Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Seagate Technology - Fundamentals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: William Epstein who wrote (173)	11/15/1998 7:35:00 PM
From: LK2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1989

RE--Lawrence Kam and Barrons Nov 16 issue. Below, courtesy of GM, a dues-paying member of the Wall Street club, is a reprint of the Lawrence Kam letter. (PS--the Barron's URL cited by Photoman, barrons.com, doesn't allow access to any of Barron's articles, unless you are a subscriber) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talk : Computers : Disk Drive Sector Discussion Forum To: Larry Kuznets (4987 ) From: Gottfried Saturday, Nov 14 1998 8:45PM ET Reply # of 4992 Larry/all, for those too cheap to subscribe to the online version of WSJ/Barron's [only $49 per year, $29 for paper subscribers] here's Lawrence Kam's letter to Barron's: To the Editor I can't believe Gene Epstein pulled his punches with Paul Krugman. This guy suffers incredibly from the ivory tower conceit that he can't possibly be wrong. Specifics: 1. His dismissal of the Austrians and their conceptual descendents is plain stubbornness. His neo-Keynesian outlook is at odds with the operating assumptions of the U.S. government, Wall Street and Alan Greenspan. Epstein is right; he is dead wrong. 2. His snake-oil salesmanship of capital controls was self-aggrandizing nonsense. When Malaysia actually implemented them, he immediately distanced himself by offering "guiding principles." I'm sure Marx would contend that he was right, too, but that the implementation was flawed. 3. Finally, Krugman has displayed no compunction against using his poison pen against fellow economists. But unlike Epstein, who attacks nutty ideas, he seems motivated mostly by his immense ego. Epstein's gentle allusion to his "Legend of Arthur" piece was far more compassionate than he deserves. I'm sure had their roles been reversed, Krugman would be far less generous. LAWRENCE KAM interactive.wsj.com G. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<