I wonder how twisted up we can get discussing this article on Krugman's book. Are the ideas the author's, Krugman's , yours or mine? Have you read the book?
If you wish, I'm game. That's a long article to discuss so it behooves us to focus on some part. Pick whatever you want. As for the ideas, it's the author's attempt to come to terms with Krugman's arguments. He breaks them into three components of decreasing credibility.
As for the book, yes, I've read it. And recommended it to my middle brother who, among other things, teaches a section of Plan II macro economics at the University of Texas in Austin. Plan II is UT's answer to honors programs at other universities.
Last time we talked he was too busy with his work and some very serious family health issues to read anything on the side. But he's a huge, intensely ambivalent Krugman fan. So, my guess is, he'll use it.
It's a great discussion book for very bright undergraduates who have had a course or two in economics, well, even for some who get stuff quickly without an intro course.
As for the debt argument, those are good questions. I don't recall much discussion of it in either the review or the book. The general tenor of all this stuff, as I've said, is things are so dire the kitchen sink, table, linoleum, whatever has to be thrown at it. Debt gets worse if you don't.
But you've heard me assert that before. |
