Paul Krugman Has Been Exposed

[LiveAndLetBuy]

As much as medicine.

There are areas that well known, others that are not, and a grey area in between, like in many scientific areas. And as it involves human behaviour, it can't be as precise as physics or material sciences, etc.

Economics is not a science at all. It differs from science in that you cannot readily disprove economic theories. As with philosophy, you can argue with the logic behind economic arguments, so certain views may periodically become more fashionable than others, but you can't carry out a test to disprove them. So, as with Philiosphy, it is nothing more than theorising, often (though not always) accompanied by pointless arguments.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

The sheeple disproves you.

actually i think the sheeple as you so call them disprove you, economists are a subset of humanity and prone to the same bias as any other people in their thought process and decision making, the fact that economics has to be thoeoretical by its nature, it is a study of human interaction to a degree with more than two interpretations to every event means the subject must be tainted by the bias of the person interpreting it

[Guest sillybear2]

actually i think the sheeple as you so call them disprove you, economists are a subset of humanity and prone to the same bias as any other people in their thought process and decision making, the fact that economics has to be thoeoretical by its nature, it is a study of human interaction to a degree with more than two interpretations to every event means the subject must be tainted by the bias of the person interpreting it

It's worse than that, even when the theories are proved wrong they still persist, it's more like theology.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

It's worse than that, even when the theories are proved wrong they still persist, it's more like theology.

I wouldnt say that , i think its a good subject because the data it requires is useful, its just it has major limitations because of the bias aspect applied by the interpreter, i dont think theology has any any use at all as far as im aware

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[Guest sillybear2]

I wouldnt say that , i think its a good subject, its just it has major limitations because of the bias aspect applied by the interpreter, i dont think theology has any any use at all as far as im aware

When economics fails, its outer limits soon meet theology, e.g. :- "Oh no, I didn't see that coming, dear God, save us!"

If it were up to me economic students would spend a day learning Newton's law of universal gravitation then told to f**k off and do something more useful with their lives, something that actually helps people.

[Reck B]

Gah - We would have got away with it if it weren't for that pesky internet.

[Tired of Waiting]

Well Blanchflower did a degree in Economics at Leicester, then a postgraduate teaching qualification then an MSc and a Phd in Economics before becoming a lecturer in Economics - I was wondering which one of those degrees you were discounting!

Not really. See this:

From his CV, posted at his website:

"1973 B.A. Social Sciences (Economics), University of Leicester

1975 Postgraduate Certificate in Education, University of Birmingham

1981 M.Sc. (Econ), University of Wales

1985 Ph.D., University of London (Queen Mary College)"

There are many strange things here.

1st, if someone does a BA in Economics, it says "BA Economics", and not "B.A. Social Sciences (Economics)".

2nd, a "Postgraduate Certificate" is usually given to a student who has tried to get a Masters' Degree but failed.

3rd, Quite possible that he finally managed to get his Masters, and in "Economics", in Wales...

4th, He does not say that his PhD was in economics. I doubt it was.

I re-affirm: this guy does not think like an economist. I doubt that he really IS one - properly., essentially.

Beside, he is a moron.

Edit to add link to his CV: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/DGB%20CV08-09.pdf

(...)

[Tired of Waiting]

Well Blanchflower did a degree in Economics at Leicester, then a postgraduate teaching qualification then an MSc and a Phd in Economics before becoming a lecturer in Economics - I was wondering which one of those degrees you were discounting!

Sorry, I forgot to ask: Where did you get the impression that his first degree and his PhD were in economics? Do you have a link? I just want to check the wordings. Usually clever charlatans are very careful with it, implying something without actually saying it.

[Executive Sadman]

How dare these non ivy league mortals have the tenacity to even comment on an article by st. Krugman.

The little people just dont understand these complex policy areas.

Worryingly, certain libdem politicians have suggested a similar view on the AGW scam, calling for dissent from the 'consensus' be silenced.

[Injin]

I'm sure he means every word he says.

I'm also sure that if he didn't you'd have never have heard of him.

[Mish Mash]

Brilliant! Thanks for posting it Punter.

Although entertaining, I feel compelled to point out that the entire original post is a cut 'n paste job that has already appeared verbatim in a number of other forums.

Putting it in quotes would have been useful.

[Tired of Waiting]

Economics is not a science at all. It differs from science in that you cannot readily disprove economic theories. As with philosophy, you can argue with the logic behind economic arguments, so certain views may periodically become more fashionable than others, but you can't carry out a test to disprove them. So, as with Philiosphy, it is nothing more than theorising, often (though not always) accompanied by pointless arguments.

That is not entirely correct LiveAndLetBuy, as you indicated in your first line, including the word "readily". If you read the OP you will see that economics can study many cases, in different countries, at different times, and take conclusions from it. (Edit: BTW, if you read the OP entirely you will see that this was one of the main tools used by Krugman opponents.)

And many aspects of economics can even be lab-tested, as many aspects of psychological behaviour are.

Of course it is not as simple as some other fields of study (for instance: I heard somewhere that inorganic chemistry is the first scientific field to have learnt all there is to know about it - job done, finished), but it is nevertheless a scientific field.

