ECON 463 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1-1: Scientific Method
There is so much misinterpretation you have presented in this thread, I don't
dare to try going over all of it. I am just going to wrap up 2 points.
In reference to the atomic bomb in WW2, you said:
"Droping the bomb saved lives."
This notion is utterly false, and merely perpetuated by our government programs
to justify its horrendous action. The fact of the matter is that the war was
over. Japan had conceded. There was no more threat to be had...... Yet we went
and dropped a bomb and killed over 100k people anyways..... Why? That's just how
a state intimidates its rivals. Overkill.
From this comment of yours, I highly recommend reading these pieces from Murray
Rothbard;
Anatomy of the State
https://mises.org/sites/def...
As well as
War, Peace, and the State
https://mises.org/library/w...
Secondly..... A major semantic you honed in on was whether Krugman was a "bad"
economist or an "incorrect" economist.
This is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he is consistently
incorrect with his projections in wide proportions. The only accurate
predictions he makes are those based off policy he supported causing economic
repercussions later on. For example, he was advising to politicians to enact the
spending and interest rate policy for the housing and internet markets. Then he
went and predicted there would be a bubble that was going to pop..... And to
combat it..... we need to keep spending....
It's the equivalent, as Tom Woods put it, as putting my soda in the fridge and
predicting it will get cold. I add that moreover, it will get colder the longer
I have it in there, but the longer I have it in there, the less I get to satisfy
my thirst.
The kind of projections Krugman makes, and his justifications for bad
predictions, are simultaneously "incorrect" and "bad" economics.
He does not deduct the logic behind the equation backwards after the result is
apparent. He just writes new ones to keep expanding the fancy "multiplier" while
downright ignoring the scientific method required of economics.....
Therefore Krugman is a "bad" economist.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
There is so much misinterpretation you have presented in this thread, i don"t dare to try going over all of it. I am just going to wrap up 2 points. In reference to the atomic bomb in ww2, you said: This notion is utterly false, and merely perpetuated by our government programs to justify its horrendous action. The fact of the matter is that the war was over. There was no more threat to be had That"s just how a state intimidates its rivals. From this comment of yours, i highly recommend reading these pieces from murray. Secondly a major semantic you honed in on was whether krugman was a bad economist or an incorrect economist. The fact of the matter is that he is consistently incorrect with his projections in wide proportions. The only accurate predictions he makes are those based off policy he supported causing economic repercussions later on.
