scumbag academic: "Best theory that Al Quada did 9/11" (doesn't present a shred of evidence)


Meh - he clearly presented the strongest argument against the "conspiracy theory": that it doesn't make any sense. As he explains, it requires tremendous risk, is far from foolproof, requires magical execution, and there's much, much simpler ways to get to the same place. These are the same simple objections that should come up in anyone's mind when presented with this theory.

Why don't you tell us what you think happened and who did what? Don't be a coward and say "well, I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't because of these X things that I don't accept the explanation of". How about you just tell us what happened and why you think that it makes any sense whatsoever? Or, and this is a much bigger task, provide an explanation that makes more sense and fits better with evidence than the official explanation?

Chomsky would love to be able to get behind this kind of conspiracy (or even leave open the possibility) - heaven knows he loves the underdog, and obviously he had no love for Bush - but he's a rational, smart guy.

Now, if you were calling him a scumbag for defending some dictator in the 70s, then whatever - but calling him a scumbag because even he's not willing to get on this crazy bus? You don't know him, or you're nuts. When Chomsky won't even entertain an idea like this, it says something about the idea, not about Chomsky.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.
The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.
If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?


I'm trying to think how to connect what you're saying to the point Krugman's making (at least as I understand it).

At a minimum, he're Caplan making the same point in less space:

The Austrian theory also suffers from serious internal inconsistencies. If, as in the Austrian theory, initial consumption/investment preferences "re-assert themselves," why don't the consumption goods industries enjoy a huge boom during depressions? After all, if the prices of the capital goods factors are too high, are not the prices of the consumption goods factors too low? Wage workers in capital goods industries are unhappy when old time preferences re-assert themselves. But wage workers in consumer goods industries should be overjoyed. The Austrian theory predicts a decline in employment in some sectors, but an increase in others; thus, it does nothing to explain why unemployment is high during the "bust" and low during the "boom."

Krugman saying the same thing in more accessible language:

Here's the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?

And as a bonus, here's Brad DeLong making a similar case.

My real handicap here is that I'm not familiar enough with the fine details of the Austrian theory to say with authority what they believe. So if I misrepresent their position, it's out of ignorance.

What I gather is that ultimately the Austrian theory of boom and bust is that central banks are messing with the "natural" balance of investment and consumption goods, with a boom happening when investment is being artificially stimulated (by low interest rates), and a bust happens when interest rates eventually go back up (due to inflation, or expectations thereof).

The response from people like Caplan and Krugman is to point out that since aggregate income has to equal aggregate expenditure (because everyone's income is someone else's expenditure, and vice versa), a fall in investment should mean a rise in consumption, and a rise in investment should mean a fall in consumption. Which means we should never see an overall boom or an overall bust, just periods of transition from a rise in consumer goods and a fall in investment, to a fall in consumer goods and a rise in investment. We should never see a situation where they both fall at the same time.

But we do see a fall in both during the bust. Why?

Keynes's answer was that it happens because people are hoarding cash. Either people are themselves stuffing mattresses with it, or more likely, banks start sitting on reserves and refusing to lend out, either out of a fear of their own solvency (Great Depression), or because a deflationary cycle with high unemployment makes sitting on cash look like a good, safe investment for them (Great Depression, and now). Put simply, depressions are the result of an excess demand for money. And since money is an arbitrary thing, it doesn't have to be a scarce resource, we can always just make more...

@NetRunner
Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.

The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.

If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime".

Wow, this Hitchens sounds like a smart guy! Anyways, it's certainly possible I was cribbing from something (or several things) I've seen or heard, but I wasn't doing so consciously. This is all well-trodden ground, clearly, and I don't expect to leave any real footprints.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive?

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

>> ^Yogi:

I've been Steadfastly in Weiners jock since the moment this bullshit started but I've gotta say one thing. If you're a public official, and people know you're a public official, and you send them "interesting" photos of yourself to these people THEY ARE GOING TO COME OUT! I like Weiner...I like his politics I like how he argues, he's a smart guy. He made an INCREDIBLY stupid decision to do any of this and for being an idiot maybe he should lose his job.
Sorry but if you're in public office YOU HAVE TO BE SMARTER!!!


