Ah. So the Federal system is counter-intuitive to Keynesian economics because instead of having to control 1 government, the Keynesian economists have to control thousands.
Well then. I guess the economists better start learning politics.
^ Yeah it is. If you can't communicate an idea simply and effectively, how can you get support for it? All the evidence in the world means nothing if you can't communicate it to someone who can help with it.
There's a saying "business communication to achieve business results". You don't give technical jargon to a manager/executive to get funding for a software project, likewise you don't speak in academia when trying to rally support from politicians (because a lot of them either don't like it or are excluded from academic circles) for economic projects.
Actually, yeah, it is.
I don't really know how to conceptualize how many good ideas flit past us every day because we can't articulate them...
I am now known as Flyboy.Tom, truth transcends that crap. You can't make an argument that falsehoods are better just because the truth is too complicated to put in a 30 second soundbyte.
Okay USAF. Make the argument. Why is having a bad idea somehow better than having a complex idea?
Now, an oversimplification is better than no information at all if you point out that, by virtue of being a simplification, strict application of the point may run into contradictions. But that's not what Tom is saying. Tom is saying "complex ideas are inherently worse than false ideas."
edited 18th Sep '11 8:24:28 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Oh, falsehoods are never better than truth.
This isn't theory, this is reality. And in reality, people are attracted to charisma, not truth.
It's when the charismatic people tell the truth that the miracles of reality are beheld.
I am now known as Flyboy.The point is, all the simple "bad ideas" are wrong. They're false. They're demonstrably false. They can be proven to be false. They ARE proven to be false. Repeatedly. By Paul Krugman. But he's apparently too complex, so people take the false ideas anyway. It's asinine. It's ridiculous. It's indefensible, and yet it's defended.
I didn't mean as in "People will buy complex ideas." I'm not talking about "winning the political game" I'm talking about "having intellectual honesty." If all you wanna do is win the political game, fine, but that's not what I'm talking about.
If you want to make the argument that Krugman is inefficient as a figurehead for the liberal movement because he's not good at talking to people, I can certainly say that's a plausible theory.
edited 18th Sep '11 8:26:42 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
We're (well, I'm) not saying it's right.
We're saying that's how it works.
Krugman can be all different kinds of right, but if he can't convince people of that, it doesn't mean a thing.
I am now known as Flyboy.^^^ Because whatever you say they are "wrong" on is so poorly communicated those who oppose it and conceivably be persuaded do not understand what they are being yelled at for.
And when you get people who don't understand why they are wrong, you get people who become defensive. And when you get defensive people that's when all pretense of them listening to you in the first place falls apart.
edited 18th Sep '11 8:28:02 PM by MajorTom
I'm with tomu. The damage done by a bad idea is worse than the inability to communicate a good idea.
If a truly bad idea gets passed, you get stuff like the recession. If a mediocre idea gets passed, its just mediocre. People mostly go about their day as normal. But a bad idea? Like "Lower gas prices by letting everyone use the gas reserve" bad? That leaves a lasting impression.A bad one.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryWell, let me be frank: I don't think Krugman is trying to recruit to the liberal cause. Rather, I think he takes it as an academic exercise to have an accurate model of reality. He is a Cassandra as it were-someone who is always right but is never listened to, to disastrous consequences.
It's my suspicion that that doesn't bother him, except for the disastrous consequences part.
The statement really should read, "a well-communicated bad idea is infinitely more dangerous than a poorly-communicated good idea."
It's worse to have idiocy executed well than intelligence executed idiotically...
I am now known as Flyboy.Works.
Again, Krugman is, fundamentally, an academic. He's less interested in convincing people to take a given action, than he is in having the most accurate model. He is, to that extent, a social scientist. Now, would we all be better off if we used the accurate models? Sure. And humanitarians should theoretically work to make sure that we do. That's ... not really Krugman's skill set.
He's pretty good at explaining how things work, predicting the consequences of various policies, etc. But a diplomat he ain't.
I'm precisely the same way <shrugs> Naively, I assume people will "listen to reason and choose the model that best reflects reality."
edited 18th Sep '11 8:32:56 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Social scientists don't do the world any good if they won't stand up for what they believe.
He needs a proxy, I suppose. Someone who agrees with him but is (probably) not as good at figuring out exactly how to do it, and yet is more charismatic than he is...
I am now known as Flyboy.

The black line is aggregate expectations of federal and state/local government. Aka, that's where we can expect to be if NO bill is passed.
I guess the moral of the story is that we have to keep at it. Even if the Bill formerly known as the American Jobs Act is passed, we can't just clap our hands together and say "Mission Accomplished."
edited 18th Sep '11 8:06:34 PM by TheyCallMeTomu