Do You Parrot Your Favorite Commentators?

[TruthSeeker56]

Being a "commentator" is either an exercise in dishonesty or an exercise in futility. I don't pay attention to ANY of them.

I do however find the left wing commentators, on MSNBC in particular, to be good for a cheap LAUGH when I am channel surfing.

Rachel Madcow and O'Donnell and Matthews and that idiot with the southern accent really crack me up, but in a "sad" sort of way. Sort of like the way grade school kids laugh at the "slow" kids.

 

[BakshisMouse]

asterism, would you mind explaining your choice?

Not only your choice about the poll, but also why you chose a username that is so similar to that of asaratis?

 

[BakshisMouse]

ConservaDerrps, would you explain your choice.

Explain two of your choices, actually. The one for the poll and the one about why you thought choosing that username was a good decision.

 

[asterism]

I parrot my favorite commentators. I freely admit it.

Skip the following italicized paragraphs for the short version.
_______________
Here’s the story of my political socialization and why I parrot whom I parrot:
While taking an introductory economics class, I did a research project on different economic views. At this time, I was a fan of Neal Boortz’s radio show, and generally agreed with libertarian economic thinking. I thought I would do a report Keynesianism, just to see if I could find anything that could re-enforce my views. I heard about how Paul Krugman was the biggest Keynesian around, so I gave his blog a read.

My project, a powerpoint, got a good grade, but now that I look back on it, it missed the whole point of Keynesianism. However, Paul Krugman so intrigued me that I searched out similar views. He and people of similar minds so convinced me to his side, and they so educated me on economic and finance issues, that their influence is one of the reasons I am pursuing a degree in finance at college.

So I parrot Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong and Mark Thoma. I’ll even parrot Republican economists if the occasion arises. The late Milton Friedman was obviously right about a lot of things. Greg Mankiw clearly has a thinking head on his shoulders. (By the way, Mankiw was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Bush Jr. and he is a current adviser to Mitt Romney. He even wrote the textbook my class used.)

I came to parrot these people on my own. These people’s views were not forced upon me.
_________________

However, the main point of this thread is to find out about the members of this board. Are they willing to admit they parrot their favorite commentators? If they are, are they willing to discuss how they came upon their favorite sources?

If you doubt this subject’s relevance to today’s issues, google “political socialization”.

Note 1: The posters who choose the option of “No” should have to explain why they think they are not parrots. If they don’t, they’re at risk of being branded dishonest hacks.

Note 2: Any poster who snipes at another poster for his or her favorite commentators to parrot from without voting in this poll is automatically branded as a dishonest hack.

I agree with few pundits but most of the time I do they are saying something I've been saying for years.

I find it odd that you haven't seen the fallacy in Krugman's logic. Have you noticed that none of his predictions have ever been correct and that he never proposes a workable solution? He's not a Keynesian, he's a liberal that has co-opted pseudo-Keynesian ideas.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

ConservaDerrps, would you explain your choice.

Explain two of your choices, actually. The one for the poll and the one about why you thought choosing that username was a good decision.

I thought I already said why I don't think I'm a parrot, but no probs. I don't agree with absolutely everything my favorite commentators say absolutely all the time.

As for my username: I find 90% of the Conservative ideology to be devoid of any real thought, but rather emotional, knee-jerk reactions and fantasies about how life works put into legislative form. That seems really stupid and unintellectual to me. So I call them Derps.

 

[BakshisMouse]

ConservaDerrps, would you explain your choice.

Explain two of your choices, actually. The one for the poll and the one about why you thought choosing that username was a good decision.

I thought I already said why I don't think I'm a parrot, but no probs. I don't agree with absolutely everything my favorite commentators say absolutely all the time.

As for my username: I find 90% of the Conservative ideology to be devoid of any real thought, but rather emotional, knee-jerk reactions and fantasies about how life works put into legislative form. That seems really stupid and unintellectual to me. So I call them Derps.

I am sorry I didn't notice your username. I was too distracted by your pink avie.

 

[BakshisMouse]

I agree with few pundits but most of the time I do they are saying something I've been saying for years.

I find it odd that you haven't seen the fallacy in Krugman's logic. Have you noticed that none of his predictions have ever been correct and that he never proposes a workable solution? He's not a Keynesian, he's a liberal that has co-opted pseudo-Keynesian ideas.

He predicted that Japan's interest rates would stay low for a long time unless there was a change in policy at the bank of Japan. He predicted that interest rates in the USA wouldn't rise astronomically. He predicted there wouldn't be hyperinflation in the USA. He predicted the original Obama stimulus package would be ineffective.

Is there something I missed?

As for workable solutions: what in your mind is a workable solution?

 

[asterism]

I agree with few pundits but most of the time I do they are saying something I've been saying for years.

