- Transcript of Bernanke's speech at Jackson Hole. In case you didn't know, Obama's having him back for another term, with fairly widespread support. The topic's a little too politically sensitive for me to bring up my own feelings.
- One analyst saying we have plenty more bank failures coming.
- Sent by a reader: large-scale agriculture in cities. This could be pretty amazing if it's ever proved to be feasible (economically and practically).
- Mish still banging his looming-foreclosure-disaster drum.
- Despite all the 'green shoots', and announcements that we're coming around, the Philly Fed is showing we still look like we're pretty deep in a recession, and have a ways to go yet. (Speaking of green shoots, this article is linked for no better reason than quoting the great Inigo Montoya)
- Perma-bear Nouriel Roubini still making arguments for an ugly U-shaped recovery, and as mentioned here before, is getting more and more worried about W. FT.com requires registration (I've got a free 30-day window through my employer) so I can't say much more. Good read if you do have access.
- A fascinating debate is taking place at The Economist regarding how much population the world can support. Great read.
- A little off-topic, for all the engineers out there: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
- Krugman giving further details on his recent opinion that we're in a jobless recovery.
Posts
AMD's Quiet Edge In AI Inference
17 minutes ago
Aditya, you mention in this post that the "topic is too politically sensitive". That's the problem with discourse in the US ... there is a serious lack of it. Your statement is tantamount to self-censorship for no good reason. If in this small forum we cannot share our views what chance does the larger society stand? And we certainly cannot study economics without politics! I encourage you to share your views, if I can't stand them I'll let you know :-)
ReplyDeleteSince Aditya's identity 9and his political bent) is completely revealed in this blog it might be suicidal for him to politically sensitive comments here. His comments will remain in cyberspace for eternity. And what happened with Van Jones might happen to him when he seeks jobs and potential employers find out about his political views posted in this blog.
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree its important to discuss politics as well as economics. One doesn't exist without the other. But I would suggest that Aditya start another blog with some nickname without disclosing his identity. And we can discuss these topics there. Ex. I have no idea who "CD" is. And thats the way it should be. (unless ofcourse Aditya aims for a political career).We should not put actual person behind the thoughts. Thoughts are more important than real person behind it.
"Wanna" nailed one aspect of it: expressing political views too strongly can hurt a career in many parts of the country/world.
ReplyDeleteI think in most modern corporate climates, as far as I know, mentioning your orientation isn't problematic. Trying to convince others, or debating others when it's outside the scope of the job (i.e. not a political job) is what's frowned upon. I'd prefer not to be seen as too strongly political .. so yes, CD, definitely self-censorship, but with good enough reason for me.
You make a good larger point - a fear of expressing political viewpoints too strongly is perhaps not good for the health of larger society. Unfortunately, such are the times we live in - being PC is critical when using true identity. I don't know if it was like this in the past, but it certainly feels suffocating now. I must be clear: I'm not intrepid enough to challenge the status quo here.
Finally, I want to point out that as author of this blog, I want to encourage discussion. I am happy to see debates in the comments, but I myself don't want to be too open to one side, and thus make the other feel unwanted or afraid. Anyone should feel free to post their opinion here, so long as there are no personal attacks - I think my being impartial is key to that objective.
A followup on political commentary via anonymity - remember that even the founding thinkers of our nation (Hamilton, Madison, John Jay) wrote under pseudonyms when publishing the Federalist Papers.
ReplyDeleteWanna is correct again on this one: I'd engage in politically-charged debate under a pseudonym, but not under my own name; parcticularly not on this blog as per my comment above.