Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Nonsense Problem
his indicates, I think, a key problem in these debates. People like Kantoos or Tyler Cowen start from the presumption that when people with the right credentials, like Cochrane, or Jean-Claude Trichet, or Robert Lucas make strong statements, that they must have a defensible model behind their assertions. And so if someone like me or Brad says that there is no such defensible model, we must be engaged in a rant, treating these people unfairly.
But sometimes people with impressive credentials do talk complete nonsense and on fiscal policy in the Lesser Depression, that has been more the rule than the exception.
...
I understand that many people find the notion of a world in which Nobel Laureates and ECB presidents declare that 2+2=5 very unappealing, and that they wish we lived in a different and better world. But we dont and its not my job to create the illusion that we do.
Update: I realized that I also wanted to say something in response to the concern trolling, the if you were more moderate youd have more influence stuff. Again, this amounts to wishing that we lived in a different world. First, there is no such thing in modern America as a pundit respected by both sides. Second, there are people writing about economic issues who are a lot less confrontational than I am; how often do you hear about them? This is not a game, and it is also not a dinner party; you have to be clear and forceful to get heard at all.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/the-nonsense-problem/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1123 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Nonsense Problem (Original Post)
phantom power
Jan 2012
OP
Repukes are notorious for talking bullshit just to keep their jaws flapping.
Sarah Ibarruri
Jan 2012
#1
it's also part of the modern "stenography masquerading as reporting" problem...
phantom power
Jan 2012
#2
Since reality has a well known liberal bias then knowing too much about reality is liberal..
Fumesucker
Jan 2012
#3
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)1. Repukes are notorious for talking bullshit just to keep their jaws flapping.
To begin with, their views are non-supportable, so they have to fluff them up with bullshit. And second, their reps are either scum, or simply not the brightest armadillos in the desert.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)2. it's also part of the modern "stenography masquerading as reporting" problem...
where one group of people can spout any amount of bullshit (whether they believe it or not is somewhat irrelevant), and "reporters" will write stories like "Shape of the World -- controversy continues!"
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)3. Since reality has a well known liberal bias then knowing too much about reality is liberal..
And being liberal wouldn't be very bipartisan, would it?
phantom power
(25,966 posts)4. QED!
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)5. Good One!