I find it odd that you haven't seen the fallacy in Krugman's logic. Have you noticed that none of his predictions have ever been correct and that he never proposes a workable solution? He's not a Keynesian, he's a liberal that has co-opted pseudo-Keynesian ideas.

He predicted that Japan's interest rates would stay low for a long time unless there was a change in policy at the bank of Japan. He predicted that interest rates in the USA wouldn't rise astronomically. He predicted there wouldn't be hyperinflation in the USA. He predicted the original Obama stimulus package would be ineffective.

Is there something I missed?

As for workable solutions: what in your mind is a workable solution?

Ah. I misspoke. None of Krugman's predictions on what will work have ever worked and he has never proposed a workable solution. He has hedged on lots of predictions and then revises his comments to include timeframes, etc.

* Productivity will drop sharply this year. Nineteen ninety-seven, which was a very good year for worker productivity, has led many pundits to conclude that the great technology-led boom has begun. They are wrong. Last year will prove to have been a blip, just like 1992.

* Inflation will be back. Wages are rising at almost 5 percent annually, and the underlying growth of productivity is probably only 1.5 percent or less. Sooner or later, companies will have to start raising prices. In 1999 inflation will probably be more than 3 percent; with only moderate bad luck–say, a drop in the dollar–it could easily top 4 percent. Sell bonds!

* Within two or three years, the current mood of American triumphalism–our belief that we have pulled economically and technologically ahead of the rest of the world–will evaporate. All it will take is a few technological setbacks or a mild recession here while Europe or Japan recovers a bit.

* The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.

* As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly.

* Sometime in the next 20 years, maybe sooner, there will be another '70s-style raw-material crunch: a disruption of oil supplies, a sharp run-up in agricultural prices, or both. And suddenly people will remember that we are still living in the material world and that natural resources matter.

From 1998. I don't agree with the blogger's analysis about Krugman being mostly right. He's pretty clueless about the effects of the Internet.

Also, eventhough he said the stimulus was too small he predicted he also said,

The economy is likely to remain depressed for at least two years, but probably much longer than that

and

As for unemployment, Krugman is predicting it will peak around 9% sometime later this year

link


A workable solution in the US is to de-bloat government and get more efficient. There is too much government intrusion and micromanagement and not enough government oversight.

 

[BakshisMouse]

From 1998. I don't agree with the blogger's analysis about Krugman being mostly right. He's pretty clueless about the effects of the Internet.

A workable solution in the US is to de-bloat government and get more efficient. There is too much government intrusion and micromanagement and not enough government oversight.

How about we review these predictions:

* Productivity will drop sharply this year. Nineteen ninety-seven,....

^^^^ Well, he may not have been exactly right that productivity was threatened. However, he was certainly right that technology was extremely overvalued.

Inflation will be back. Wages are rising at almos...,

^^^^Well, there was certainly slightly higher inflation in 1999-2001 than in 1998.

Within two or three years, the current mood of American triumphalism–our belief that we have pulled economically and technologically a

^^^^ Purely a matter of opinion. The United States is failing where a lot of others has succeeded, in my opinion.


* The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"–which states that the number of potential connectio

^^^^ What were the estimates of internet growth at the time?

By the way, this:

: most people have nothing to say to each other!

rings truer than you think. For every youtube video with over 1,000,000 views, there are thousands that are almost totally ignored.

* As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly.

I cannot vouch for the first part: I don't have those employment statistics. However, "information economy" and related optimism from the 90s certainly sounds silly to me.

* Sometime in the next 20 years, maybe sooner, there will be another '70s-style raw-material crunch: a disruption of oil supplies, a sharp run-up in agricultural prices, or both. And suddenly people will remember that we are still living in the material world and that natural resources matter."

Still not quite there yet. Still, oil reserves are quite limited. Wouldn't you say that a full tank of gas is a lot more expensive today than in 1998?

Do you have any specific examples on how you can make good on the bolded, by the way?

By the way, I've written this response without looking at that link. I thought you forgot it. In any case, I'm not re-writing this post.

 

[BakshisMouse]

The economy is likely to remain depressed for at least two years, but probably much longer than that

and

As for unemployment, Krugman is predicting it will peak around 9% sometime later this year

link

How were either of those quotes not true?

 

[uscitizen]

My opinions are my own.

And yet you are a parrot?

 

[BakshisMouse]

My opinions are my own.

And yet you are a parrot?

Holy shit, I didn't even catch that!

 

[BakshisMouse]

How were either of those quotes not true?

I do know that 10% is more than 9%, by the way. He just wasn't being pessimistic enough.

Krugman also knows that the number of discouraged workers in this country makes the headline unemployment rate understate the problem.

