I've had a Joseph Schumpeter fixation lately. Highly recommended if you're interested in taking all the good points. He's one of those guys that both Marxists and hardcore capitalists love... something I barely understand.
On Nov 26, 12:48 am, [email protected] wrote: > David : > Never said that one principle was a good summary of the wit and wisdom > of Paul Krugman. Just was saying that on this point he can't be argued > with. > > This is my approach with a lot of people, certain arguments they make are > worthwhile, but I don't need to buy their whole program. > > Its the Monica Crowley principle, I don't go around being all upset > because she was Nixon's biographer. Instead I like her good points > and leave it at that. Besides, if she ever wants to hop in the sack with me > I will gladly overlook her Nixon stuff. > > Just dreaming... > > As for Krugman, his politics, as you know, mostly turn my stomach. > > As an economist, however, he does say some useful things when motivated to > do so. > If I ever need someone to explain the fine details of Keynes he would be a > good choice > to seek answers from on the subject. Like that. > > Billy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 11/25/2011 9:01:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] > writes: > > Sorry, but I do not find that an apt description of former ENRON adviser > Krugman. He finds the Left Progressive solution and cherry picks the data to > support it. > > David > > _ > > "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned > upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to > basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.' How shallow these people are."— > Neal Boortz > > On 11/25/2011 3:14 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: > > There is no problem at all with Krugman's goal, be objective first, > then choose a political conclusion based on the facts as you find them. > It certainly is a prime RC principle.. > > Yet, maybe it takes an additional operating principle simply to actually > approach > objectivity in any meaningful sense. Namely : Both R & L are guaranteed to > be wrong > at least as often as they may be right. That is, deep skepticism about the > "truth value" of all ideologies is a prerequisite for objectivity. > > "Deep skepticism" means exactly that. Visceral skepticism, skepticism as > Faith > in the fallibility of political ideologies. > > Not always easy. Year to year, the political winds blow. In the Bush > years, especially > after 2005, the tendency was to be anti-Republican, at least it was for > me. This did not > mean being all that much pro-Democratic, but it certainly meant > disillusionment > with the GOP. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Most of us are generally > anti-Democrat > and probably will be for the coming year, anyway. No great love for > Republicans, > just very sour on the Democratic party. > > Even if the Republicans win in 2012, to expect any miracles from a new WH > seems to be unrealistic. No ideological party is capable of "getting it > right." > This leaves us with the need to try our best to be objective > despite the difficulty involved, and to be philosophical about it. > > Radical Centrism = a form of Zen Buddhism ? > > Billy > > ================================================== > > 11/25/2011 11:17:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: > > I just wish I could reliably tell which economics were empirical and not > political... > > E > > _http://www.mattrichman.net/post/13302185252/math-has-become-politicized_ > (http://www.mattrichman.net/post/13302185252/math-has-become-politicized) > > Math Has Become Politicized > > Russ Roberts on Paul Krugman: > > Krugman is a Keynesian because he wants bigger government. I’m an > anti-Keynesian because I want smaller government. Both of us can find > evidence > for our worldviews. > > Paul Krugman, responding: > > Russ Roberts may choose his economic views because they support his > political prejudices. I try not to. Maybe I sometimes fall short — but I > try > to analyze the economy as best I can, never mind what’s politically > convenient […] > > Roberts’ comments perfectly exemplify what I’ve been thinking for a > while now. As I see it, there are two types of economists: political and > empirical. Political economists start with their political beliefs and then â > €œfind evidence†to back up their ideologies. Empirical economists look > at the numbers objectively and then figure out what’s best. They don’t > don’t start with pre-drawn conclusions (e.g. “smaller government†> ). They start with an open mind and aren’t afraid to recommend an > economic policy that runs antithetically to their political beliefs. > > That we have certain economists who put politics ahead of math isn’t a > problem in and of itself. The problem is that most of our politicians > surround themselves with like-minded political economists. Now we’ve come > to > the point that when a group of empirical economists publishes numbers that > don’t align with a politician’s political views, said politician > derides the organization as a “reactionary socialist institution†. > > If we want to get out of the mess we’re in, numbers need to come first â > €” not politics. > > Posted at 11:26 AM Permalink ∞ > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > _<[email protected]>_ (mailto:[email protected]) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
