I always see at least one ad hominem remark made in any thread that might relate to Krugman. I'm actually curious, as someone who is not embedded in finance or economics, what are people's detractions against this guy (who won a Nobel prize)?
A lot of it has to do with the fact that he is a mainstream economist who pointedly makes fun of the ideas promulgated by the Chicago School, Ayn Rand and the general sort of things you find at mises.org and other right wing watering holes.
I suspect most of his critics are the sort of folks who think that they would be billionaires if only their taxes were low enough and governments weren't so restrictive about things like labor laws and environmental regulations.
Yep, the problem with Krugman is that he only "makes fun" of opposing ideas (and not just in the realm of economics). As someone incapable of considering other viewpoints on their own merits and engaging them in good faith, he's not worth taking seriously as a columnist.
He's only one among many such types penning editorials for NYT.
I'd say there are three main reason, in decreasing order of legitimacy:
1) he uses his academic credentials to write a more-or-less partisan column
2) a lot of the time he can't just disagree with someone, he has to call them an idiot and corrupt as well
3) he's a keynesian and hard money supporters are loud on the internet
When he sticks to economics (his blog has a higher percentage of economic material compared to his column) he is definitely worth reading and shouldn't be dismissed with ad hominem attacks.
Krugman is known to throw ad hominem remarks himself + when criticizing BTC he openly advocates for government violence as fundamentally good (without mentioning that everyone involved in bitcoin are doing it voluntarily and not dragging others against their will). With that attitude this man deserves to be called names, IMO.
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
- Paul Krugman, 2002
What baffles me is that these accusations and the subsequent discussions of "[they]" all treat homelessness as a homogenous problem. If we, as self-proclaimed as hackers and problem-solvers or whatever, want to discuss problems and solutions we have to understand what we're talking about first.
Sure some subset of the homeless population spits, urinates, taunts, sells drugs and gets rowdy, but so do a lot of rowdy bar hoppers on Polk St every Saturday night.
Homelessness is a complex subject with many causes and effects -- I don't claim to understand it; in fact, I'd like to learn more, but episodes like this don't seem to engender that kind of discussion, unfortunately.
2nd Amendment is probably the check and balance with the least potential efficacy these days -- pro-gun supporters who tout right to bear arms to protect against government tyranny are living a fantasy. Realistically there is 0 chance an armed citizenry rising against the establishment would pose any threat to them -- the cards (and methods of control) are stacked wildly in their favor.
Realistically there is 0 chance an armed citizenry rising against the establishment would pose any threat to them -- the cards (and methods of control) are stacked wildly in their favor.
I think that is true only if you make certain assumptions - assumptions which I consider unfounded.
For example, if an armed revolution broke out, are we assuming that no military units would defect and join the rebellion? If so, I'd consider that questionable.
Also, are we assuming that the rebels are armed only with pistols, shotguns and semiautomatic rifles? No way... first, factor in IEDs and homemade weapons, and then factor in the likely capture of at least some military grade weaponry, and/or ilicit supply of those weapons to the rebels.
Nukes aren't even part of this equation, so no point bringing that up at all.
The thing I'd worry most about in a rebellion scenario, is the air superiority of the standing military. But if we're talking guerrilla warfare... well, it's hard to bomb an enemy when you don't know where they are.
Finally, consider sheer numbers: I forget the numbers now from last time I looked this up, but the number of members of the standing US military is fairly small relative to the population of the US. And there are a LOT of guns out there. And as somebody (possibly Stalin) once said "quantity has a quality all it's own". Get enough Americans to participate, and you'd have a chance.
Anyway... not to suggest that it's a given, nor do I hope this scenario ever unfolds. Just food for thought.
Cruises are priced such because cruise ship workers are paid incredibly low wages:
"The Cruise Lines International Association says its "crew members are provided wages that are competitive with international pay scales." But a cleaner aboard a Royal Caribbean ship, for example, will work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for as little as $156.25 a week with no tips. U.S. labor laws are not applicable to provide protection to crew members at sea, nor is there any real oversight of the cruise lines' operations."
Unlike people who read articles I like to talk with the working folks when I am on a cruise. Yes they work long hours for often 7-9 month contracts. But the pay they get is better than anything they could ever get in their home country. A lot of them get to spend several months at home for every contract but are always eager to go out again. It's isn't an easy life but looking at it from a rich country it seems like slavery. But most of them find the work acceptable for the pay compared to their home. Some cruise lines are much nicer to their employees than others and most of them know who.
I bet that nice piece of fruit you are eating was picked by someone from a poor country who is likely working illegally because the money at that farm is pretty good where they came from. Yes it might seem exploitative to us but their own country is much worse. Something we might not be willing to do for any money other people are happy to do it for any wage.
Another big element is the fact that it comes with room, board, few opportunities to spend your wages & fewer demands on your disposable income. $150-$200 p/w is an opportunity to save a few thousand a year, close to impossible in most alternative cases.
