Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18651)	8/6/2010 7:33:58 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Krugman explained the constraints The particulars of the constraints are beside the point. Our issue was that you insisted that there weren't constraints, that whatever CBO said was simple truth. Given that Saint Krugman agrees with me, you are stuck, reduced to changing the subject and name calling. Tsk.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18651)	8/31/2010 2:05:12 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

I would also suspect you disagree with Krugman 99% of the time... 99% of the time seems way too high, but lets assume its true. So I read 100 things by Krugman, and only agree with one, but the one thing I do agree with is solidly argued, and backed by fact and valid logic. Why wouldn't I post or link to Krugman's argument in that 1 in 100 case? If Krugrman presents a good argument in that case, that doesn't mean I have to accept his other arguments. If I don't accept his other arguments that doesn't mean there is something wrong with presenting the one I do agree with. Presenting an argument someone else makes, isn't presenting an argument from authority. If it was an argument from authority you would have some point. If I said "Krugman is wrong on A, B, C, D ... W, X, and Y", and then turned around and said "Z has to be right, Krugman says it is". Then of course that would be ridiculous and you should call me on it. But that's not what Lane did or what I have every done. Its not "this is right because Krugman says it is", its "this is shown as being right by this argument made by Krugman". The argument could easily have been presented without any reference to Krugman, but that would be plagiarism. Lane, recognizing that you are so wed to considering who makes an argument over the actual argument, did bring up the fact that Krugman made the argument, as something you might consider relevant. Since you are so in to arguments from authority (or at least to rejecting arguments from sources you don't like), she presented an argument from a source you might like. But she still didn't say that Krugman's agreement made it right, and she made essentially the same point (as have others here) multiple times before bringing up Krugman.