| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| is Krigman insane? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=614 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | is Krigman insane? |
His latest blogs are proclaiming the free fall of the dollar as good news and that what we need more than anything is higher taxes and more easy credit (hes stopped short of suggesitng a negative prime rate from the Fed). What is he thinking? Better yet- what is he smoking? |
|
| Author: | Beryllin [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: is Krigman insane? |
Maybe he wants to see what will rise up out of the ashes? |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Who? |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think he means Paul Krugman. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Who? I seem to recall seeing that name. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He's a economist with a focus in macro and global economic schools of economics, international and large scale finance and fiscal policy at a national level. He basically is just another Bernanke, Greenspan, Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson. He often appears on various financial segments on MSNBC, Fox and CNN. Sometimes trading shows too, but his commentary usually is focused not on market performance or the like (except maybe Government issued Securities like the Bond Market) but towards Fiscal policy and policy and control of markets a'la the SEC and other such entities. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He is a nobel prize winning economist, widely regarded by the world as a top economic mind. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: He is a nobel prize winning economist, widely regarded by the world as a top economic mind. Hitler was Time's man of the year in 39. Big whoop. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wow.. the debate did not even go on long before it was taken there... |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: He is a nobel prize winning economist, widely regarded by the world as a top economic mind. Paul Krugman is a hack and a charlatan who won a Nobel Prize for someone else's work. And, it's really curious you think he has any credibility left after being demonstrably wrong about every prediction he's made in the last year. It's gotten to the point where he can't help but stumble over his own lies. The bailout was 3 times the size he said was needed last October, and just last week, Krugman was saying he knew it would be too small.
|
|
| Author: | Uncle Fester [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Monte wrote: He is a nobel prize winning economist, widely regarded by the world as a top economic mind. Hitler was Time's man of the year in 39. Big whoop. Ouch you Goodwined...bad Elm! As we have seen the Nobel Prize is now a "I hope you do good" prize, and really I lost respect for it when it went to Arafat. Krugman was also an Enron advisor, so big props to his economics platform. The Wall Street Journal has been kicking him dailey over one his healthcare quotes. He is a tool plain and simple. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Uncle Fester wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Monte wrote: He is a nobel prize winning economist, widely regarded by the world as a top economic mind. Hitler was Time's man of the year in 39. Big whoop. Ouch you Goodwined...bad Elm! As we have seen the Nobel Prize is now a "I hope you do good" prize, and really I lost respect for it when it went to Arafat. Krugman was also an Enron advisor, so big props to his economics platform. The Wall Street Journal has been kicking him dailey over one his healthcare quotes. He is a tool plain and simple. If we can get in a reference to Schrödinger's cat; do we win the toaster? |
|
| Author: | Raell [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm sorry sir. We stopped the toaster give away two months ago but we do have this nice pocket note book. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
how about the 2.99 walmart wallet for when we give a pair of cute robber women a ride to McDonalds? |
|
| Author: | Raell [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry, those are all spoken for. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: He is a nobel prize winning economist, widely regarded by the world as a top economic mind. Source? |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol look at you asking that silly question again. Back of the line buddy, there are a lot of us still waiting for answers to that question. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, I expected Khross to say he was a hack and a charlatan, but then again, Khross is ideologically opposed to what Krugman promotes. Then again, Khross doesn't have a Nobel Prize, and Krugman does, so I'll lean towards Krugman as a source on economics. As for a source, it should be self evident. He's an internationally prominent speaker, writer, and teacher in the field. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'll see your hack with a Nobel Prize and raise you a Friedman. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: Well, I expected Khross to say he was a hack and a charlatan, but then again, Khross is ideologically opposed to what Krugman promotes. Then again, Khross doesn't have a Nobel Prize, and Krugman does, so I'll lean towards Krugman as a source on economics. As for a source, it should be self evident. He's an internationally prominent speaker, writer, and teacher in the field. Ad hominem. Appeal to emotion Appeal to authority Appeal to popularity Good work, 4 logical fallacies in 3 sentences. Not bad. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
1) No it isn't. It's not an ad hominem to point out that someone operates in an expected fashion, as others have pointed out. How is the second sentence an appeal to emotion? It's a statement of fact, and then a statement of opinion. And finally, are you saying that pointing out someone's expertise is an appeal to authority? I don't ignore my doctor's advice because accepting him as an expert is an appeal to authority. He's a qualified doctor. Krugman is an eminently qualified economist. That doesn't just go away because people here don't like him. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
No - it goes away because he is wrong. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In your opinion. Which, when it comes to economics, I personally don't place a great deal of weight on. He is eminently more qualified than you when it comes to economics. I am talking about why I accept Krugman's opinions over the posters here, and his expertise and accomplishments have a lot to do with that. I am not arguing about his rightness or wrongness. I'm talking about why I trust his opinions more than other opinions. That's why DFK's tirade about logical fallacies doesn't apply. I am arguing about why I believe Krugman is a good source when it comes to economics. He would have been correct had I used those arguments to support a specific economic issue. For example, if I had said "Krugman is correct about deficit spending because he's a Nobel Prize winning economist", I would have been guilty of an appeal to authority. But that isn't what's going on here. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: 1) No it isn't. It's not an ad hominem to point out that someone operates in an expected fashion, as others have pointed out. No, actually they haven't. They've pointed out that it's not a violation of he board's rules to do so. That doesn't change the fact that it's still falacious, and does nothing to establish Krugman's credibility. Quote: How is the second sentence an appeal to emotion? It's a statement of fact, and then a statement of opinion. How do you know he was referring to the second sentence? Quote: And finally, are you saying that pointing out someone's expertise is an appeal to authority? I don't ignore my doctor's advice because accepting him as an expert is an appeal to authority. He's a qualified doctor. Krugman is an eminently qualified economist. That doesn't just go away because people here don't like him. You're aware that sometimes people get second opinions from doctors? That's because experts in a field can disagree. When they do, it's an appeal to authority then to cite one authority and claim that a position is correct because he says so. If you can provide additional evidence to support that authority's opinion on the matter, it's not a fallacy to use his opinion as support, but it is not proof in and of itself. It's equally fallacious to dismiss an authority's opinion simply because another authority disagrees. Technically what you said was that you would take Krugman's opinion over Khross's, so you didn't commit the fallacy in terms of discussion here, but since you've given no reason other than Krugman's popularity and authority status for accepting his ideas, it appears that you've committed th cited fallacies in your personal thinking. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
DE - That may be true, but as you said, I did not commit the fallacy that DFK claimed. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|