I'm not sure why I feel compelled to defend Krugman again, but this specific argument is so incredibly tired and completely disingenuous. Krugman in the early 2000's was as far away from the seat of power as humanly possible, he had 0 impact on policy in the Bush administration.

Just look at how the quotes are represented on HN:

    "To fight this recession the Fed needs…soaring
    household spending to offset moribund business 
    investment. [So] Alan Greenspan needs to create a 
    housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

Compared to what was actually said:

    "The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a 
    typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-
    fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a 
    snapback in housing and consumer spending when the
    Fed brings rates back down again.

    This was a prewar-style recession, a morning-after
    brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this
    recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs
    soaring household spending to offset moribund business
    investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put
    it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to 
    replace the Nasdaq bubble."

He went on to describe why he thinks Greenspan will try to create a housing bubble:

    Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in
    accentuating the positive. The administration needs a
    recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it
    can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what
    the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid 
    awkward questions about his own role in creating the
    stock market bubble.

I'm at a loss how someone can read "Greenspan will create a housing bubble because he's in bed with the administration and they need to justify the huge tax cuts that haven't stimulated the economy and distract from the Fed's role in the stock bubble" and then think that was a policy recommendation and not a prescient critique of a bumbling economic policy.

> to fight this recession, as OTHER GUY put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

it's clear that Krugman is talking about someone else (Paul McCully)'s phrasing of some advice. What isn't clear is whether Krugman also thinks this advice is a good idea. It seems that way from my reading it - unless Krugman thinks ending the ression is not desirable. It's anything but clear, though.

"your interpretation is incorrect" is a reasonable opinion. "I don't see how anyone could interpret it that way" sounds like hyperbole.

A formal language used on social networks could solve problems like this. A record of accurate predictions made in a formal language could be a solid source of reputation.

https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop

The difference really just lies in whether you think that a prediction of an outcome somehow is an endorsement of that outcome.

I think the Patriots are going to win the Superbowl, but frankly I don't care if they do or not.

The entire context of the Krugman article was the administration's insistence that the tax cuts were stimulative and were bringing the economy back. He rightly predicted that in an effort to aid that narrative (since Greenspan had given them political cover), the Fed would keep rates low for longer than was healthy. He also rightly predicted that these actions would lead to a housing bubble.

It's a huge leap to go from reading these predictions to assuming that Krugman supported that outcome. He talks specifically about how this isn't a normal inflation-driven recession that can be fixed with Fed action, which just gives greater evidence to his lack of support for a housing bubble.

Add to that, other contemporary articles where Krugman loudly warns of an impending housing bubble / burst, and it's clear what he thought of Greenspan's actions. From Aug. 2005[1], an article that drew a loud critique:

    Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has become deeply dependent
    on the housing bubble. The economic recovery since 2001 has
    been disappointing in many ways, but it wouldn't have
    happened at all without soaring spending on residential 
    construction, plus a surge in consumer spending largely based
    on mortgage refinancing. Did I mention that the personal
    savings rate has fallen to zero?

    Now we're starting to hear a hissing sound, as the air begins to
    leak out of the bubble. And everyone - not just those who own
    Zoned real estate - should be worried.

You don't need a reputation engine, just some critical eye and enough context.

[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html

It is interesting how this thread is split between messages of 'they should make better decisions' and then the reply/response that absolves the decision-maker by stating that it's the fault of the 'stress of poverty', not the fault of the decision-maker. I think the reason more people make these short-sighted bad decisions is exactly because they're being told that being in poverty doesn't have anything to do with the personal decisions you make but your 'circumstance'. If we tell people this, what motivation do they have to make prudent long-term decisions at the expense of short-term gratification? What they decide as an individual doesn't matter, or so their told - and they are told that it's a 'societal' problem, that 'society' needs to address/fix, so again, where's the motivation to make sacrifices at an individual level to increase one's lot in life?

Regardless of the reality - of the two statements "it's your decisions that affect your level of poverty" and "it's society's fault you are poor" - one of these statements empowers the individual to make better choices, and the other discourages it.

PS: +1 to the folks who said garage sale / thrift store / second-hand couches. It's mind-boggling that anyone struggling w/ money would buy(/rent) new furniture.

I was complaining to a friend recently about how the city of Mountain View has approved so much new commercial property development while approving very little residential property development. And he brought up a good point. A lot of the unused space in Mountain View is superfund sites. The development of new commercial space is happening at these sites (the whole area around Moffett including Google). It's easy to ensure commercial entities are meeting the requirements to mitigate the pollutants in these areas (proper HVAC and ventilation systems, etc) than with individual residences - and the limits on the amount of exposure are also lower for commercial areas vs. residential areas. So this could be a strong factor on why there's way more commercial development than residential in Mountain View and surrounding communities.

Another possibility - the author was required by a court order to provide a backdoor for unfettered access to truecrypt disk, and to not disclose the existence of the order. The solution was to modify the code so that everyone has unfettered access (i.e. disable encryption entirely) and make the recommendation that everyone switch to something else.

Question: has any such court order, ever, in the history of the United States, actually been given? Can it be given? Because that would be news to me.

Because while specific orders can't be disclosed if they'd give away information to the actual target, the general nature of such orders is well known - information can be demanded if held. You can't be compelled to engage in subterfuge though, and since such an order would be illegal, you could freely disclose it and let the civilian courts strike it down.

As one might note from the Lavabit fiasco, things only got weird because Lavabit decided to screw around being non-compliant, while also always having the technical capacity to decrypt everyone's email (and thus opening up the legal doorway to just seize the keys and all the data, rather then the tiny chunk that was wanted).