Maybe. I think our overwhelming sexual impulses have a deserved reputation for inhibiting our rationality, even, at times, in the best of men. Ideally, would he have the discipline and maturity to suppress those impulses? Sure. But we don't elect people because they're superhuman, we elect people because they're fit to represent us. Seems to me that he's done that perfectly. A bright, passionate guy whose own dick-drive destroyed his career. What's more human than that?

If he's gone, and the people wanted him gone, and everyone was calling for it, fine. But they had fucking better be consistent.

I've been Steadfastly in Weiners jock since the moment this bullshit started but I've gotta say one thing. If you're a public official, and people know you're a public official, and you send them "interesting" photos of yourself to these people THEY ARE GOING TO COME OUT! I like Weiner...I like his politics I like how he argues, he's a smart guy. He made an INCREDIBLY stupid decision to do any of this and for being an idiot maybe he should lose his job.

Sorry but if you're in public office YOU HAVE TO BE SMARTER!!!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Stupid actions for such a smart guy. Power is a narcotic.


The "anonymity" of the internet is also a drug, just look at 4chan. My guess is that he has separate accounts that don't have his real name on them, and thought he was logged in to one of those.

Stupid actions for such a smart guy. Power is a narcotic.

I was deeply disappointed that Obama didn't get the US out of its disastrous wars, and I'm dumbfounded at how little has been done to address the horribly imbalanced US health care system. I think Obama's failure to deal with budget problems (mostly, again, war is the problem) constitutes the beginning of a serious threat to civilization. I'm no Obama fan.

I thought that young Bush got a lot of undeserved flak for some of his speaking gaffes. With him, it was clear he often understood issues better than he was able to articulate. There was a fairly smart guy under the bumbling. Also, I thought it was ridiculous that anyone believed the Rather-gate memos. It was sad how far Bush haters would leave their senses in order to believe something that was so clearly a forgery.

In general, I'm a Canadian with no horse in the US political race.

And to me, it's crystal clear: Palin is a moron. Not like a Bush "moron" who made gaffes (but laughed them off when correcting himself later), or a sneaky, folksy type or something (who talks like the commoners as a political ploy). No - she's just plain old stupid, and mixed with a dangerous, aggressive confidence.

The silver lining is that she is, I hope and believe, unelectable.

Smart guy. Roll on the reformation.

Here's another math thing that my brother, WHO HAS A MASTERS DEGREE IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING, said to me recently....

Background: He's Mormon. Mormons believe that God has a physical body (like Pagans, but I didn't tell him that.) Man is made in the image of God and will be reconstituted into his physical body eventually.

Okay.

Fibonnoci sequence. 1 + 1= 2. 1+2=3. 2+3=5.

My bro said this "only works in base ten" and wiggled his fingers at me. As if this proved that God indeed made the universe and Man is the most important being in it.

Just shoot me.

USC. Masters Degree. Pilot in the Air Force for years. Smart guy.

Just shoot me.

bein stein in a condescending voice: "darwinism doesn't explain gravity...."
and this is supposed to be the smart guy....

I wouldn't call Colbert a fucktard or anything harsh like people did above, but I understand the sentiment a little. I sorta feel like since he plays the character so much, it would've been more meaningful if he had dropped it for a congressional hearing. That way, people couldn't dismiss it as him just trying to get laughs.

I hear people dismiss Colbert/Stuart as simple comedians, but they're both really smart guys from what I've seen when they're not on their respective shows. They're great even when they're not delivering pre-written material. I think it's important for these people to see that these shows aren't just made 100% for laughs...they're made because some really smart people have some really smart commentary which just so happens is funny as hell.

Guess I'm just saying it's more helpful when people see the two guys being really smart/eloquent outside of their shows/characters. Jon Stewart/Bill O'Reilly interview, for example.

The Happening is the most unintentionally hilarious movie ever. It's a bunch of people running from the wind because the trees are releasing a toxin that makes people kill themselves. Oh, and Marky Mark is supposed to be a smart guy.

If you try to take it seriously, it's impossible to like, but if you look at it as the most ridiculous B movie about the environment ever... it can be slightly enjoyable.>> ^deathcow:

wtf is she talking about with the trees thing

Never seen a Smith movie but he seems to be a funny, smart guy. What's weird is that he looks like a thin guy in a fat suit. Or he's not properly fat - or something. I don't know what I'm saying.