the role of elected leaders in a democracy. That's where the lines are blurring, and that's the reason you see well-meaning (but perhaps not-so-well-educated) folks protesting who can work the job of basically "a guy that tells me things I didn't know". It's because they view professors as some sort of priesthood that decides what the policy should be. That's not true -- and it should never be true.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
For example, in today's reading: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/01/12/krugmans_wrong_about_the_volckerreagan_inflation_triumph_101480.html http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/01/12/krugmans...
dmix 12y ago
> The real discussion we should be having here is the role of academia and the role of elected leaders in a democracy Not only in politics but also in courts. The more cases I read through involve technology the more I'm convinced there is a greater disconnect between judges/jury vs understanding of technology, than political economics vs the public. This is particularly dangerous these days as cybercrime becomes a hot topic and a bunch of 80yr+ olds will have the final say. People who never grew up with computers and rely heavily on 'experts'. And I highly doubt you'll find many protesters outside of a case-by-case basis. Although I suspect science and politics has always been dichotomous throughout history. Hopefully(?) in the future AI-assisted policy will help negate this..