The Nonsense Problem

[phantom power]

his indicates, I think, a key problem in these debates. People like Kantoos or Tyler Cowen start from the presumption that when people with the right credentials, like Cochrane, or Jean-Claude Trichet, or Robert Lucas make strong statements, that they must have a defensible model behind their assertions. And so if someone like me or Brad says that there is no such defensible model, we must be engaged in a “rant”, treating these people unfairly.

But sometimes people with impressive credentials do talk complete nonsense — and on fiscal policy in the Lesser Depression, that has been more the rule than the exception.

...

I understand that many people find the notion of a world in which Nobel Laureates and ECB presidents declare that 2+2=5 very unappealing, and that they wish we lived in a different and better world. But we don’t — and it’s not my job to create the illusion that we do.

Update: I realized that I also wanted to say something in response to the concern trolling, the “if you were more moderate you’d have more influence” stuff. Again, this amounts to wishing that we lived in a different world. First, there is no such thing in modern America as a pundit respected by both sides. Second, there are people writing about economic issues who are a lot less confrontational than I am; how often do you hear about them? This is not a game, and it is also not a dinner party; you have to be clear and forceful to get heard at all.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/the-nonsense-problem/

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Repukes are notorious for talking bullshit just to keep their jaws flapping.

To begin with, their views are non-supportable, so they have to fluff them up with bullshit. And second, their reps are either scum, or simply not the brightest armadillos in the desert.

[phantom power]

2. it's also part of the modern "stenography masquerading as reporting" problem...

where one group of people can spout any amount of bullshit (whether they believe it or not is somewhat irrelevant), and "reporters" will write stories like "Shape of the World -- controversy continues!"

[Fumesucker]

3. Since reality has a well known liberal bias then knowing too much about reality is liberal..

And being liberal wouldn't be very bipartisan, would it?

[phantom power]

4. QED!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

5. Good One!