Edit 2: Re. "nothing more than theorising", you may be confusing theories with hypotheses. Remember Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation? Pretty solid (well, at least until Einstein [Quantum next?]), but anyway, pretty close to reality, and more than enough for us mortals walking on this planet. Same with economics: observation, plus lab experiments, plus logic, + peer review (see OP) = pretty good science. Perfect? Of course not. Finished? God no. But pretty good nevertheless. Though many charlatans and politicians spoil it.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

Although entertaining, I feel compelled to point out that the entire original post is a cut 'n paste job that has already appeared verbatim in a number of other forums.

Putting it in quotes would have been useful.

Yeah, I agree with that.

[pepsi]

Not really. See this:

Tired of Waiting, on 28 January 2010 - 08:03 PM, said:

...

1975 Postgraduate Certificate in Education, University of Birmingham

...

There are many strange things here.

...

2nd, a "Postgraduate Certificate" is usually given to a student who has tried to get a Masters' Degree but failed.

A Post Graduate Certificate in Education is the standard teaching course that could be taken by any graduate (probably still can) to qualify as a teacher in the UK. It has nothing to do with a failed Master's degree. My ex-wife had one.

[Tired of Waiting]

A Post Graduate Certificate in Education is the standard teaching course that could be taken by any graduate (probably still can) to qualify as a teacher in the UK. It has nothing to do with a failed Master's degree. My ex-wife had one.

OK then, thanks for the info. I wrote "usually" exactly because I wasn't sure about that.

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[scappers]

OK then, thanks for the info. I wrote "usually" exactly because I wasn't sure about that.

.

Aha, PGCE for short. My girlfriend has got one of those as well. Yup, just needed to teach, e.g. in a primary school.

[Pick It Down]

How dare these non ivy league mortals have the tenacity to even comment on an article by st. Krugman.

The little people just dont understand these complex policy areas.

Worryingly, certain libdem politicians have suggested a similar view on the AGW scam, calling for dissent from the 'consensus' be silenced.

You know someone is wrong (and know it) when they call for others to be silenced, and refuse to engage in public debate. The sheeple fall for it though.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Pick It Down

[erranta]

Fan_tastic post O.P.!

Keynes was the Occult-induced 'hexed' ******* present at Versailles who created the masterplan that destroyed Germany's economy within a couple of years!

He appears in the USA during the years of the "great crash" too - (wallowing in what his Eco-theories might have led to?)!

and there's more if you look at his back_ground!

Krugman is similarly 'hexed'

Edited August 6, 2010 by erranta

[erranta]

"All those internet startups like eBay, Amazon or Netscape would probably never have been created if it weren't possible for the inventors to get rich"

Really? Really?

Do supply-side believers really think that the only thing that motivates inventors is the prospect of being taxed at only 20% rather than 40% of their income when they are super-rich?

What about all the stuff that got invented in the 50's / 60's / 70's with tax rates at 70-90%?

What about the fact that all the stuff those companies relies on to run (internet, www) was invented in the public sector?

If people are happy to admit they are selfish and their only motivation is themselves then fine, but don't try and dress it up as being a good thing.

Spot on Timak - the Elites give out all this false propaganda, coz they know by the time the backstabbers and greediest people in the Nation have 'done their deeds' they only succeed in making those already uber-rich, even richer!

The heist @ the heart of an American 'dream' - you've all been 'tranced' by the lure of unobtainable (for 99%+) uber wealth - slogging away at the expense of your family.

[wonderpup]

Economics is not a science at all

It used to be- until the crash, then suddenly all these economists were back peddling like crazy away from all that fancy math saying 'No one could possibly have predicted that this might happen'.

[@contradevian]

Keynesians give Keynes a bad name I think.

[erranta]

How dare these non ivy league mortals have the tenacity to even comment on an article by st. Krugman.

The little people just dont understand these complex policy areas.

Worryingly, certain libdem politicians have suggested a similar view on the AGW scam, calling for dissent from the 'consensus' be silenced.

I had Clegg sussed months ago - look at his resume.

Spent a number of years in USA being brainwashed (prepped for his role) doing a degree called GREEN something!

Spending periods of time in America/Oxford doing Xtra 'degrees' - seems to be a recurring theme with many of those who worm their way up to lord it over us in the UK!

They are also 'placed' in the plummiest 'safe' seats - to make sure they are elected!

Bilderberg Balls/Cooper amongst others!

[corevalue]

In his defence, Krugman was one of the few who saw it coming, and wrote about it. I'm no economist, so I have no view on whether his cure is the right one or not.

[Tired of Waiting]

It used to be- until the crash, then suddenly all these economists were back peddling like crazy away from all that fancy math saying 'No one could possibly have predicted that this might happen'.

You are right on one point: too much math and not enough politics, psychology and social sciences does not goo economics makes. You need them all. And a little history won't go amiss either.

[Tired of Waiting]

Keynesians give Keynes a bad name I think.

That too. The original man prescribed savings in good times, and then spendings in bad times. Brown ignored the first part.

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tired of Waiting