Krugman, and the Politicization of the Prize (Editorial)
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/krugman_and...
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/10/krugman_and...
He would not have been awarded the prize if his work wasn't important regardless of his politics.
Sorry, I'm not giving up being able to make a simple observation the group may disagree with. I'm sick of the herd mentality, and you guys can vote me into the gutter and it's not going to stop me.
I could care less about Krugman.
Even then, the author ends with:
"But these days, even while disavowing overtly protectionist positions, Krugman's columns do sometimes have a protectionist tenor. Not only purists, but developing country policymakers, worry that Krugman is part of the shifting intellectual climate in the United States that has become ambivalent about keeping markets for goods and services open. Now that he also has the imprimatur of the Nobel Committee, Paul Krugman has a special responsibility to retain his cosmopolitan and internationalist credentials. At this time of financial crisis, Krugman should be reminding us that shutting down markets for trade helped transform the depression of the 1930s into the Great Depression."
I'm open to discourse, just not impressed with the downmodding as a result of going against the herd over here. I've found economics a subject of some interest, but even with as much math as it takes, my _opinion_ is that it is far from a hard science like physics. So pointing out that politics and people's biases are involved shouldn't be such a freaking big deal, in my opinion. And that goes with Hayek, Friedman, and Krugman. My comment holds for all of them. That's the weird part about it.
That sort of thing pretty much invariably happens with economics or politics on sites like this, whatever persuasion the 'herd' happens to be.
Which is why I think discussion of said topics should be ruthlessly hunted down and driven away.
So I was hunting the articles down and driving them away. The problem is that it didn't look like that for the majority.
If you don't want to see dissent and downmod it, then how can minority opinions ever sway the majority that they are wrong? Sure, in this case I'm probably smoking crack, but there's something really bad here.
In this particular case it's clear that you did not RTFA since it's about Krugman's workflow, and says relatively little about the substance of his work and almost nothing about his politics other than that he regularly attempts to think and write about topical policy debates.
It looks rather as though you read the the name Krugman and reacted unthinkingly with an attack. That is not dissent, that is noise. If you want to make noise may I suggest that the politics reddit is the right place for you and that Hacker News is for people who want to focus on the ideas rather than the emotions.
Nicely done -- especially liked the part about emoting. The neat thing is that it makes it impossible to reply in any fashion whatsoever. Which of course was the point.
Starting highly charged political threads on topics that are only tangentially related to the linked article does not contribute value to the discussion.
I've noticed for myself that one of the signs that I am spending too much time in front of a computer is that I get into emotional arguments on internet message boards or IRC. It's easy to forget that a level of emotional involvement that would be normal and healthy IRL can make you seem like a raving lunatic online.
Take that as you will. I am through with this thread.
PLONK