The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#11

Post by mamon » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:17 PM UTC

xenophon wrote: post #5

chrishacken wrote: post #2

I understand that this paper is sort of a joke (hence references to "the force"), but I don't understand the point of some of these research papers. > "How should interest charges on goods in transit be computed when the goods travel at close to the speed of light?" Perhaps we should do more research on getting the goods to travel close to the speed of light before we start worrying about how to calculate interest ch…

According to Krugman, the paper is "a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics." I think this paper is a great example of the playfulness inherent to an effective "hacker" mindset -- do something fun and interesting, and perhaps useful conclusions will follow. Perhaps they won't, but hey, you still had fun.

>> According to Krugman, the paper is "a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics."

So, if I understand correctly (as non-native English speaker), the usual in economics is: "ridiculous analysis of serious subject" ??

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#12

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #11

xenophon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Krugman, the paper is "a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics." I think this paper is a great example of the playfulness inherent to an effective "hacker" mindset -- do something fun and interesting, and perhaps useful conclusions will follow. Perhaps they won't, but hey, you still had fun.

>> According to Krugman, the paper is "a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics." So, if I understand correctly (as non-native English speaker), the usual in economics is: "ridiculous analysis of serious subject" ??

[deleted]

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#13

Post by dsjoerg » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

mamon wrote: post #11

xenophon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Krugman, the paper is "a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics." I think this paper is a great example of the playfulness inherent to an effective "hacker" mindset -- do something fun and interesting, and perhaps useful conclusions will follow. Perhaps they won't, but hey, you still had fun.

>> According to Krugman, the paper is "a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics." So, if I understand correctly (as non-native English speaker), the usual in economics is: "ridiculous analysis of serious subject" ??

Yes that is the implication exactly.

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#14

Post by gdulli » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

vaadu wrote: post #6

Krugman? This is the Nobel laureate that said the stock market would NEVER recover from Trump's election.

To be fair, Trump said a lot of extreme things and has since shown a pattern of walking them back. Now that we know we have no idea what he actually believes or can/will implement it makes less sense to speculate.

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#15

Post by ajmarsh » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

vaadu wrote: post #6

Krugman? This is the Nobel laureate that said the stock market would NEVER recover from Trump's election.

What is really odd about the statement is that Krugman is one of a handful of economists who think trade protectionism is a good idea. We might soon get to test these theories as Trump is all about trade protectionism.

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#16

Post by mazelife » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

mturmon wrote: post #8

mazelife wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the paper is meant to be taken somewhat facetiously is signaled right there on the title page: "This research was supported by a grant from the Committee to Re-elect William Proxmire." "Proxmire was was noted for issuing his Golden Fleece Award, which was presented monthly between 1975 and 1988, in order to focus media attention on projects Proxmire viewed as self-serving and wasteful of taxpayer dollar…

When I was a kid, a local radio station would broadcast their summary of his "Golden Fleece Award" on their morning show. It was always a highlight to laugh at the "obvious" foolishness. As I have gotten older, the tables have turned, and my youthful easy laughs ring hollow. It's very easy to pull research out of context and laugh at it. It's very hard to do impactful research.

I fully agree with you on that. Pulling research out-of-context is still a go-to move by anti-science politicians [1]. Frankly, I'm half-tempted to track down that $84k study on why people fall in love. That's a fascinating topic that underpins so much of the human experience; more power to any scientist who thinks they can make heads or tails of it.

[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmil...

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#17

Post by ra1n85 » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

-Paul Krugman

Paul does not have the best track record.

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#18

Post by fiatjaf » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

Vannatter wrote: post #10

vaadu wrote: post #6

Krugman? This is the Nobel laureate that said the stock market would NEVER recover from Trump's election.

True, but he quickly retracted that comment and admitted that it was something he said in the heat of the moment without thinking things through fully: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul/?_...

"He will, in fact, be a disaster on every front. And I think he will eventually drag the Republican Party into the abyss along with his own reputation"

I imagine if he will retract this.

Krugman keeps making wrong predictions without almost never acknowledging it, and contradicting himself in a grand scale. His contradictions are documented by a dozen of economists blogs. It's amazing how people keep listening to him.

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#19

Post by sctb » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

vaadu wrote: post #6

Krugman? This is the Nobel laureate that said the stock market would NEVER recover from Trump's election.

This account has been posting mostly political comments, and this one introduces it from out of nowhere without saying anything substantive. That's not what this site is for, so please stop.

Re: The Theory of Interstellar Trade (1978)

#20

Post by fiatjaf » Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

ra1n85 wrote: post #17

"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's." -Paul Krugman Paul does not have the best track record.

Somebody will be tempted to defend him saying: "Well, he takes risks, it's expected that he will fail sometimes."

The problem is not that he fails. The problem is that he never acknowledges his failures nor questions his assumptions behind the failed predictions -- he just mixes them up and say something in the lines of "I was right all the time".