Cheryl Says She's An Atheist

[koganbot]

Proposal for a social psychology experiment:

We'll use four separate, sizable groups of people, say 75 people in each group. (Not that I know if that amount is any good or not, or if we want our overall pool to be similar socioeconomically. I'm not a statistician.)

Ask each member of Group One:

What arguments would you use to try and persuade an

Comments

[koganbot]

I probably didn't present Krugman and Silver all that well, but what they do that impresses me is not that they pre-empt standard counterarguments that they know are wrong (though they certainly do that, and it's good that they do), they also present counterarguments and alternative hypotheses that they believe have something to them. Which means that when they're very certain and aren't presenting counterarguments, I'm also likely to go with them (even when I don't understand what they're saying), since they're the sort to present uncertainty when it's warranted.

In any event, here's Krugman recently on an idea that he and some other people are playing with (technological advances making workers superfluous in some areas, hence an increase in inequality), and it's potentially very important, he says, but the idea is only in the formulation stage.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robots

Additional factors or explanations cited:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/technology-or-monopoly-power

More detailed explanation, potential scenarios:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/technology-and-wages-the-analytics-wonkish

What's happening right now is that we are seeing a significant shift of income away from labor at the same time that we’re seeing new technologies that look, on a cursory overview, as if they’re capital-biased. So we could be looking at my technology B story above.
Supporting evidence:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/human-versus-physical-capital