It's hardly news, the protesters have been there a while. And it's not an objective analysis of the economics involved -- in fact, there's hardly any economics in there at all.
Sure, he's a Nobel laureate. But this particular piece by him is clearly partisan. He calls parties and politicians by name.
Is this what Hacker News is going to turn into? Linking to partisan political columns?
"A party tried to vote on a bill today. A leader of that party said it was a good idea."
Since HN is targeted at the startup crowd, many of whom hope to become or are already wealthy, this seems applicable. Doubly so, since Krugman is pointing out that the financial industry is using a false association with productive rich people to cloak their behavior. If the hammer end up falling anyway, Silicon Valley might be wishing that Wall Street didn't drag their name down into the mud alongside their own.
FDR praise...complaints on "Republican politicians"...Cantor criticism...Obama the victim...
you could write a bayesian classifier to determine how a columnist votes :P
Wow. Now that's a stretch.
My favorite comment this morning is geebee's (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094614), arguing that Wall St. should not get away with identifying themselves with true wealth creators in the public mind. It's reasonable, insightful, and has an HN slant. It's also the most upvoted at the moment, so things aren't too bad.
What I would have appreciated was an article that took a step back and offered something more general about human nature, history, social movements, banking, various conflicts of interest, relationships between large corporations and government, small business versus large, etc.
I haven't really been following the protests, mostly because I'm waiting for them to start suggesting concrete actions and plans (which can take a while; I'm not disparaging them for not having a plan on day one). And even with essentially a blank slate, I read that article and learned nothing.
"My favorite comment this morning is geebee's"
While an interesting point, there are two problems: the comment format is not long enough to really flesh out an idea like that; and it's still well off-topic for HN. Regardless, every political discussion will elicit some insightful comments. There are plenty of other places to get something like that.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that people wanted this discussion to happen here. The downvotes pretty much proved that I was wrong about the scope of HN.
Anyway, I admit it's a stretch, but Krugman is one of our most valuable economists, and this can be read as a social assessment of the current dynamics in our economy, including these growing protests. This has ramifications for us all, most certainly including hackers.
I disagree that Krugman's piece is overly partisan; it's not his fault that virtually all the plutocrats at fault happen to be Republicans.
Many recipients of the financial bailouts OWS is protesting have traditionally been big Democratic donors. Both Bush and Obama passed financial industry bailouts - this isn't a partisan issue.
Krugman knows this, and has chosen to highlight just the Republicans' responsibility and their crude attempts to rile up their base ('this is class war!') instead of the Democrats' responsibility and their attempts, largely through paid union staffers, to transform the protests into a pro-Democratic movement. (Who can blame them for trying? I think the Republicans came out ahead by co-opting the Tea Party, nominating goofs like Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle excepted.)
That's why this is a partisan piece. It's not what Krugman said, it's what he chose to omit.
No association at all.
"This has ramifications for us all, most certainly including hackers."
By that reasoning, we should just post any political op-ed we happen to agree with, and we can just upvote as practice before the polls open. It's just not hacker news, or not what HN used to be anyway.
"I disagree that Krugman's piece is overly partisan"
I didn't say it was overly partisan. I said it was partisan. That's perfectly fine -- nothing wrong with being partisan. But it's just not the kind of thing I come to HN for.
This is an honest question: is hacker news the place for that criticism? Of course, a site like hacker news is defined by its readers, so if you say "yes" you are at least partially right, and maybe entirely right.
It's just that I thought HN wasn't that kind of place.
Personally, I don't see any topic as off-limits on HN (with the possible exception of cute cat photos with captions), as I'm always curious to get the community's take on a wide range of subjects. Once a topic has landed on the front page, I consider the argument settled, and the verdict delivered. Beyond that, it's a problem for the editorial staff to deal with somehow. Me, I'll just go with it, and I am rarely disappointed.
Oh well, I guess I'll stop coming if that's the way this site is going. I'm sure you won't feel any sense of loss. But I think something was lost -- a site where we could set aside these kinds of things and focus on the details objectively, or perhaps some personalities and interests that are more related to hackers and technology.
Perhaps Krugman has done some great research, etc (I don't really know). But this wasn't a link to his research or some summary thereof. This was just a run-of-the-mill political op-ed with no real economic analysis to it. No thanks.
Since you've been here you have submitted exactly one article, over a year ago.
Maybe before you start complaining about the content, you should start contributing to it?
So, I wrote what I thought was a very innovative peer-reviewed feature to a prominent open source product, which took me a long time. Then, I carefully wrote an article about it and submitted it myself. It fell off the front page very quickly. That's OK -- maybe someone will think my next feature is interesting. But these things take me a while to do.
So, I'm really more puzzled by your comment than anything else. I write some truly new content (in every sense) that is highly applicable, and that gets little interest. A political op-ed piece gets upvoted. And then you criticize me for not contributing to the discussion.