Jump to content

Krugman 2003


jjsto
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the link. Krugman also was on Rose on Friday which will come up on Monday online. I am a big Krugman fan, he is probably my 3rd favorite economist with Stiglitz being first.

 

I can understand the problems people have with Keynesian economics, but we have not been practicing Keynesian economic policies. During the good times we cut taxes and waste money, and during bad times we cut taxes and spend money. This isnt Keynesian, this is just run away spending and reduced revenues. Keynesian is counter cyclical and requires savings during good times....

 

I hate to come off as a political hack, but the economists on the left appear to be rationale and fact base and the ones of the right appear to be dogmatic and theory oriented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Krugman is a ideological pundit.  Good on the entertainment side, but that's about it.  He's one of Tetlock's hedgehogs.  You basically have to be one to get a seat on the Sunday morning gab shows ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Krugman is a ideological pundit.  Good on the entertainment side, but that's about it.  He's one of Tetlock's hedgehogs.  You basically have to be one to get a seat on the Sunday morning gab shows ...

 

INMO Rose is much better than a Sunday show. I have been watching for 2 years and inmo its the best news and information show on TV.

 

http://longnow.org/seminars/02007/jan/26/why-foxes-are-better-forecasters-than-hedgehogs/

 

Had to Google Tetlock's Hedgehog lol.

 

There is nothing wrong with Ideology inmo. This issue is when bad ideas arent scrapped or when it isnt adjusted to fit reality. Both sides of Economics and Politics are filled with Ideological hacks. Just the ones on the left appear more fact base and rationale. If you watch the Krugman interview you will find that he was pretty prescient. The US inmo feels more and more like Argentina.....

 

Dismiss the man due to his Ideology, but him, Stiglitz, Roubini, and a few others were pretty on point thus far (though perhaps a bit extreme here or there). The other side isnt bating too high inmo.

 

----

 

Interesting read, thanks for the comment. Now I have another video to watch lol. I aim to be a fox. Hopefully we continue to muddle through.

 

It’s a matter of judgement style, first expressed by the ancient Greek warrior poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things; the hedgehog one great thing.” The idea was later expanded by essayist Isaiah Berlin. In Tetlock’s interpretation, Hedgehogs have one grand theory (Marxist, Libertarian, whatever) which they are happy to extend into many domains, relishing its parsimony, and expressing their views with great confidence. Foxes, on the other hand are skeptical about grand theories, diffident in their forecasts, and ready to adjust their ideas based on actual events.

 

The aggregate success rate of Foxes is significantly greater, Tetlock found, especially in short-term forecasts. And Hedgehogs routinely fare worse than Foxes, especially in long-term forecasts. They even fare worse than normal attention-paying dilletantes — apparently blinded by their extensive expertise and beautiful theory. Furthermore, Foxes win not only in the accuracy of their predictions but also the accuracy of the likelihood they assign to their predictions— in this they are closer to the admirable discipline of weather forecasters.

 

 

Hedgehogs annoy only their political opposition, while Foxes annoy across the political spectrum, in part because the smartest Foxes cherry-pick idea fragments from the whole array of Hedgehogs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rose is better that most shows.  A bit of a soft interview but usually interesting.

 

However, Krugman is definitely a pundit with the column / regular Sunday morning appearances.  I gave up on him when his views shifted with changes in government.  Same with a bunch of jokers on all sides.

 

When testing predictive ability, it's best not to look for confirmatory evidence but instead look for the opposite. 

 

Read Tetlock's book, it'll help you free up your Sunday mornings.  :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rose is better that most shows.  A bit of a soft interview but usually interesting.

 

However, Krugman is definitely a pundit with the column / regular Sunday morning appearances.  I gave up on him when his views shifted with changes in government.  Same with a bunch of jokers on all sides.

 

When testing predictive ability, it's best not to look for confirmatory evidence but instead look for the opposite. 

 

Read Tetlock's book, it'll help you free up your Sunday mornings.  :)

 

 

 

My mornings are free, gave up Cable News and Sunday morning shows about 2 years ago. Huge time wasters for much of the same reasons you laid out. Thanks again for the gem though. I plan to watch the interview today and will pickup the book when I have a some downtime. Interesting stuff, probably very useful for investing. Perhaps this explains why I always clue in when Prem Watsa speaks - He seems very fox like. Buffett is interesting too, but is too much of a Perma Optimist for me.

 

Krugman did give Obama a pass for a year or so. Now he is back to hammering away, but you do have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, Krugman is definitely a pundit with the column / regular Sunday morning appearances.  I gave up on him when his views shifted with changes in government.  Same with a bunch of jokers on all sides.

 

I think we have to separate Krugman the NYT columnist from Krugman the economist. 

 

That interview with Charlie Rose shows that Krugman isn't his column and that the column makes him seem more ideologically driven than he really is.  His point was that we were in a fiscally precarious situation back in 2003 and that the tax cuts were irresponsible.  Now, of course, that we are in a debt deflation scenario, he advocates fiscal stimulus.  Those aren't contradictory stances.

 

I would agree that Krugman's column got very shrill during the Bush years and that he gave Obama a pass at first.  I actually have stopped reading his column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to separate Krugman the NYT columnist from Krugman the economist.

 

I agree.  In fact, it seems many well-regarded mainstream economists seem to spiral into silly places when it comes to politics.  For example, The Chicago School is currently pretending that the lack of self-regulation by financial institutions had anything to do with our current predicament because doing so would completely invalidate their Randian views of government.  So you've seen some really weird claims coming out of there over the last few years.  John Taylor at Stanford is also brilliant but pretty much agrees with anything the Republican Party recommends no matter how dumb. Politics really twists economists into pretzels.

 

In other words, economists are brilliant when it comes to the "who, what and why." It's the "so what can we do about it" that they don't do well.  Heck, even Bernanke claims that the financial crisis was impossible to predict, that the Fed had nothing to do with causing it, etc.  Of course, objectively, we know this to be untrue.  I think even he knows it to be untrue.  But politically, we has to the protect the Fed because how else will PhD's be able to manipulate the economy without the Fed?  So a Bernanke's gotta do what a Bernanke's gotta do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...