Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>>Do you have more authority than Rachel Greszler who has a masters in Economics from Georgetown?

No, but Paul Krugman does. He's a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Oh, he also won the Nobel Prize in Economics back in 2008. Suffice it to say, he has more than a simple Master's degree from Georgetown. Here's what he has to say on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-und...

In light of your high-horse comment, I found this part especially funny.

"Perhaps most obviously, the economic “experts” on whom much of Congress relies have been repeatedly, utterly wrong about the short-run effects of budget deficits. People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now!"

One, that's an appeal to authority. And two, if you think Krugman is the least bit unbiased in his column, you're mistaken. For someone as smart as Krugman, he's a master at manipulating facts to suit his political beliefs.

Here is a Harvard economist drawing lessons from Detroit:

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_4_entrepreneurs.html

Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote.

>>Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University, a City Journal contributing editor, and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow.

Ah, yes. The Manhattan Institute. Why am I not surprised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_...

It's kind of funny how both economists you have cited so far can have their ideologies traced to some economically ultra-conservative think-tank. These are people who believe strongly in small government (in other words, are strongly political) and write countless articles that are anti-government spending so that they can "starve the beast."

So, in just a few comments the discussion has gone from looking at a problem to supporting teams.

Other posters say Krugman is largely an opinion writer now and you reject the economists others mention as they hold political beliefs you don't like.

This is pretty much why most political and economic discussions are a waste of time, particularly on the internet.

>>Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote.

I have to disagree. It was meandering and had little to offer in terms of evidence, facts or actual policy prescriptions and was instead filled with anecdotes that somehow ended up supporting policy positions already supported by the Manhattan Institute. The author jumps from charter schools to federally funded highways in a span of a sentence right at the end. Not a lot of evidence is offered that local regulation is somehow strangling entrepreneurship nor is his idea of denying federally supported bonds to over regulated entities ever elucidated in any fashion. (Maybe because sticking local communities with higher taxes is rather counterproductive in the first place). So basically he spends most of piece talking about the 'entrepreneur' as a mythical entity that deserves to be supported by a verifiable buffet of policies that aren't really explained. So the Think of the Children!! argument rehashed.

The article reads exactly like a lot of cookie cutter political writing these days that say absolutely nothing about anything of concrete importance but are just couched to ideological compatriots that enjoy light reading from authors who will appeal to their political vanity while safely holding all the 'bad' ideas at arms length by appealing to the most simplistic possible explanations of problems; while you the reader are serenaded for easily understanding what your political 'enemies' cannot.

>>I have to disagree.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic when I said it is "interesting." You're spot on in your analysis.

Paul Krugman is a leftist operative - nothing more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com