[kenberg]

 y66, on 2014-March-23, 15:06, said:

From Krugman's blog today:

The more I read from Krugman the more obnoxious he sounds. I have known mathemaiticians like this. They sure as hell had better be brilliant because they aren't making it on personality. It is useful for a person to understand that not everyone who disagrees with him is a villain. Sometimes they are not even stupid. And, on occasion, they are not even wrong.

I have no intention of debating whether a thought I have is "truly an honest error" or whether I am "self-consciously exploiting deficit panic to promote a conservative agenda" and I don't imagine many others have such plans either. Such a presentation basically ends discussion, we just move on to who has the most votes.

To put it another way: If he intends to change any minds, rather than win applause from the choir, he needs to work on his communication skills.

[y66]

I have a friend who teaches economics at Villanova. He's a charming, well rounded guy and a very good teacher. He can say things like "you catch more flies with honey" in a way that even Krugman would appreciate and not gag at (apt, playful and zero smarm factor). He would also be the first to understand why Krugman, despite knowing this, is often so curt.

Quote

From Pulp Fiction (not an econ blog):

The Wolf: Jimmie, lead the way. Boys, get to work.

Vincent: A please would be nice.

The Wolf: Come again?

Vincent: I said a please would be nice.

The Wolf: Get it straight buster - I'm not here to say please, I'm here to tell you what to do and if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better ***** do it and do it quick. I'm here to help - if my help's not appreciated then lotsa luck, gentlemen.

Jules: No, Mr. Wolf, it ain't like that, your help is definitely appreciated.

Vincent: I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me.

The Wolf: If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the ***** car.

[kenberg]

He is certainly not the only columnist who thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is a scoundrel or mis-iinformed. but his style is not great. I'll survive, I'll even keep reading him, arrogant schmucks are sometimes useful.

I never saw Pulp Fiction. So many have said it was good that I was actually considering it, but then I saw Inglourious Basterds on tv. I thought it was a truly stupid movie. I have mercifully forgotten most of it, so I can no longer explain all of my reasons, but Tarantino can finish his career without my support I am sure.

[mike777]

Ken Pulp Fiction is an all time great movie. It stands on its own but what makes it a truly great movie is that at the time it did indeed influence many other movies and many other people in the business.

With that said even great movies have their detractors and that is ok.

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2014-March-25, 15:30, said:

Ken Pulp Fiction is an all time great movie. It stands on its own but what makes it a truly great movie is that at the time it did indeed influence many other movies and many other people in the business.

With that said even great movies have their detractors and that is ok.

I know a lot of people like it but I guess I have seen enough Tarantino so that it's hard for me to imagine I would like it. I feel the same way about David Lynch. I listen to everyone say how great he is and I just don't get it. Scorecese is good. I haven't liked everything, but some things, such as Taxi Driver, I have really liked. But and maybe some aspects of Lynch I have liked. But with Tarantino it's not like I like some parts of it and not others, i just find it all really dumb.

But life isn't over yet, so maybe I try PF sometime. I am positive Becky won't watch it so it should be sometime when she is out.

There are other films I don't get. I have seen part of The Wild Bunch several times. I just can't get through it. It's a great movie.

Anyway, I may still get to it. But I don't suggest holding your breath.

[kenberg]

We all have our peculiar ideas. From time to time, I have said I thought bicycle riding would be good to help young people of modest background discover new options. I see it is happening:

http://www.cyclesforchange.org/

Nothing is a total solution. But I like this contribution to a solution a lot. There are several videos about their program. The Harvest ride looks great.

[Winstonm]

More information about the crisis of the poor and unemployed in the U.S.

Quote

Then they calculated the effect on the national economy. When the Federal Reserve couldn't lower interest rates any further — the situation we're in now, known as the "zero lower bound" — Nakamura and Steinsson found a 1 percent increase in government purchases in a particular state resulted in at least a 1.7 percent increase in national income per person.

In other words, the federal government can stimulate the economy and create jobs, and the resulting increase in income will far exceed any cost to the taxpayers.

[kenberg]

It appears I have to sign up with them to read the article. I gather the article refers to some paper, perhaps http://www.columbia....pers/fiscal.pdf

[kenberg]

This story from the Washington Post focuses on problems of returning vets as they seek employment.

http://www.washingto.../wanted-heroes/

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2014-April-06, 11:58, said:

It appears I have to sign up with them to read the article. I gather the article refers to some paper, perhaps http://www.columbia....pers/fiscal.pdf

Or try this link

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2014-April-06, 13:34, said:

Or try this link

Yes, that works. Now that I see it, I think I have seen it before.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2014-March-24, 07:26, said:

The more I read from Krugman the more obnoxious he sounds. I have known mathemaiticians like this. They sure as hell had better be brilliant because they aren't making it on personality. It is useful for a person to understand that not everyone who disagrees with him is a villain. Sometimes they are not even stupid. And, on occasion, they are not even wrong.

I have no intention of debating whether a thought I have is "truly an honest error" or whether I am "self-consciously exploiting deficit panic to promote a conservative agenda" and I don't imagine many others have such plans either. Such a presentation basically ends discussion, we just move on to who has the most votes.

To put it another way: If he intends to change any minds, rather than win applause from the choir, he needs to work on his communication skills.

I see Paul Krugman has replied, at last, to your post.

