Scots Taffer on 7/8/2011 at 01:33
(
http://nyti.ms/qAnvRb) Ken Rogoff says U.S. And Europe are finally realizing they can't grow their way back to economic health.
demagogue on 7/8/2011 at 01:42
Assuming there even is a route back to economic health.
Maybe there just isn't. It wouldn't be the first time.
Inline Image:
http://i52.tinypic.com/2lb0pqr.pngMuzman on 7/8/2011 at 01:59
There's been a smattering of that 'end of growth' talk around here too. It's kind of a paradigm shifting idea it seems. There has been zero net growth economics around for a while but it's always been fringe and scoffed out of town by the people holding the levers. Political suicide to espouse it.
I don't really understand the ins and outs, but the growth indicator has been the hypnotising blinking red light to government and business my entire life, that's for sure. Every debate about this or that in politics around the net usually has some Liberal (as in party) stalwart trying to explain to the activists "Look, don't you get it? It doesn't matter about ABC or XYZ, if we don't do what it takes to grow our economy we won't be able to afford any of it anyway.". My own mother, talking to her investment manager brings up how she's against the Hunter Valley coal mines. He blinks and says "Oh no no. We need more exports or growth will suffer." (She wishes she'd said "How will the growth be on all the farmland it destroys?" but isn't quick enough).
It'd be a hard thing to shift I reckon. It's just the way money people think it seems (I don't know whether zero growth is right or wrong of course, but just sociologising).
demagogue on 7/8/2011 at 02:09
What was eye-opening for me, my Japanese friend works for a financial company in Tokyo, and she said what they used to call the lost decade of the 90s, they're now starting to call the lost quarter century, with nothing in sight to stop it from becoming the lost half century... It's just such an absolute despondency the way she was talking about the mood there. People work, but they just keep their ambition to themselves, or go home & masturbate to anime I guess. It's just that that kind of mood seems to be seeping into the West more & more.
june gloom on 7/8/2011 at 02:26
[edit: this is in reply to RBJ, I typed it up 2 and a half hours ago and never sent it 'cuz I got busy.]
I'm saying it calls into question the legitimacy of what's being written and printed. In your example, everyone is affected in the public eye regardless of how long they worked for the paper or what they did.
It's all about the public trust, which journalists toy with at their peril given how little the public trusts the news media already.
I'm kind of insulted by your suggestion that I'm letting my dislike of the man color my professional opinion of him. I don't like his attitude or his style (which reads as whiny and antagonistic much of the time) but I'd be willing to let that go if not for the following issue:
It is in my professional opinion that Krugman's article for Fortune- the crux of this discussion, for those tuning in- cannot be so easily justified as he's tried to do following the Enron bedshitting. I don't feel any faith in the things he says, if anything his attempted justifications only make it worse.
I'm not claiming to know anything about economics- I'm not CCCToad- but I am claiming to know something about journalism and as far as I'm concerned, Krugman has done harm to his reputation that lingers to this day.
Rug Burn Junky on 7/8/2011 at 03:25
Quote Posted by dethtoll
It is in my professional opinion that Krugman's article for
Fortune- the crux of this discussion, for those tuning in- cannot be so easily justified as he's tried to do following the Enron bedshitting.
Except that there's nothing to justify. There is nothing ethically wrong with the article he wrote ((
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/05/24/260257/index.htm) The Ascent of E-Man R.I.P.: THE MAN IN THE GRAY FLANNEL SUIT), other than the appearance of impropriety due to what we knew about Enron later. He uses them as an example because he's familiar with their (public) business practices, he fully discloses right in the piece that he's joined their advisory board. The only reason he's had to defend it at all is because people used it to slime him because Enron is a big bad bogeyman.
Your complaint is blowing it all out of proportion, which is why painting it as some sort of professional lapse that offends you personally doesn't really withstand scrutiny. I call bullshit.
Read it, where does he advocate for Enron in such a way that causes you to question his integrity. What does he say that you think betrays the public trust?
demagogue on 7/8/2011 at 03:30
I haven't followed that issue; but I don't see it in his current writing, and definitely not on his writings on economics. There's still the part that he won the effing Nobel prize for economics, he is *the* guru for trade theory and int'l economics, and a lot of important people take his work & opinions seriously. You don't get to that level without being considered competent & credible in your own field, but at any rate it's important to read and follow him just on grounds of cultural literacy.
CCCToad on 7/8/2011 at 03:40
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
(
http://nyti.ms/qAnvRb) Ken Rogoff says U.S. And Europe are finally realizing they can't grow their way back to economic health.
A good article, but news that the government's official data had nothing to do with economic reality and had to be revised is almost expected these days.
june gloom on 7/8/2011 at 03:46
@RBJ
It's a conflict of interest. He wrote that article while working for Enron, and he paints Enron in a positive light to use as an example of how corporations and markets are changing. Of course, he gives full disclosure but the collapse of Enron two years later taints that, because Enron's practices went back years. He can argue he was just another "brick in the wall" but that doesn't mean much.
I'm not going to argue with this further, though, because I really don't feel like getting sucked into the vortex.
CCCToad on 7/8/2011 at 03:46
Quote:
the Malkins/Hannitys/Becks/Coulters of the world that Toad follows
Wait, what?
There really is no reasoning with you. I've repeatedly stated that those types are little more than shills for the "corporate exec" class. Fortunately for you though, most of the people here are dumb enough to fall for that Red Herring and you know it.
The only influential commentator who I feel actually represents my views is Greenwald.
