I wrote that to Nir, who is one of my friends. I did in public, but I did not write it in general to everyone. So for starters, you’re jumping into a conversation between two peers, and assuming meaning without any basis in reality.
Just because you write to me, I’m not obligated to reply. You’re just another username here. I have no idea who you are, and honestly, I don’t really care. There are a few members here, who think if they troll someone, they are owed answers. They aren’t. If you want answers from me, give me a reason to take time out of my life, to give you thoughtful responses. Thus far, all you have done is troll, and so, I don’t see a lot of value in humouring you. You’re obviously not after context and cooperation, so why should I feed your high time preference childishness? There is none that I can see.
What could it possibly have to do with? You should have worked on that before attributing a position to me that is false. Hmmm?
You’ve twice in a short span this evening assumed what was not there, and both times made a fool of yourself. Perhaps next time, give me an incentive to not treat you as hostile, and think carefully before posting a position that is completely contrived with mal intent.
Yeah, I’m quite sure of two things. The Wiki as it stands today is still not considered authoritative in almost all academia regardless. And that Lilburne’s right to privacy is both a boon and a bane. The boon is that he doesn’t have to deal with assholes trying to harass him or mischaracterize him with malicious intent. The bane is obvious, he won’t be taken seriously beyond a few folks that may or may not have a public presence in some academic circles. But I may add that a few famous political tracts and academic works have been presented under false names and pseudonyms, so I don’t know what the hubbub is about, especially from Wil (which seems to border on the vitriolic imho).
I’m still not sure why Lilburne has to be quoted as a cite especially when Krugman stated those things about the housing bubble. Why don’t they simply quote Krugman? Can’t his own words be submitted? I can see Krugman rebutting his own quotes as he did and his apologists, and that would be when the Austrian rebuttal would be provided to show the current debate to be transparent about the whole event. Therefore somebody else at the Mises, such as Thorton who had a play in this could be the supposedly authoritative source.
It looks like a link is there and hasn’t been deleted yet…
“Krugman later stated that his statement about “a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble” was economic analysis and not policy advocacy,[53] although some have disputed this.”
Except the “disputed this” link is to the Krugman’s Intellectual Waterloo article. When I wrote that, I didn’t expect it to be a full Daily Article, so it wasn’t as complete as it could have been (as Taras so “kindly” pointed out). The follow-up, Krugman’s Rearguard Apologists, covers the same topic, and is much stronger. I hope someone can change the link to that.
In August 2002, Krugman argued that the economy would not recover quickly, and wrote that, “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.”[51] He further noted that, “If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we’ll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort” (referring to the Japanese ‘lost decade’ of slow growth in the 1990s).[52] Krugman later stated that his statement about “a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble” was economic analysis and not policy advocacy,[53] although some have disputed this, including economist Mark Thornton of the Ludwig von Mises Institute who collected a series of quotesthat demonstrate that Krugman advocated low-interest rate policy in order to increase spending on housing and capital goods. In one quote from October 7, 2001, Krugman states, “economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.” Those who claimed that Krugman had advocated a housing bubble in 2002 also pointed to Krugman’s recommendation in February, 2009, that “a new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble… there was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: ‘The nation demands a new bubble to invest in’ and that’s pretty much right.” [54][55]
I just wonder with all that’s going on these days (potential financial collapse, the DHS, the state encroaching on the internet, the Fed in a corner, etc) whether the “Cato’s Letters” approach will soon become necessary for everybody, including D-list writers like myself, to be able to express themselves with complete honesty and forthrightness about the state and its apologists.
Btw, calling everyone a troll just because they disagree with you or points something out is not trolling. I am not trolling. This is not trolling. How many more times am I going to have to say this? It’s like playing the race card to put down your opponent, it’s irrelevant.
Fine. I still think it’s a great shot to his credibility. I don’t surf wiki all that often, or at least not thoroughly, but how many other pseudonymous, internet exclusive columnists without much of a biographic background as a professional are cited as respectable sources?
OK, we’ve had some success. Looks like the wiki editors have agreed to keep a reference to Mark Thornton’s Mises blog at footnote 53. At least that section is now a bit more fair and balanced.
I think it adds to his mystique, a lot of great writers worte under pseudonyms [ not to imply that Lib is somehow a mighty author for using such a tactic ]
Benjamin Franklin, the Anti-Federalist authors, I think Locke did. It is rare to see a pseudonym but there have been examples in the past. Respectability does come from name but from content. I could change my name on this forum to Count Silly Pants and it won’t affect what I write.
I am the author of the Mises.org articles that are not being allowed to be mentioned on this article. ([17], [18])
I use a pen name. I prefer a one-word pen name. But I am a living, breathing person with ideas. Those ideas were selected for publication by the editor of a web site that almost daily publishes work by scholars with PhDs. The second article contains a complete exegesis of the most controversial of Krugman’s quotes, and makes a full, rigorous argument that Krugman was indeed making pro-bubble policy recommendations. So it is completely unfair that my work is getting blocked.
Alright, so my wikipedia edits were erased which sucks, but I have redone them and not sourced Lilburne’s articles because they don’t like that. I think we might need a real name for that.
Anyway, here’s what it says now:
In August 2002, Krugman argued that the economy would not recover quickly, and wrote that, “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.”[51] Also in August 2002, he further noted that, “If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we’ll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort” (referring to the Japanese ‘lost decade’ of slow growth in the 1990s).[52] When accused in 2009 of having advocated for a housing bubble,[53] Krugman clarified that his earlier statement was economic analysis and not policy advocacy.[54] Economist Mark Thornton responded by listing a series of Krugman quotes [55] that show that Krugman recommended low interest rate policy in order to boost spending on housing and durable goods. [56]
In 2009, Krugman argued in an interview that another bubble should be formed in order to deal with the recession, saying “A new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble. There was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: ‘The nation demands a new bubble to invest in’ and that’s pretty much right.” [58]
Several of the people on the TALK PAGE are serious Krugman Nazis - they have been proved wrong again and again on this issue, but they resist showing that Krugman actually advocated for a bubble. They just can’t believe he would do such a thing!!! (Even though Keynesian doctrine calls for a new bubble to fight off the bust!)