[y66]

As for convincing people who disagree with us of anything, Brad Delong, Krugman's self described wingman, observes:

Quote

Max Planck thought long and hard about this. But in the end even he gave up. His final position was:

Science does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.... Science advances one funeral at a time...

[barmar]

It seems like that also describes how we make progress in social issues, too. You're not likely to convince old homophobes and racial bigots that they're wrong, but eventually they die off.

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2015-February-27, 12:45, said:

I see Paul Krugman has replied, at last, to your post.

It seems that he and I agree that he is obnoxious.It is always good to find common ground.

I gather he takes this characterization as accurate and intended. He thinks it is the best way to be effective. He could be right.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2015-February-27, 14:53, said:

It seems that he and I agree that he is obnoxious.It is always good to find common ground.

I gather he takes this characterization as accurate and intended. He thinks it is the best way to be effective. he could be right.

He is definitely perceived as obnoxious and arrogant by a lot of people, many of whom have done serious long term damage to the financial system, to the economy, to the planet, to the economics profession and the public. I don't think anyone can say, with credibility, that Krugman is intellectually dishonest or incompetent as is the case with so many of his detractors who are even more arrogant and obnoxious!

p.s. That most definitely does not include you. I think you are one of the most honest and thoughtful posters on this forum. If you had studied economics, you would probably also be one of the most competent posters on economic topics as well. I suspect this was not one of your interests in college.

[Bbradley62]

Would Krugman make such a good living as a guest commentator if he weren't so arrogant and obnoxious?

[y66]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-February-27, 15:39, said:

Would Krugman make such a good living as a guest commentator if he weren't so arrogant and obnoxious?

Or so frequently the only guy in the room who knows what he's talking about?

[kenberg]

 y66, on 2015-February-27, 15:24, said:

He is definitely perceived as obnoxious and arrogant by a lot of people, many of whom have done serious long term damage to the financial system, to the economy, to the planet, to the economics profession and the public. I don't think anyone can say, with credibility, that Krugman is intellectually dishonest or incompetent as is the case with so many of his detractors who are even more arrogant and obnoxious!

p.s. That most definitely does not include you. I think you are one of the most honest and thoughtful posters on this forum. If you had studied economics, you would probably also be one of the most competent posters on economic topics as well. I suspect this was not one of your interests in college.

I took Econ 1 and 2 from a book written by Paul Samuelson. Econ 1 was taught be a prof who saw things very mathematically and I found it very easy. Econ 2 was taught be someone who saw everything in qualitative terms and I rarely had any idea of what he was talking about. But largely you are right. I keep trying to read economic stuff and I just drift off.

I was once talking a mathematician who found that I played bridge. This was many years ago but I still remember hi saying "In the bidding I sometimes choose wrongly but my play of the hand is impeccable, We should play sometime". Uh no. I clearly understood that if anything went wrong it was agreed in advance that it would be my fault.

I have been lucky enough to have spent some time with some very smart people. I am not dumb, but some people are smarter, and there are those who are a lot smarter. A colleague liked to tell of the upper level math class hew was teaching where one of the students came up after class to ask "That little kid who sits in the front row. Am I supposed to understand the questions he asks?"
I value such experience even when (this is rare) they are personally difficult. But it can get tiresome. I can read Krugman, I can attempt to understand Krugman, but it gets tiresome listening to him explain that the only reasons anyone could possibly disagree with him are stupidity or evil intent.

Added: Actually I don't want to dwell on Krugman's style. I started it, I know, it was just a bit of frustration. I believe on focusing on content. I might not invite the guy over for dinner, but if he is right he is right. And of course if he is wrong, he is wrong, even if he regards that as beyond the realm of the possible.

[y66]

From James Goodwin's April 19th review of Senator Elizabeth Warren's March 3rd speech:

Quote

Several weeks ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered perhaps the most important speech on the U.S. regulatory system in recent memory at a forum on regulatory capture organized by the Administrative Conference of the United States. In it, she described how the regulatory system was not working for the people as it should be – or as Congress had intended. Instead, she described how corporate influence over the regulatory process has become so far-reaching and so overwhelming that it has become fundamentally "tilted" to generate results that favor corporate profit at the expense of crucial safeguards necessary for protecting people and the environment.

Put differently, Warren's speech described how corporate interests had gone beyond capturing discrete agencies – a phenomenon that policymakers and political scientists have recognized for decades – and now have successfully captured critical components of the process by which agencies do their work.

This new approach to regulatory capture produces the same results as the traditional conception: substantive policies that advance industry interests at the expense of the public interest. In contrast, though, it is much more insidious – indeed, process capture is nearly impossible for policymakers to observe, let alone for the general public – and it is much more difficult to effectively remedy through policy reforms.

CPR and others in the public interest community have been working for years to shine a light on this understanding of the regulatory system and draw the attention of policymakers, the media, and the public. In fact, CPR Vice President Sid Shapiro spoke at the same event as Warren and raised similar concerns about regulatory process capture.

Warren's speech was significant because it represents the most high-profile articulation to date of the progressive diagnosis of what ails the regulatory system and the necessary reform remedies. Critically, the progressive vision of the U.S. regulatory system that Warren articulated stands in stark contrast to the narrative that has been peddled by most members of Congress in recent years and regurgitated throughout the media – a narrative that has generally framed the debate as whether or not we have too much regulation. Instead, Warren's speech makes the convincing case that our regulatory system is falling well short of what it should be accomplishing and that the proper reforms should be aimed at strengthening it.