Thanks, I've already read everything that Krugman has on that site. That article basically says that increasing returns is a real, well known economic principle. The article also states that one can use the theory of increasing returns both for and against Microsoft, but Krugman doesn't give an opinion as to which way he goes. Thus,
your claim that "The theoretical basis for the DOJ's law suit is not accepted by many leading economic scholars- see the works of Paul Krugman, for example" remains undocumented.
As a matter of fact, the article on Path Dependance that you mention from the Cato Group specifically say this:
Arthur, Krugman, and some others argue that markets, which might have done well at organizing the manufacture of old-technology things like steel and sailing ships, are ill suited to organize the manufacture of new-technology items like silicon chips and software because of network effects.
In other words, you have pointed to an article which suggests that Krugman *does* buy the arguments of the DOJ, which is precisely the opposite of what you have claimed!
I look forward to even more posts by you to help bolster my arguments.
As for teaching not being a huge work load, I guess that depends on how much the teacher puts into it. Teaching two courses two seperate times is what is known as "part time work." I used to clean bathrooms part time at a tennis club for some extra money. I only worked at it a few hours a week, so I guess cleaning bathrooms isn't much work. |
