Thanks for the article Bryan.
I had also found the NY Times link by looking for
"Paul Krugman" economics
in www.google.com, the best internet search engine (for me, so far).
The Armchair critics of Krugman have not actually stated enough for an
to fully agree or not with the criticisms. I would appreciate criticisms
that at least refer to a specific phrase or idea that is weak, with more
appreciation for noting why.
At least it seems to me that, despite my disagreeing with many details,
one of those who has spoken...
not what men but what *they*
thought. --Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
Krugman now has two post WTC articles: "After the Horror" and "Paying the
In his support for a big(ger) gov't program of security, justified in the
latter, he points out prior studies of inadequate security at the airports,
and the problem of who pays.
I see the alternative to big gov't being big lawsuits -- I suspect the
families of victims will be eager to place the blame on both airlines AND
airports for poor security, and sue for compensation, and have airline
security be improved through the messy, long-drawn out lawsuits. The
Libertarian in me thinks this is OK, but I have some problems believing it
to be the best realistic solution.
I was going to write a note about excessive drinking, but don't feel like it
-- except that as I think of the reason for young men (legal or not) to
drink: to appear, to their peer group, as more "macho/rebellious", I can't
help but think their must be an element of this in the suicide fanatics, and
their non-suicidal support group.
But getting drunk drinking is fun; the WTC attack is too "horror-ible".