So, your argument is that since the mechanism of globalization works on such a, well, global scale, cruise owners taking advantage by purchasing labour at slave prices in order to sell cruises cheaply to those near the top of the global pyramid (if not on the summit) means it's not exploitation any more?
> Something we might not be willing to do for any money other people are happy to do it for any wage.
Define "happy". Happy to do it rather than starve, or happy to do it rather than live in the abundance a fair share of the global output would entitle them to (for almost any definition of "fair share" - other than "handed down by previous and current war profiteers").
> ... it seems like slavery ... Some cruise lines are much nicer to their employees than others
Right. And I'm sure if it was slavery, some slave masters would be nicer to their slaves than others.
(I think I'm coming off more harshly against coldcode than I really intend to here.
I am trying to make the point that precisely because we live in a world that is unfair, defending unfairness when it is obvious will not help improve things. That is, assuming we would like to see things become more fair.
I do agree that too many people will react to obvious unfairness, and then ignore all the not so obvious wrongs we tend to contribute to everyday -- and which is almost impossible to simply "opt out" of (eg: trying to do good by recycling electronics, only to find that circuit boards are melted over open flames by children in China, destroying lives and ground water tables)).
I am trying to make the point that precisely because we live in a world that is unfair, defending unfairness when it is obvious will not help improve things.
Playing Devil's advocate: it wasn't the cruise companies who created the unfairness; they are just performing arbitrage. Eliminating it won't eliminate the unfairness; in fact, it might make it worse.
And if you up the regulations enough to make it anywhere near non-exploitative, the cruise companies will just stop hiring foreign workers and leave them unemployed, furthering the inequality between developed and developing countries.
There's no evidence for that. Aren't we told repeatedly that companies will simply pass cost increases on to their customers? Can't have it both ways. Is it really the case that a ship full of millionaires can't charge enough to pay people $7.25/hour?
You misunderstood my point. I didn't saying that they'd go bankrupt, I said they "will just stop hiring foreign workers", the keyword being foreign.
If you force them to pay a decent wage, then the workers from developing countries will lose their competitive advantage, losing the jobs to local workers. This means the money remains concentrated in developed countries, instead of raising the wages in developing countries (as it's been happening in e.g. China).
Which "millionaire-class" cruise lines are paying such low rates? I thought we were discussing Carnival, Royal Caribbean and such.
Regardless, demand for cruises is not extremely elastic. Make them more expensive and there will be fewer of them as people make alternative vacation plans. Thus fewer opportunities for poor workers. Not to mention, those workers' competitive advantage is their willingness to work for the lower rates. Take that away, and the lines will start hiring closer to home.
Companies will pass required cost increased like a higher sales tax on to their customers (in general, I'm sure there are some exceptions). However it is obvious that they sometimes simply avoid paying a cost increase if possible - if it were not the case, you would never hear of a cost cutting measure implemented by a business.
I don't know you can say for sure that the primary stake holders in the companies did not help advance the situation. Certainly they are backed by significant capital investment, that capital came from something. I doubt it traces back to gifts from faery god mothers.
Then there are such questions as where did they get the ships built? At what rates? What type of paint is used? Where does the metal come from?
But even saying that some cruise liner magically appeared from some virgin source of capital - it is somewhat disingenuous to imply that choosing to employ people at what could be considered slave wages is anything but exploitation? It might be called arbitrage if the differences in wages where slight -- but they're not, are they?
I don't know you can say for sure that the primary stake holders in the companies did not help advance the situation. Certainly they are backed by significant capital investment, that capital came from something. I doubt it traces back to gifts from faery god mothers.
I'm sure they got the money from obscenely well paid bankers. What's your point?
But even saying that some cruise liner magically appeared from some virgin source of capital - it is somewhat disingenuous to imply that choosing to employ people at what could be considered slave wages is anything but exploitation? It might be called arbitrage if the differences in wages where slight -- but they're not, are they?
Being arbitrage doesn't prevent it from being exploitative. Bu my point is that this aesthetic approach to public policy is terrible, because it tries to treat the ugly symptom, while making the underlying problem worse.
Yes, they are making a lot of money by exploiting the wage difference. But prohibiting that doesn't solve the problem, which is that some people are poor enough to accept such low wages. If you forbid it, the poor will remain poor just as well.
Now if you take the capitalist approach, the system is working: by performing the arbitrage, the poor people will have employment, more money to spend, etc (e.g. wage rises in China).
If you take, say, a marxist approach, the problem is the core of the system, and small adjustments won't solve it; you need a revolution which will bring real change.
In any case, my point is that these patches are trying to solve the wrong problem, and are not only ineffective but actively harmful to those who we're trying to help.
> I am trying to make the point that precisely because we live in a world that is unfair, defending unfairness when it is obvious will not help improve things.
When, at any point in human history, has the world ever approached anything resembling "fair". The reduction in poverty and increase in quality of life in western countries has all come at the exploitation and subjegation of people in poorer countries. Certainly we've shifted the massive inequality from local to global, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Put another way, until we find some infinite, inexpensive source of energy and material resources, no one will live in relative comfort without many more being exploited. That is the way of the world
Wow, I thought I was bitter. I suppose giving up is a valid choice -- but I certainly don't believe infinite expansion is the only model we can carve for ourselves.
