rc3.org Rafe Colburn on software development (and other topics)

As a practical matter, I agree. Most of us have nothing to add to the argument that hasn’t already been said a million times. The experts, who in this case are simply defined as those in charge, are certainly making more informed decisions than most of everybody else. They aren’t likely to royally screw everything up, and will probably do a better job than us laypeople.

With that being said, the last thing we want to do is sit back and relax and pretend as though everything is going to be all right because the experts have control. They will not do a perfect job and will make mistakes. Us ordinary citizens need to be critical of their actions and make them aware we are on their case. Be lazy and uninformed, and you are just asking for corruption.

The housing mess was caused by terrible decisions that even laypeople could have understood: we were building too many houses that too many people couldn’t afford. We didn’t win by letting the experts handle that one. With smarter, more informed citizenry, mistakes that set of common sense warning bells can be minimized.

Posted by Ryan Dickherber on 11 February 2009 @ 4pm

Three comments:

(1) Krugman is not the only economist calling for nationalization of some banks.

(2) I wonder if Nate has actually read Krugman’s blog – Krugman is suggesting the path of action that he believes has the most likely chance of succeeding based on his extensive experience. This is what we should expect from subject matter experts. I definitely do not get the impression that he is professing anything with certainty.

(3) Economics is more of an art than science. No one knows what will work. I didn’t really understood this fully until I read the brutally honest opening paragraph of this post by Willem Buiter, another prominent economist.

Posted by John on 11 February 2009 @ 6pm

Oops, rereading your post I guess it was you and not Nate that was slamming Krugman. But my comment #2 still stands.

Posted by John on 11 February 2009 @ 6pm

You don’t think that Krugman is overly certain? His posts seem almost hysterical with insistence that his path is optimal.

Posted by Rafe on 11 February 2009 @ 11pm

Overly certain? No.

Hysterical? No.

Strongly believes his path is optimal? Yes.

But perhaps I misread him. Let’s say he is being overly certain and hysterical. Ask yourself: Why would a highly regarded expert act this way on matters in his field? Perhaps he knows better than most what peril we face and is trying to get others who can affect the course of events to understand this.

Posted by John on 12 February 2009 @ 1am

I am certain that the Geithner barely-a-plan will fail, but beyond that I am not certain of much.

Posted by Mike on 12 February 2009 @ 5am

It’s also not clear to me why “nationalization” of banks is a four letter word. The FDIC takes over banks that are failing (9 so far this year) and distributes their assets to more healthly banks, and during the 80s S&L scandal the FSLIC did the same. Why the stigma this time? Perhaps because this time it’s the largest 5-10 banks that are insolvent?

Posted by John on 12 February 2009 @ 12pm