The Krugman "argument" about $ demand possibly doubling when
production doubles is certainly silly in a microeconomic context,
but presumably the context was macroeconomic, where it's not
*necessarily* so silly, in situations where Keynesian theory
is appropriate (insufficient aggregate demand; recession).
He wasn't necessarily talking boxmakers -g-. I'll try to
get hold of the article Cobalt's citing from, and give it a read.
You can count on Krugman's being "bright and at least semi-honest".
He is one of the best, and appears not to pull any punches
(perhaps exaggerating a tad for effect, though, in some of his pop articles, maybe). Yeah, he's a top academic pinhead and Council
of Economic Advisors type geek. They ain't all so enamored of their
theory that they can't deal with reality.
If you want to hear him sounding some rather Burkean (Mike, not
Edumnd) notes:
pathfinder.com@@NMHu9wUAxiklY*CS/fortune/1997/971110/fst5.html
That article doesn't seem to0 prescient about Asia (I'm trying to
download a 1994 Foreign Affairs article he wrote, called
"The Myth of Asia's Miracle", though, but the net to MIT seems
gummed up. Anyway, lots of us missed
that one -G-. Here's the guy's web site; well worth a visit:
web.mit.edu
Enjoy, everyone,
and don't forget to sell a bit of your chip equipment holdings today!
Cheers,
HB
P.S. I don't really care much about Clinton's lying about consensual
sex, even under oath, but I'm rather bothered by the possibility
that he was firing cruise missiles around mainly to distract from
it. The New Yorker a few weeks back had an interesting article on
that possibility. They also had an article by Buckley recently, and
I gotta say Krugman smokes him, as a writer. The turgid floridity
of his sentences works a lot better orally, where it goes so nicely
with his inimitable, ah, accent. |
