Krugman on the "broken windows" (sic) fallacy as quoted in the Wenzel's September post:"In other words, if you believe that the iPhone really might give the economy a big boost, you have — whether you realize it or not — bought into a version of the “broken windows” (sic) theory, in which destroying some capital can actually be a good thing under depression conditions."http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/how-sad-is-this-krugman-doesnt-even.htmlSo he's saying that if someone invented a new window that everybody valued highly enough to want to pay for and replace all of their old windows, then that would be equivalent to a hoodlem throwing bricks through everybody's windows.Does he really have no concept that economics is supposed to be about individual human beings acting to achieve higher ends? Is he just maliciously obtuse or is he actually incapable of grasping simple economic science?
Ridi,Have you lost your mind? Wenzel correctly identifies it as the Broken window fallacy, Krugman is the only one that refers to it as the "broken windows" fallacy.Second, a hoodlum breaking a window, when there is no "superior" window to replace it, is not the same thing, otherwise people would have already replaced it on their own. A criminal is forcing action that not would have been chosen if he didn't commit the criminal act. There is one of the points where you and Krugman are confused.
Binicek (not sic),According to wikipedia: "The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") added immediately after a quoted word or phrase (or a longer piece of text), indicates that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, complete with any erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation"I included the "(sic)" from Wenzel's original quote. So, by quoting Wenzel, I--through transitivity--also ridiculed Krugman's incorrect identification of the "broken windowS" fallacy.Just in case you're not being maliciously obtuse yourself, let me try again with a few replaced pronouns on the rest of it:So if someone innovated a new type of window that everybody valued so highly that they were willing to junk their old windows and and replace them--because the the new windows heated or lit the house so much better than the old ones, then Krugman is saying that that would be equivalent to a hoodlem throwing bricks through everybody's windows.Does Krugman really have no concept that economics is supposed to be about individual human beings acting to achieve higher ends? Is Krugman just maliciously obtuse or is Krugman actually incapable of grasping simple economic science?Thank you. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
Everyone knows what "sic" means. The point is your use of "sic" gives the incorrect impression that Wenzel improperly used the plural, windows, when he did not. Krugman did. You are either a poor communicator or evil.I am glad to see that you have again attempted to state your argument, but I really don't have time to read it. You get one chance to make a coherent argument with me, then I move on.I will be reading Bion of Borysthenes for the remainder of the evening.
You are not half as clever as you think you are Banacek. It seems you just respond in a knee jerk fanboy fashion to what you feel a post is saying without taking the time to read it. I understood Rudi just fine the first time around. I asked three other people to read his post as well and they understood it.You are just looking for someone to do some internet fighting with.
I just asked FOUR other people to read it and they came to the same conclusion I did.
I (Rudi) will fight with him (Binicik.) Binicik, After you (Binicik) are through showing my (Rudi's) post to all of your (Binicik's) friends, please explain why you (Binicik) and your (Binicik's) friends believe that the Krugmanites have adopted the view that "economics is supposed to be about individual human beings acting to achieve higher ends." I thought the Krugmanites thought that economics was all about GNP and stuff like that.(All pronouns have been replaced or clarified in this post for your protection.)
He is way ahead of you Wenzel, he want's to sell you a used asteroid.This is how this dummy Krugman applies his theory, http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf
The Krugman Kult is quite strong.