Implied Dissent

Sunday, November 08, 2009

If B, then B

This takes question begging to a whole new level. Usually people just implicitly assume their conclusions. Here Krugman does it explicitly. He starts with the assumption that P is fixed. Then examines what would happen under a given policy and finds that P doesn't change. Wow. Very impressive.
Update: See this Sumner post on this as well. Really hoists Krugman by his own petard. You might say that Krugman is petarded.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Cripple Fight

What's worse, having no evidence, or retarded evidence? Brooks claims that text messages have ruined romance. Based on...nothing that I can see. Yglesias attempts to refute him by referring to The Rules of Attraction, written in the 80s. A NOVEL written in the 80s. And by referring to Mad Men, about an office in the early 60s. A FICTIONAL office in the 60s, written and shot today. I guess I'll go with the retarded evidence as superior, or at least more honest. At least I can point out the problems with it. With Brooks, there's nothing there at all. Winner, Yglesias.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Taking a step back

I probably overdid it with that last post. That's how you know he's probably lying or misleading. It's not 100%.
Also, a dolphin learns to save, invest, and speculate. Woh.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, November 02, 2009

Shorter Mankiw

How do you tell when Krugman is lying? Either his lips are moving or he's typing.
BTW, did anyone else catch Geithner saying on Meet the Press that the number of jobs saved by the stimulus is a fact? Really Timmy? A fact? I accept that it's your best guess at the effect, that the estimate was made in good faith, etc. But it is by no means a fact. It's an estimate based on some models. No more, no less.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Mmm, sacrelicious

An excellent Venn diagram of monsters.

Labels: ,