Yuku free message boards

Here, I got lazy and just used the Wikipedia this time - the first paragraph defines it, and says that it has never existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

Edit - I've read a lot of Nouriel Roubini ever since he pretty much nailed how the financial crisis would unfold - months before his scenario came to be.  He got that one right, as did others.

His calls since then have been disastrous.  He said we'd never see oil above $35 a barrel for another decade - it was at $110 a barrel two years later.  But he gained a lot of media attention for that first call.

In this case, I think he's just being fast and loose and sloppy with his definitions - he's not using the term as it's generally understood among economists.
 

Paul Krugman won his Nobel for an obscure article he wrote decades ago on an extremely narrow topic about geographical influences in economics. It was a good article.

Since then, Krugman has become nothing but, and I truly mean nothing but, a political shill - as hard Left as they come. If you read a lot of economics these days, you'll discover that by large, economists find Krugman to be an embarassment to their profession. They're supposed to be objective analysts. Krugman is not. He is a Democratic shill, and his demagoguery in support of his positions these days is some of the worst "straw man arguments" I've ever had the displeasure of reading. He constantly distorts the postions of those who disagree with him, and then righteously argues against his own self-created distortions.

He is a freaking cult leader, and his cult members are NYTimes readers who know squat about economics, but love having their biases confirmed by having someone with a Nobel prize confirm them by preaching to his choir.

The man is a laughing stock outside of his own cult.

So why am I not surprised that it was Kruggles himself who made the statement that those who disagree with his political positions are just inhumanly cruel? One more example of his demagoguery - distorting opposing positions by others (who aren't cruel, but hold that different policies will be more effective at creating the greatest good for the greatest number) and then triumphantly proclaiming his moral superiority (and by implication, the moral superiority of his mindless cult followers)

The smug, self-righteous, self-congratualtory Mutual Admiration Society of his cult is an ugly little Circle Jerk (Google that term if you dont' know it).

By the way, I enjoy lively debate - ever read the comment sections of his articles. Guess what? I've posted a number of polite, subdued responses critiquing his position. Guess what else? They are censored. A few have been posted, but quickly deleted. Others have had the same experience. The man runs a tight ship. No dissent allowed, without his prior approval - and he generally only allows stupid dissenters who make him look better.

The man is nauseating.

For your own good, I highly recommend that you expand your reading material to include those who see things differently than how you do (the smart ones, not the Fox idiots, et al - the smart ones). It's the best way to keep a broad, continuing education going in life. It's not as much fun as staying spending one's time in an echo chamber with people who all agree about how superior they are when they don't even understand the first freaking thing about other sides of a debate, and enjoy the High Art of exchanging in-jokes with each other about how cruel and inhuman and stupid those people outside the cult are.

But IMHO, it's better for the brain, the heart, and the soul.

jchinnis wrote:

---

I like Krugman. So does my daughter (an economist) and several economists I've worked with.

I'm guessing that might possibly be because you and they happen to agree with his political stances - because he's far more of a political writer than an economic one these days.

But honestly, what do you think of an opinion writer who censors his own commentary section, not for obscenity, but for intelligent retorts?

More importantly, what do you think of his common use of straw man arguments and demagoguery?
    

I don't hate Krugman. I hate his writing. I hate him constantly distorting the positions of people he disagrees with on political policy. I hate when he attributes moral failings to people who quite likely are fine, moral people, who just happen to see things differently than him.

And I don't just hate that in HIS writing. I hate it in anyone's writing.

And I retract my statement that he censors my posts (which are perfectly polite - I try to get my points posted, so I don't violate rules). But it's odd that my posts, and posts of friends who also submit comments, show up but are quickly taken down. So someone is censoring the commentary section there. If it's not Krugman, then I apologize for falsely attributing that to him - instead I'll attribute it to whoever at the NYTimes does the censoring.

It's weird that you say you think I can't imagine anything good about him as a human being. I don't know him personally. Perhaps he's a wonderful man to those around him, and charitable with his wealth.

I just consider his political writings to be uncivil, and even toxic at times, not for his opinion, but for his low tactics. I hate when people, Right or Left, do that. It demeans the debates, and demeans us all, and creates a dangerous atmosphere. I call people out on it, especially when they have a high profile.

I won't even go into the Nobel Committee. How many Presidents have we had who received a Nobel Prize - just for getting elected? Did W get one? Clinton? Bush 41? Reagan? Carter? Nixon? Kennedy? Eisenhower?

What "substantial body of work" did Obama do to earn one? One term as a state senator. 1/3 of a term as a senator. Then won a Presidential campaign, and for that, received the Nobel Prize. Please....

That Committee has become highly political over time. It isn't what it used to be.

Yes, like I agreed, Paul Krugman wrote a very good article on a narrow topic - decades ago - and won a Nobel for it.

But that's not what he does anymore. Almost all of his NYTimes columns (and I read them, masochist that I am...) are on politics - economics comes in the side door, yes, but politics is now his schtick. Specifically very left-wing politics. And I have zero problem with that.

My problem with his writing is that he sets up straw men to make his points far too often. He attacks opponents of his position in quite ad hominem ways (see the "cruel" quote that started this topic). He distorts the positions of others.

These are the tactics of someone who is unwilling to simply make his case, and let the merits of the case speak for themselves. They are the tactics of a divisive partisan, and I DON'T LIKE DISTORTING, DIVISIVE PARTISANS - be they Right wing or Left wing.

Good writers don't distort the arguments that they are rebutting - they just rebut well. Demagogues are tearing at the fabric of society - pitting people against each other rather than fostering respectful, civil debate. I hate that. I hate when Fox does it. I hate when MSNBC does it. And I hate when Krugman does it.