Real Experts

Real Experts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> Real Experts (11/30/2008 11:01:14 AM)
In reading a piece on Social Security and its presumed insolvency circa 2030, I ran across this quote from Paul Krugman: quote: I broke my own rule that you should always check an argument both with a back-of-the-envelope calculation and by consulting with the real experts, no matter how plausible and reasonable its author sounds The term "real experts" caught my eye. Who are the "real experts"? In the financial crisis on Wall Street, who are the "real experts" on what to do? In the bursting of the housing bubble, who are the "real experts" on what to do? Who are they, and how do we know they are "real experts" as opposed to just another group of blowhards?

MrQwerty -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 11:04:15 AM)
Who indeed.

Termyn8or -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 11:17:45 AM)
Maybe we are the real experts, just among the many unrecognized in the world. I had an argument (civil) with my friend's son who was in college. One of his retorts was that it is written in a textbook. I'll just let you all imagine the form of my response. Alot more fun that way, but suffice it to say the kid learned something. I had all kinds of examples and did quite well. The fact is, with certain exceptions, every word you read is written by a person. To assume that any person is infallible is illogical. So kudos on this thread. It might not be the thread of the week, but it is certainly the question of the week in my book. T

MzMia -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 11:20:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 In reading a piece on Social Security and its presumed insolvency circa 2030, I ran across this quote from Paul Krugman: quote: I broke my own rule that you should always check an argument both with a back-of-the-envelope calculation and by consulting with the real experts, no matter how plausible and reasonable its author sounds The term "real experts" caught my eye. Who are the "real experts"? In the financial crisis on Wall Street, who are the "real experts" on what to do? In the bursting of the housing bubble, who are the "real experts" on what to do? Who are they, and how do we know they are "real experts" as opposed to just another group of blowhards? Great topic CL. This is a question many "thinking" people are wondering these days, during the perilous times we live in! Damned if I know who the "real experts" are, but I tend to enjoy listening to the "experts" that put forth idea's and theories that I can understand AND have significant facts, figures and examples, that lead me to consider them credible.

servantheart -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 12:44:02 PM)
A very good question. Thanks for giving us something interesting to think about [:)]

Lorr47 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 1:29:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 In reading a piece on Social Security and its presumed insolvency circa 2030, I ran across this quote from Paul Krugman: quote: I broke my own rule that you should always check an argument both with a back-of-the-envelope calculation and by consulting with the real experts, no matter how plausible and reasonable its author sounds The term "real experts" caught my eye. Who are the "real experts"? In the financial crisis on Wall Street, who are the "real experts" on what to do? In the bursting of the housing bubble, who are the "real experts" on what to do? Who are they, and how do we know they are "real experts" as opposed to just another group of blowhards? Paul Krugman apparently does not care for doing extensive mathematics. "Real Experts" appears to mean the mathematical orientated economists. Apparently Krugman usually checks their mathematics. See the brawl (series of e mails) JAMES K GALBRAITH VS. PAUL KRUGMAN on Krugman's home page http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/dialogue.html

Real_Trouble -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 2:10:40 PM)
I would suggest real experts are people who: 1 - Accurately predicted things beforehand, and more so, had sound reasons and methods for making those predictions (as in, it wasn't just luck) 2 - Have solutions based on the same sort of fundamental knowledge that led them to make the predictions in the first place (some predictors don't know how to solve the problems they identify) The trick is to find people who were right about what was going on before it was popular to be right about what was going on; I would suggest Robert Shiller, Nouriel Roubini, and Paul Volcker as three who clearly saw what was coming before it came. There's no shortcut to being a real expert, though. It takes a lot of reading and a lot of thinking, and more so, they are probably impossible for someone not reasonably well schooled in the topic to identify, unfortunately.

Lorr47 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 2:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 In reading a piece on Social Security and its presumed insolvency circa 2030, I ran across this quote from Paul Krugman: quote: I broke my own rule that you should always check an argument both with a back-of-the-envelope calculation and by consulting with the real experts, no matter how plausible and reasonable its author sounds The term "real experts" caught my eye. Who are the "real experts"? In the financial crisis on Wall Street, who are the "real experts" on what to do? In the bursting of the housing bubble, who are the "real experts" on what to do? Who are they, and how do we know they are "real experts" as opposed to just another group of blowhards? The quote from CL is contained in the 1996 exchange of e mails between Galbraith and Krugman. http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/dialogue.html "First of all, a mea culpa of my own. Ignore Galbraith's coyness: I was the economist who went overboard in supporting Pete Peterson's position on entitlements and demographics. Demographics play a smaller role in Peterson's forecasts, and debatable projections of medical costs a larger one, than I realized when I recently reviewed his book for the New York Times. I broke my own rule that you should always check an argument both with a back-of-the-envelope calculation and by consulting with the real experts, no matter how plausible and reasonable its author sounds. Do as I say and normally do, not as I unfortunately did in this case."

pahunkboy -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 2:15:35 PM)
Give me a break! 2030? ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. try 2015. or sooner. we have no money. none. we currently live on borrowed money. if the players such as China or Japan pull the plug- then we go down fast. there is no lockbox. they wanted to privatize SS. thank god they did not. but they have privatized the govt. any expectation of benefits 3 years from now- is questionable. had we limited the bail outs to 1 trillion, it could have been inflated out of. but- 8.5, and dont forget the 2.3 trillion "missing". will China pull the plug? if they do pull the plug will we nuke them? being that we mismanaged THEIR money. (T-bills, notes) they are reasonable with their current plan to buy 400 tonnes of gold for their reserves. all of this goes out the other ear of my brother. so whatever. buy food.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 2:21:52 PM)
PA, what "expertise" have you on this point? Are you claiming to be a "real expert" on Social Security?

