@paulkrugman

·

6m

Replying to @paulkrugman

What this pathetic list really shows is that anti-Trump "fake news" is like farms broken up by the estate tax: they're sure it happens, but can't find any real examples.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181824)

jfc, LMAOOO

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181832)

It was an election night histrionic meltdown

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181844)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS0lRyEBRnk

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181905)

A winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Paul Krugman wrote in 1998, “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! 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.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181857)

This can't be real

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181911)

First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.

Second, the attack opens the door to some sensible recession-fighting measures. For the last few weeks there has been a heated debate among liberals over whether to advocate the classic Keynesian response to economic slowdown, a temporary burst of public spending. There were plausible economic arguments in favor of such a move, but it was questionable whether Congress could agree on how to spend the money in time to be of any use -- and there was also the certainty that conservatives would refuse to accept any such move unless it were tied to another round of irresponsible long-term tax cuts. Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending, however tragic the reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/reckonings-after-the-horror.html

Very fine people on both sides of 9/11.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181916)

Some buildings got collapsed.

Nature of the assignment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181933)

In the 1990's, everyone believed that education was the key to economic success. A college degree, even a postgraduate degree, was essential for anyone who wanted a good job as one of those ''symbolic analysts.''

But computers are proficient at analyzing symbols; it is the messiness of the real world that they have trouble with. Furthermore, symbols can be transmitted easily to Asmara or La Paz and analyzed there for a fraction of the cost in Boston. Therefore, many of the jobs that once required a college degree have been eliminated. The others can be done by any intelligent person, whether or not she has studied world literature.

This trend should have been obvious in 1996. Even then, America's richest man was Bill Gates, a college dropout who did not need a lot of formal education to build the world's most powerful information technology company.

Or consider the panic over ''downsizing'' that gripped America in 1996. As economists quickly pointed out, the rate at which Americans were losing jobs in the 90's was not especially high by historical standards. Downsizing suddenly became news because, for the first time, white-collar, college-educated workers were being fired in large numbers, even while skilled machinists and other blue-collar workers were in demand. This should have signaled that the days of ever-rising wage premiums for people with higher education were over. Somehow, nobody noticed.

Eventually, the eroding payoff of higher education created a crisis in education itself. Why should a student put herself through four years of college and several years of postgraduate work to acquire academic credentials with little monetary value? These days, jobs that require only 6 or 12 months of vocational training -- paranursing, carpentry, household maintenance and so on -- pay nearly as much as if not more than a job that requires a master's degree, and pay more than one requiring a Ph.D.

So enrollment in colleges and universities has dropped almost two-thirds since its peak at the turn of the century. The prestigious universities coped by reverting to an older role. Today a place like Harvard is, as it was in the 19th century, more of a social institution than a scholarly one -- a place for children of the wealthy to refine their social graces and befriend others of their class.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magazine/white-collars-turn-blue.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

His 1996 prediction about 2096 was that college would be obsolete...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35181947)

even now "coding bootcamps" are doing OK without any connection to higher education

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35182875)

LastBattle

@cryptomaximalis

4 hours ago

“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."

CryptoPatrick‏

@cryptopatrick

Replying to @cryptomaximalis @paulkrugman

Make sure to fax that quote to Paul!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3863513&forum_id=2#35182915)