I used to read Buckley for the same reason. A very interesting conservative thinker.
Krugman's biases sometimes get in the way, as did Buckley's. Both interesting. Both biased. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:53 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Keith Hudson Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... Not sure of why people on this list are going after Krugman. Personally, I think he writes a very good, very readable column on a diverse range of topics. In today's column, he deals with a very relevant topic, the hidden influence of big money on politics, a very important but largely ignored topic. OK, so he got the Nobel prize because he pointed something in an academic field that Henry Ford already knew as a practical person and the Japanese already knew as well. However, what he said wasn't recognized in the field of economics until he said it. I did my undergrad work back in the 1950s, and the Ricardian idea of comparative and absolute advantage is what we had to learn and how we had to view the economic world. I did a graduate degree in the late 1960s and things were still very much the same. What Krugman did to get his Nobel was open economics up and make us see that while Ricardian theory may still apply to growing grapes and oranges, it may only very partially apply to the modern industrial and increasingly cybernetic economy, if it applies there at all. I for one will continue to read Krugman's columns not because he is an economist but because I find him an interesting liberal thinker. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Hudson <mailto:[email protected]> To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION <mailto:[email protected]> ; Ed Weick <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... At 16:26 30/12/2012, you wrote: (EW) Not sure of where all of this is going. Prior to Krugman, the theory of international trade was based on the Ricardian notion of comparative advantage. Countries would produce those products in which in which they had an advantage, given their resources, and then trade with each other. >From what little I know, Krugman brought in the idea that, given a certain level of technological development, resource advantage didn't really matter very much. (KH) But that idea didn't need Krugman! Or anyone else for that matter. The Japanese had been importing resources ('cos they had none of their own) for decades before Krugman was even born. I believe those who say that Krugman got a Nobel for the same reason as Paul Samuelson (who only copied Marshall's ideas of Sale and Demand curves) -- that he was an economist very much in the public's eye. (EW) Any advanced country could, and would, produce cars and, given consumer willingness to buy, these cars would be shipped to markets all over the world. As others have pointed out, economies of scale were very important in this. The more cars that could be produced, the lower the unit costs; the more cars that could be shipped, the lower the costs of shipment. (KH) And Henry Ford had known that decades before Krugman was born! _____ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
