Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote.

>>Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University, a City Journal contributing editor, and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow.

Ah, yes. The Manhattan Institute. Why am I not surprised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_...

It's kind of funny how both economists you have cited so far can have their ideologies traced to some economically ultra-conservative think-tank. These are people who believe strongly in small government (in other words, are strongly political) and write countless articles that are anti-government spending so that they can "starve the beast."

View on HN

So, in just a few comments the discussion has gone from looking at a problem to supporting teams.

Other posters say Krugman is largely an opinion writer now and you reject the economists others mention as they hold political beliefs you don't like.

This is pretty much why most political and economic discussions are a waste of time, particularly on the internet.

>>Interesting article. I read it, and then saw the footnote.

I have to disagree. It was meandering and had little to offer in terms of evidence, facts or actual policy prescriptions and was instead filled with anecdotes that somehow ended up supporting policy positions already supported by the Manhattan Institute. The author jumps from charter schools to federally funded highways in a span of a sentence right at the end. Not a lot of evidence is offered that local regulation is somehow strangling entrepreneurship nor is his idea of denying federally supported bonds to over regulated entities ever elucidated in any fashion. (Maybe because sticking local communities with higher taxes is rather counterproductive in the first place). So basically he spends most of piece talking about the 'entrepreneur' as a mythical entity that deserves to be supported by a verifiable buffet of policies that aren't really explained. So the Think of the Children!! argument rehashed.

The article reads exactly like a lot of cookie cutter political writing these days that say absolutely nothing about anything of concrete importance but are just couched to ideological compatriots that enjoy light reading from authors who will appeal to their political vanity while safely holding all the 'bad' ideas at arms length by appealing to the most simplistic possible explanations of problems; while you the reader are serenaded for easily understanding what your political 'enemies' cannot.

>>I have to disagree.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic when I said it is "interesting." You're spot on in your analysis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com