Singapore Urges U.S. to Accept China's Rise, Spare Other Nations

If so, do you think that the world will do just fine if we removed large financial rewards for "shallow innovation" like the smartphone, new drugs, medical devices, software, etc?

Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment.

> Noam Chomsky is deeply principled. If someone opposes the US he’ll support them, whether they’re the Khmer Rouge or the Serbs in the Yugoslav Civil War.

Think of Chomsky what you want, but this is a tragically misguided interpretation of his stance. He doesn't want the U.S. meddling in other countries, as the U.S. does not really do it for humanitarian reasons, but for geopolitical and resource exploitative reasons, (I mean just the existence of the term 'colliteral damage', or 'double tap' and the fact that drone strikes kill over 90% civilians should tell you enough). The notion that the U.S. cares about human rights, while being allied with Egypt, KSA etc. shows this clearly.

The U.S. has melted down over stupid Russian Facebook memes, calling it 'meddling', while actively supporting an illegal coup in Venezuela in the same breath.

His point is also that he criticizes the U.S because he's a CITIZEN, while he's not a citizen of all of the other places. So he puts an emphasis on where he lives, because there he has the biggest chance of innacting some change, as opposed to somewhere where he has no say whatsoever. I mean that'll be easy to do, because you don't really threaten anyone in power, but it also means you're doing little more than posturing.

As for my personal belief, I am actually not against markets or whatever. They serve a useful purpose for games, books, smartphones etc. But I do believe that they also serve a catastrophically unethical purpose when applied to healthcare for example, so that put's me squarely in a social democratic camp, but that doesn't really change the fact that MF has seen one extreme, so he went the exact opposite extreme.

And extremes, including free market ones, cannot be innacted peacefully, as has been demonstrated every time his vision was innacted, most notably by the Chicago Boys.

Macroeconomics is not a healthy field making rapid progress. David D. Friedman’s verdict on it is that we know very little is true but we know plenty that isn’t. If you want to see someone really ripping into macro read Paul Romer’s The Trouble With Macroeconomics[1]. All that said I know what happens when you contract the money supply; you get a recession. Print lots of money; you’ll get inflation. Decrease inflation; your currency will appreciate. There’s plenty more like that. Purchasing power parity works as a theory of exchange rate formation over the long run and nothing does over the short run. Macroeconomists know plenty.

Regarding theory and replication, on rent control I see Montreal and raise you Mumbai[2]. If the rent controlled price is near the market price the damage will be pretty mild. If you haven’t allowed rents to rise since the 1960’s things will be worse. On replication, more than three quarters of cancer biology papers don’t replicate so the fact that some economics papers get retracted doesn’t disturb me too greatly[3]. If you’re doing science sometimes you find out you were wrong or that you made a mistake.

[1]https://paulromer.net/the-trouble-with-macro/

[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fh4tPWYeks

https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/2sEX5MD7aW1whVkxFllNCL/Rent...

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/04/tw...

[3]https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-pro...

> In 2011, Bayer Healthcare said that its in-house scientists could only validate 25 percent of basic studies in cancer and other conditions. (Drug companies routinely do such checks so they can use the information in those studies as a starting point for developing new drugs.) A year later, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis from Amgen said that the firm could only confirm the findings in 6 out of 53 landmark cancer papers—just 11 percent. Perhaps, they wrote, that might explain why “our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low.”

> Actually, I was only commenting on the claim that he didn't receive criticism for his 'principles', when he clearly did. I did not pass any other judgment.

If your interpretation of someone’s writing makes no sense try rereading it to see if there’s a sensible interpretation. No one who supports Milton Friedman is going to be unaware he’s widely hated. I said he was principled and consistent and acknowledged to be so. That was wrong. He was principled and consistent and plenty of people disagreed with that truth.

I never said or implied he didn’t receive criticism, anywhere.