SuperFreakonomics' Dubner disses Paul Krugman

[ZuzoFriend]

Krugman is fucking insane. why anyone listens to what he says is beyond me.

[makeithappen42zx]

@ZuzoFriend Not sure you understand economics, so stick to your day job.

[ZuzoFriend]

@makeithappen42zx

Can't someone just be annoyed by high-minded liberal rhetoric without being deemed an economic illiterate? You don't know me or what major i took in college (it starts with an e).

Anyway, It bothers me that Krugman talked shit about freakonomics. He's the least likable public intellectual that I can think of.

[makeithappen42zx]

@ZuzoFriend engineering? Just kidding. But it does bother me that so many people deride the guy so easily without any real factual arguments and simply just because he is a "liberal". Although he is not perfect, the guy is a genius and has remarkable track record for being right on economic predictions. I will say though that his 3rd depression comments came a quickly and time has proven him to not be right on that one.

[ZuzoFriend]

@makeithappen42zx

It comes with the territory of being a highly partisan public figure. I've been reading krugman's articles in the paper for years and his blog "conscious of a liberal" when I can stand it. Even if he is a good macro-economist (I'm still not sure), he gets under peoples' skin rather effortlessly

[sevenslimysnails]

Oh jesus watching this guy give himself a tongue bath is unbearable

[natazer]

ha ha. I love flaming on youtube.! Everyone go fuck yourself! You're all wrong! I'm right!

[danielmatern]

I realized I misspelled Keynes.

[danielmatern]

Dr. Krugman has written some great articles about the Euro and other monetary topics. He is a very smart man; although, like many other economist, he has "Physics Envy." Krugman has his opinions and he should not be ridiculed for his beliefs. Similarly, it is easy respect both opinions of J. M. Kanyes and F. A. Hayek.

That being said, Krugman does look like a villain in a James Bond movie when he holds his cat.

[TheRacistsMustDie]

@danielmatern Hail to your mature "I think twice before I say something but still have humor" attitude.

[maleki9]

I read both of their books, they were entertaining (the first one was much better than the second). What bothered me was their tacit dismissal of climate change, to call out Dr. Krugman because he dared express that exact same point is a puerile, and doesn't forward the debate at all.

[daobagua]

@maleki9 How did they dismiss climate change? From what I remember reading (it's been a while). They did not dismiss climate change but simply noted that their may be other solutions for it and then the pointed out that because of the environmentalism ideology, some of these solutions are considered heretical.

[OutlawTomFantastic]

Krugman is a mouthpiece for Washington bureaucrats who crave power and love spending lots of other people's money. He wouldn't understand the Free Market if it came up and bit him on the ass.

[BlueBlueFeelin]

@OutlawTomFantastic so true. ha

[thesparitan]

@OutlawTomFantastic Wow you are so stupid its amazing

[daobagua]

@thesparitan Very weak argument.

[thesparitan]

@daobagua Its not an argument, moron.

[daobagua]

@thesparitan I was not using the term argument as a verb, but rather as a noun. Your statement was an argument, but it was one devoid of logic or fact. You may very well be right in this argument (I am not siding with OutlawTomFantastic), but the use of ad hominems does not support your view.

Cheers.

[thesparitan]

@daobagua It was a statement, not an argument. It lacks facts and logic because its not an argument. I cannot help the fact that you are to stupid to know what words mean, not my problem. Its also not an ad hominem ether because I wasn't using an attack on his character as a attack on his argument. Insults only are not ad hominem, dont you know anything? Dude seriously get an education.

Cheers.

[daobagua]

@thesparitan Lol. Then what was your motivation for calling him and I stupid. My assumption was that it was because you disagreed with what he was saying, and thus it was to attack his argument. But upon further analysis, you are correct, the only reason you through insults must be because you are a petty prick.

Cheers.

[thesparitan]

@daobagua Its rare to see someone understand why their argument is wrong and then correct it properly. Well done. Much love and respect. I might be a petty prick but I am not wrong.

Cheers

and go fuck yourself.

[BadHabit202]

Economics is a pseudo-science. Dubner and Krugman are equal in their charlatan ways. Dubner's 'environmentalism as a religion' was identified by Michael Crichton and not these loser wanna be scientists known as economists.

[SadisticMonkey336]

@BadHabit202

spoken like a true economic illiterate

[BadHabit202]

@SadisticMonkey336 You must be one of these lame economists, who try to pass themselves off as intelligent.

George Soros, who went to the London School of Economics stated "Economics only deals with Supply and Demand and takes these variables as a given. Many economists cover up the fact that they get many of their principles from 'natural science' with no empirical evidence to back up their claims." Such as the concept of 'equilibrium' (from physics, with no relation proven relation to econ)

[rainzoro]

@BadHabit202 "get many of their principles from 'natural science' with no empirical evidence to back up their claims" "Such as... 'equilibrium'" Would you mind explaining more specifically? I would like to have a more thorough understanding on this statement.

[Moragauth]

@rainzoro Equilibrium is a fictional construct that is supposed to mirror a perfect vacuum in physics in its explanatory use. Equilibrium does not apply to real world markets, which constantly move. He refers to the belief by some economists that the same method physics uses works for economics, as if only one scientific method can exist.

[KommisarKowl]

@BadHabit202

>using Michael Chricton as a valid source concerning environmentalism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[hoodoo961]

Dogmatic principles meaning scientific research. What a bad joke.

[islandmuffin]

Study finds Paul Krugman is the most partisan economist. Krugman was the only economist to "significantly" change his stances for partisan reasons. Krugman has even gone so far as to contradict his own findings to bash Republican politicians. - Brett Barkley, Econ Journal Watch, May 2010

[islandmuffin]

The peer-reviewed research was published in May 2010 issue of the Econ Journal Watch (EJW), edited by Daniel B. Klein.

Seven Nobel laureates are members of the EJW Advisory Council.

[semigotbanned]

Dubner is Dumber