Re: [Libsa] The death of Thatcher (Meaning of "Moron")

[Jaco Strauss]

According to dictionary.com the "Psychological" meaning is now seen as offensive and "no longer in technical use".

BUT there is also an informal use they recognise as 

Informal. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

I therefore believe that Leon made use of an very apt word to describe Krugman.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moron?s=t

J

2013/4/15 oblever <obl...@gmail.com>

Moron - Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive. - The Free Dictionary - Google

Let the shoe fit only the foot that conforms to this definition. I am not an economist and have minimal interest in the subject so I don't read about the various people mentioned in this string so, whether this definition fits Krugman or not, it is the use of words that, I believe, needs to be used judiciously. A pennuy thought.

On Friday, 12 April 2013 18:50:57 UTC+2, Leon wrote:

My take on Krugman is that he's proven himself to be such a moron -- flawed bald assertions of truth, non-sequiturs, muddled thought, cherry-picked examples/data, absence of scholarly/analytical rigor etc -- that I've written him off, even when he says stuff makes sense.  I no longer invest time/energy in whatever he writes/says/thinks, if he thinks, about anything.  On Krugman I'm like Jim Harris who used to "close the window" (or as others might say close the chapter) on issues that reached the point where they should be considered settled.  

I think it would be hard for anyone, even Krugman, to mangle data sufficiently to suggest that Thatcherism (as opposed to Thatcher) wasn't a harbinger of growth.  Regarding lags between outcomes and determinants, to what would you, Garth, attribute growth in year x+ when it has policies adopted in year x-?  On what account should growth immediately and "decades after" not be attributed to earlier and still extant policies?  Alternatively, what changes were there that could be more plausible determinants?  Who are "the conserves" to whom Krugman refers?  

 

Krugman's muddled thinking, empirical flaws, half-truths and cherry-picked examples are so transparent in everything of his I've read (which is far too much for my equanimity) that I'm intrigued by your affection for him.

On 12 April 2013 14:38, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:at

Paul Krugman also has a go not so much at Thatcher as at conservatives, who he thinks will try to claim an economic improvement that happens decades after she left office as due to her, much as they tried to claim the economic growth of the Clinton years for Reagan.

He shows a nifty graph comparing UK and France's growth over time and I find it very revealing.  The UK declined steadily and steeply relative to France under Old Labor until Thatcher took office, whereupon the graph instantly changed direction and improved rapidly pretty much through Thatcher's term.  I'd say that was a pretty clear case for Thatcher's policies relative to Old Labor's policies.  The UK continued to improve strongly relative to France under Blair's New Labor.  I suppose one should credit New Labor with that rather than Thatcher but the fact is that New Labor did not go back to Old Labor policies but retained much of Thatcher's policies.  

Conclusion:- Thatcher's policies were a clear and indisputable improvement on both Old Labor's policies and France's policies, and Old Labor's policies were worse than France's.  Notice the general direction of what works?

Yeah Thatcher didn't reduce the size of the state but overall her legacy is decidedly positive.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Gareth Brickman <garetho...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://mises.co.za/blog/2013/04/08/in-the-final-analysis-at-best-thatcher-failed/

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Paul AH Hjul <hjul...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am amazed that nobody  has started a discussion in this group on Thatcher - in light of her passing.

No doubt many participants of this group will vehemently disagree with the sentiments and arguments:

http://www.mahala.co.za/culture/has-hell-got-a-new-prime-minister/

but nonetheless both in the interests of self-advertisement and because I think it is of interest to many here I am posting a link to an article appearing in today's Mahala if nothing else because of the wonderful illustrations they carry.

Ayn Rand fans should probably sit down when reading.