Paul Krugman
American economist (born 1953)
The numbers
3 + 0 = 3
Lo Shu grid
Missing: 4, 6, 7. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Life path 3 — The Communicator
Three is the number of expression — the point at which a thing becomes shareable. Tradition links it to language, humour, performance and the ability to make an idea land. It is generally read as the most immediately likeable number, and the reading usually adds a warning in the same breath: fluency can outrun substance, and 3 is described as capable of talking its way past work it has not actually done.
Complete lines
Line of Feeling
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Expression
A complete line in the grid.
Line of Resolve
The 1-5-9 diagonal complete. Read as determination that survives the middle of a project, when the initial energy has gone and the result is not yet visible.
Repeated numbers
3 appears 3 times
Concentrated expression. Read as a voice that arrives before the edit does.
What is missing
Missing 4
Read as impatience with structure and maintenance. Associated with starting well and leaving the scaffolding to someone else.
Missing 6
Read as a complicated relationship with obligation — either avoiding it or over-shouldering it, rarely a settled middle.
Missing 7
Read as reluctance to sit with an unresolved question. Associated with wanting the working answer rather than the true one.
Vedic — Ank Jyotish
Moolank 1 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 3 from the whole date. They differ, which is the ordinary case — the two numbers answer different questions.
Surya
The Sun. Authority, visibility, the self as centre. Read as leadership that is seen.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
In their words
If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade
If there is one single area of economics in which path dependence is unmistakable, it is in economic geography – the location of production in space.
In the course of describing my formative moment in 1978, I have already implicitly given my four basic rules for research. Let me now state them explicitly, then explain. Here are the rules:1. Listen to the Gentiles2. Question the question3. Dare to be silly4. Simplify, simplify
I do not mean to say that formal economic analysis is worthless, and that anybody's opinion on economic matters is as good as anyone else's. On the contrary! I am a strong believer in the importance of models, which are to our minds what spear-throwers were to stone age arms: they greatly extend the power and range of our insight. In particular, I have no sympathy for those people who criticize the unrealistic simplifications of model-builders, and imagine that they achieve greater sophistication by avoiding stating their assumptions clearly. The point is to realize that economic models are metaphors, not truth. By all means express your thoughts in models, as pretty as possible (more on that below). But always remember that you may have gotten the metaphor wrong, and that someone else with a different metaphor may be seeing something that you are missing.
But the honest truth is that what drives me as an economist is that economics is fun. I think I understand why so many people think that economics is a boring subject, but they are wrong. On the contrary, there is hardly anything I know that is as exciting as finding that the great events that move history, the forces that determine the destiny of empires and the fate of kings, can sometimes be explained, predicted, or even controlled by a few symbols on a printed page. We all want power, we all want success, but the ultimate reward is the simple joy of understanding.
If you want a simple model for predicting the unemployment rate in the United States over the next few years, here it is: It will be what Greenspan wants it to be, plus or minus a random error reflecting the fact that he is not quite God.
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.