MrQwerty -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 3:16:53 PM)
'buy food' that sounds like sound advice especially if you want to eat.[:D]

Lorr47 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 3:52:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Give me a break! 2030? ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. try 2015. or sooner. we have no money. none. we currently live on borrowed money. if the players such as China or Japan pull the plug- then we go down fast. there is no lockbox. they wanted to privatize SS. thank god they did not. but they have privatized the govt. any expectation of benefits 3 years from now- is questionable. had we limited the bail outs to 1 trillion, it could have been inflated out of. but- 8.5, and dont forget the 2.3 trillion "missing". will China pull the plug? if they do pull the plug will we nuke them? being that we mismanaged THEIR money. (T-bills, notes) they are reasonable with their current plan to buy 400 tonnes of gold for their reserves. all of this goes out the other ear of my brother. so whatever. buy food. In regard to your reply, CL found an article about Social Security. I think I found the original quotation incorporated in the article in order to define "real experts." The original statement related to entitlements and Peterson (sic) and someone apparently brought it forward from 1996. In regard to 2015 and the Asian countries: Of all countries in the world, the US is theoretically the best able to avoid the collapse because we have the institutions in place. Would the US survive? Who knows. Europe is toast with the Euro and no central bank. However, the Asian countries want no part of making this mess worse so will they start the collapse? (Citing Krugman here will probably raise hackles.) Thank god they did not privatize Social Security. Lets see: You have omitted the $200 to 300 billion in lost taxes; $200 billion in pensions thrown on US government; $100 billion plus loans in the last several years thrown back on Wall Street; an ungodly amount of lost wages, suppliers, independent contractors plus future unemployment, which brings the immediate loss to the economy to another trillion just from one industry. Can the economy take an additional one trillion dollar loss right now. I certainly don't know. But add your trillion to the trillion hit from the auto industry and the question seems to be when not if. I believe that there is a theoretical limit beyond which printing money does no good. Before Paulson gave away the first dollar we should have thought this out. As to buying food. I would suggest a gun and lots of ammunition instead. Food spoils but you can still go out several years from now with a gun and request a meal.

UncleNasty -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 3:58:06 PM)
A good thread. Anybody want to place wagers regarding who will make it partisan first? LOL I have a book titled "Trust Us We're Experts" on this very topic. Written by the same guys that wrote "Toxic Sludge is Good For You," Shelon Rampton and John Staubler in 2001. While they fail who the experts are, or exactly how to determine who is an expert in any given field, they rip to shreds quite easily the pedigrees of those claiming to be such. A good, informative, and frightening read. One handed Uncle Nasty

MrQwerty -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 4:02:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty Anybody want to place wagers regarding who will make it partisan first? LOL We already know who the unexperts are from experience if that is what you mean?

Politesub53 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 4:09:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lorr47 Europe is toast with the Euro and no central bank. There is indeed a European Central Bank. Its funded by all EU members, not just those that use the Euro.

Politesub53 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 4:14:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Lorr47 Europe is toast with the Euro and no central bank. There is indeed a European Central Bank. Its funded by all EU members, not just those that use the Euro. With regards to CL`s question, many experts are only seen as such, all the time things run in their favour. Monetary policy makers were seen as being brilliant, until the bubble burst. Maybe the real experts were the one predicting the current situtation long beofre it happened. Alan Greenspan was critized for keeping interest rates too low as far back as 2004.

MrQwerty -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 4:15:40 PM)
'Nooo more boom or bust' remember that one?

Lorr47 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 4:34:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrQwerty quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty Anybody want to place wagers regarding who will make it partisan first? LOL We already know who the unexperts are from experience if that is what you mean? A final exam in a macro economics class involved the class being divided into three person teams and dealing with an economy whose parameters were unknown in a computer program. We had control of the money supply, Federal Reserve and the government. Our grade depended on the condition of the computer economy as of an upcoming date and time. We acted slowly at first to see how the theoretical economy reacted. Then, we came to the conclusion that we could be totally egregious and act in an outrageous manner because all we had to worry about was the state of the economy as of a certain time and date for our grade. So, we nailed the money supply. The professor was outraged but we pointed out the date and time provision. The economy skyrocketed as we thought it would for our grade. The day after the deadline the economy went into the deepest depression imaginable. We had destroyed the theoretical economy but had gotten the grade. That was the only time I was a politician with control. But hey, I survived quite well. I sometimes think about the people in the computer economy. I was an expert then. I survived quite nicely.

Politesub53 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 4:38:55 PM)
Lorr thanks for the interesting post above. This brings me to something I have always wondered. Do the moneymen running every Country just act with a view on how long they will be in power ? Do any of them ever take a long term view of how this will affect future generations, or is that impossible to do ?

kiwisub12 -> RE: Real Experts (11/30/2008 4:53:33 PM)
As far as i can tell the "moneymen" act in their own best interests - ie, if politicians - .what will keep them getting elected. The tough decisions (like fixing social security) are put off, because they are going to take hard fixes, and decrease entitlements for those of the population that have come to depend on government intervention. Which ,of course, will decrease votes. So, if the politicians do their jobs properly - for the good of the people of the country - then they will be unpopular and not be re-elected. Thus doing their job properly will put them out of a job.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125