 

[asterism]

From 1998. I don't agree with the blogger's analysis about Krugman being mostly right. He's pretty clueless about the effects of the Internet.

A workable solution in the US is to de-bloat government and get more efficient. There is too much government intrusion and micromanagement and not enough government oversight.

How about we review these predictions:

* Productivity will drop sharply this year. Nineteen ninety-seven,....

^^^^ Well, he may not have been exactly right that productivity was threatened. However, he was certainly right that technology was extremely overvalued.

Not true. The investment value of the public companies in the tech sector was overvalued. The value of technology was not, not by a long shot. Take a look at google and the thousands of small businesses that would not exist without that technology.

Inflation will be back. Wages are rising at almos...,

^^^^Well, there was certainly slightly higher inflation in 1999-2001 than in 1998.

That's just a hedge. Inflation is nothing like he predicted.

Within two or three years, the current mood of American triumphalism–our belief that we have pulled economically and technologically a

^^^^ Purely a matter of opinion. The United States is failing where a lot of others has succeeded, in my opinion.

Where? Ever been to these places?

* The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"–which states that the number of potential connectio

^^^^ What were the estimates of internet growth at the time?

Lower than they are now. Regardless, Krugman stated that Internet growth would peak in 2005 and then slow drastically and it most certainly hasn't. He also stated that the Internet would end up being no more a significant factor than the fax machine and that's ludicrous.

By the way, this:

: most people have nothing to say to each other!

rings truer than you think. For every youtube video with over 1,000,000 views, there are thousands that are almost totally ignored.

But those ignored videos are ignored with or without the videos with high views. Also, your metric is wrong because you might call one of my videos that has hundreds of views as "almost totally ignored." I don't believe it is. Before the internet I wouldn't have had a video with even a dozen views.

* As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly.

I cannot vouch for the first part: I don't have those employment statistics. However, "information economy" and related optimism from the 90s certainly sounds silly to me.

He is just plain wrong. The buzzwords have been supplanted and so very much of the economy is based on technology now. Marketing is almost all IT based now, so is publishing (unless one is a virtual luddite pundit), commerce, finance, and plenty more.

* Sometime in the next 20 years, maybe sooner, there will be another '70s-style raw-material crunch: a disruption of oil supplies, a sharp run-up in agricultural prices, or both. And suddenly people will remember that we are still living in the material world and that natural resources matter."

Still not quite there yet. Still, oil reserves are quite limited. Wouldn't you say that a full tank of gas is a lot more expensive today than in 1998?

There are more examples than gasoline and gas was incredibly cheap in 1998. How much was long distance? How much was a 13 inch TV? How much was a loaf of bread? How much was a house?

Do you have any specific examples on how you can make good on the bolded, by the way?

1 example: outsource the Government Printing Office. There is no need to have a bloated bureaucracy duplicating a function easily available in the private sector. Streamline the bidding process for other functions like that.

By the way, I've written this response without looking at that link. I thought you forgot it. In any case, I'm not re-writing this post.

 

[bayoubill]

my favorite commentators parrot me...

otherwise they wouldn't be my favorite commentators...

 

[BakshisMouse]

I'm not going to debate that 1998 article anymore. It's not because I'm not confident in my position; it's because I'm simply too damn lazy to try make a response to your response not look like a clusterfuck.

Let's focus on this, O.K.?

The economy is likely to remain depressed for at least two years, but probably much longer than that

and

As for unemployment, Krugman is predicting it will peak around 9% sometime later this year

link

How were either of those quotes not true?

 

[BakshisMouse]

my favorite commentators parrot me...

otherwise they wouldn't be my favorite commentators...

Two people beat you to that quip, bill.

 

[BakshisMouse]

asterism, if all you have is Krugman's not knowing how the internet would turn out in the future from his vantage point in 1998, you have quite an uphill battle.

 

[asterism]

The economy is likely to remain depressed for at least two years, but probably much longer than that

and

As for unemployment, Krugman is predicting it will peak around 9% sometime later this year

link

How were either of those quotes not true?

The economy has remained depressed for much longer than 2 years. We're going on twice that timeframe.

Unemployment peaked at 10% (Krugman was off by millions of jobs) and it remained significantly above 9% for over a year after that. Unemployment wasn't "around 9%" until 2011 and that's largely due to not counting discouraged job seekers.

Total employment is still lower than when Obama took office. Krugman even admits the recovery has been slower than he pessimistically predicted.

Reagan, Obama, Recovery - NYTimes.com


More stuff Krugman got wrong:

 

[BakshisMouse]

1 example: outsource the Government Printing Office. There is no need to have a bloated bureaucracy duplicating a function easily available in the private sector. Streamline the bidding process for other functions like that.

A good idea. However, a few pennies saved here and there does not a broad economic recovery make.