<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>General</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/27.aspx</link><description>Everything else.</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>Re: If an economist writes a political manifesto...</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/424171.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:39:57 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:424171</guid><dc:creator>xahrx</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/424171.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&amp;PostID=424171</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#39;t think you can say someone would be discredited by default.&amp;nbsp; Actions over time would determine whether or not the person can separate a posiive analysis of the world and the processes that govern it vs their moral and ethical judgements about how things &lt;em&gt;should &lt;/em&gt;be.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>If an economist writes a political manifesto...</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/424152.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:36:16 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:424152</guid><dc:creator>Prateek Sanjay</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/424152.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&amp;PostID=424152</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;does he discredit himself professionally?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Would it mean that he was reaching for conclusions that he already established?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example,&amp;nbsp;one&amp;nbsp;apolitical economist had never breathed a word about politics in his discussions, and &lt;a href="http://www.slate.com/id/1918/"&gt;rather condemned political idealism getting in the way of economic analysis.&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;Yet, five years after writing the above column, this very economist wrote a political manifesto, Conscience of a Liberal, with an entire set of proposals for government programs and issues he wished to see addressed by them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On one hand, if he was apolitical once, then surely he could be spared for having reached a political perspective from what he may have seen as a path of&amp;nbsp;value-free analysis. On the other hand, it hints at confirmation bias, particularly given that the above book seeks to address inequality, for no other reason than to address inequality. &lt;a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225981/krugmans-posthumous-nobel-donald-luskin"&gt;Indeed,&amp;nbsp;some of his former admirers turned against him for that.&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;*&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then we have an economist who used to be a Fabian Socialist, who&amp;nbsp;then recanted his views after seeing that they were economically untenable and impossible. Yet, he would later write a book called Road to Serfdom, and introduced the book with fears that it would discredit him and later indeed did say that he was professionally discredited by the book.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Surely a man who could repudiate his former views after learning some economics could be appreciated as one with the power to have value-free analysis? And yet, if he later adopts another set of views in a new core belief system, he has taken&amp;nbsp;two steps back?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What do you say?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;*(ironically, this particular critic happens to be an Objectivist, who criticizes Krugman&amp;nbsp;for leaving his value-free style,&amp;nbsp;and yet he too&amp;nbsp;could easily be called out for reaching his views from perhaps&amp;nbsp;his own confirmation bias)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>