Paul Krugman, As Always, Hits The Nail on the Head (This Time About Detroit) (Warren: buy, bankrupt)

[Cavaturaccioli]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Stockman is Reagan's former budget director and Walker is the order federal comptroller. YouTube his debates with them. Joe Scarborough came prepared and brought countless instances of Krugman blatantly contradicting himself. It was such a beating that Krugman apologized for it the next day and called it his Denver moment.

The handful of people who don't see Krugman for the liar he is is even smaller than MSNBC's audience. They probably have all met at the same diner.

I wouldn't believe Krugman if he said 'Good morning'.

[actinic]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

He is a whack job.

Ditto. The prophet of socialism has been wrong so frequently its a wonder anyone takes him seriously.

[Tekkie]

But honestly, having so few jobs within the city limits poses a serious problem.

If you go to any vibrant city, you will observe a strong CBD and plenty of jobs within the city. The people who have those jobs spend time in the city: maintaining residency, spending money at restaurants, local music venues, sporting events, festivals, etc. As you probably have noticed, Downtown Detroit appears to be a ghost town after 7pm if there isn't a sporting event or concert going on.

I have been applying for jobs lately. Usually the job hits are associated with cities like Novi, Southfield, Auburn Hills, Canton, Livonia, Dearborn, etc.

I rarely see professional, white collar jobs listed as in the city of Detroit. I get excited when I do though.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

You said "he gets routinely pounded" - do you know what that means? He loses virtually every one of his many appearances where there is debate, or are you just more favorable to what his opponents say?

The three times I have seen him debate people of substance with opposing viewpoints he has, in my view, lost the arguments fairly badly.

My main problem with that is that in his column he comes on like a 10 ton gorilla and is about as acerbic and certain as one can be. Then, faced with people who are armed with contradictory facts, he adopts a mousey, far more moderate attitude with about 1/1000 the same degree of certainty. So, what's real? Is it really 'open for debate' as he suggests in live interviews, or is his word dogma, the way it's written?

Obviously he is a very smart person, I just think he is someone who tells people whatever they want to hear, and I think the Times does readers a huge disservice by never running an opposing viewpoint. Because look at the comments section, he has literally tens of thousands of accolytes cheering on his every word.

These are fairly serious matters of public policy and to handle them in what amounts to a lawyerly fashion that focuses on 'winning' the argument at the cost of painting a realistic picture of public finances is shameful IMO.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

...Joe Scarborough came prepared and brought countless instances of Krugman blatantly contradicting himself. It was such a beating that Krugman apologized for it the next day and called it his Denver moment.

Krugman believes in his own myth.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli

The handful of people who don't see Krugman for the liar he is is even smaller than MSNBC's audience. They probably have all met at the same diner.

I wouldn't believe Krugman if he said 'Good morning'.

Originally Posted by actinic

Ditto. The prophet of socialism has been wrong so frequently its a wonder anyone takes him seriously.

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Krugman believes in his own myth.

Jeez guys, this is not a "hate the New York Times " thread.

[Declan's Dad]

Paul Krugman, a legend in his own mind.

Anyone that takes what Paul Krugman has to say about economics seriously deserves all the economic/financial misery that comes their way.

[The_Hanged_Man]

He might not be right 100% of the time but the man is a Nobel Prize winning economist. Academics often do poorly in debates due to their willingness to embrace uncertainty which can seem like a lack of conviction.

[EdwardA]

This is the type of tripe you get when you avoid the elephant in the room. The question is why are employers located so far from the city center? The answer to that question is the real problem.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by The_Hanged_Man

He might not be right 100% of the time but the man is a Nobel Prize winning economist. Academics often do poorly in debates due to their willingness to embrace uncertainty which can seem like a lack of conviction.

I suspect if you corner him at a private dinner party he would be a little bit more forth coming. I suspect if he wrote that employers don't locate near Detroit because half the city is functionally illiterate and is run by radical Black socialists he wouldn't be able to write for the NY Times.