I don't think giving up is the right choice. I just don't think it's a short-term solvable problem. As in, during the lifetime of the people being exploited or us. This is going to take generations to solve. And I feel like the solution is partially already beginning. As we shift more and more menial work to being accomplished through technology, fewer and fewer people will be needed for these jobs. Optimizations through software, robotics, and 3d printing will all but eliminate the need for humans in manufacturing and many other industries.
However, in our current state, we're seeing the repercussions of this type of shift in western countries: vast unemployment. To me this means we just have way too many people alive now. Clearly that isn't a quickly solvable problem (unless you are a genocidal maniac or something...), and so greatly reducing the birthing rates over coming generations (which hasn't really even been approached yet) is the only solution.
A much smaller global population, with largely technologically optimized labor, is the only solution that really would allow most of that population to live comfortable lives in relative luxury.
So you can see how I would view any argument about what needs to be done in the short term as moot, as in my mind it would just be a waste of effort
> A much smaller global population... is the only solution
If we can overcome resource and energy scarcity, I don't see why we couldn't support an arbitrarily large population comfortably. Unemployment is not a reason to downsize the population, it just means we're outgrowing or current economic system.
You are both true & making good points. It sounds like another "offshoring" idea then.
The bigger problem from my POV is that the old folks they serve are being treated as "steady state", when in fact their conditions are often deteriorating. And, when Grandma dies, will her family have to wait 1-2 weeks for her ship to return to port for a proper family gathering & funeral? Stinky...
Well would you believe that it is not uncommon for one or two people to die on a cruise? I went on a 10 day cruise a few years ago and three people died on it. They chucked 'em in the fridge and carried on the trip like it was normal.
Yeah, that makes sense. The US annual death rate is 8.39 per 1000[1]. The newest ship in Carnival's inventory holds up to 3,690 passengers[2]. I can't find crew capacity, but some googling suggests there ought to be more than 1000 crew on a loaded cruise that size.
So if you're floating around with 4690+ people, naïvely, about 39 people should die on it every year, or one every 9.28 days.
On a 10-day cruise of that size, somebody is going to die. I bet once you control for the unusually high average age of the passengers and maybe other factors (how many drunken idiots fall over the side and drown every year?), 3 people in 10 days would be pretty normal.
The drunken idiots falling over the side and drowning don't usually get found. As far as I remember, the odds of being found after falling off a cruise ship are really low.
I have also been following this course and am extremely disappointed in its quality -- not just in poor production, but also in the coverage of course material. I would not recommend this as a primer on investing.
I would be interested to know their reasons behind this as well.
Anecdotally, it was a bad design choice for me. I took a Udacity class in the first round after their launch and followed along with the due dates pretty well. The next round when due dates were dropped, I basically dropped as well. I found myself saying "I'll catch up on this week's unit next week" until after a few weeks I was too out of sync with the course to feel compelled to keep going.
On the flip side, I felt the one week/unit deadline was tough to work with at times given work and life, etc and wished it was two weeks/unit, or perhaps Udacity to even give you an option to choose a schedule: allow a) one week/unit, b) two weeks/unit, or c) whatever, etc. This way the course still has some structure and fixed deadlines, but it's a little more tailored to your lifestyle.
Choosing your own schedule seems like a great idea. I got wrapped up in more important engagements in the middle of a Udacity course and by the time I was able to return to working on it, the final exam had already been given, which kind of made me lose interest. Thrun has said in the past that AI will customize the classes the individual needs of the students, so I expect this will improve as the organization matures.
I don't like the bubble charts though -- when loading a new set of data the bubbles are completely rearranged making a quick glance comparison between two countries difficult.
That is one of the main problems with bubble charts. Unless you have a sophisticated packing algorithm, the layout of the chart won't have much meaning. For comparing the projects between countries, another method of display will have to be used.
Seems like the Ars headline is inaccurate. Inman posts in his blog that the money is still with IndieGoGo pending a restraining order to have it transferred.
"Once the money is moved, I still plan on withdrawing $211k in cash and taking a photo to send to Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk, along with the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother."
It could be that Inman was unsure what he could legally say, and didn't want to make things worse. He'll get his 15 minutes and rushing things won't make any difference.
According to Inman's affidavit on PACER, he states "I still plan on sending a photograph of the money along with the satirical comic to FunnyJunk. However, in order to avoid having this lawsuit interfere with my expression and to avoid jeopardizing the funds from the campaign in any way, I withdrew funds from my own personal account and photographed those funds."
Good idea, but I think some sort of achievement test at the high school level would be even more effective at revealing the quality of preparation students have received for college.
Fortunately we already have tests like this and not surprisingly, they show that students are terribly underprepared for an undergraduate education in nearly every subject.
Clearly an undergraduate education received today is not commensurate with the costs to the student, especially when the student hasn't be rigorously prepared for a collegiate education in high school. But the problem is so much more than the price of tuition.
