I guess we'll just have to leave Krugman aside for the time being. I do read
him partly as an economist but largely as a person who thinks deeply about the
evolving world.
I have one of Rogoff's books on my shelves (Reinhart & Rogoff, This Time is
Different, Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, Princeton and Oxford, 2009) and
I have read parts of it. It appears to be a carefully researched book, but you
don't have to read much of it to appreciate what the authors are getting at.
Economic patterns are similar over the centuries. Economies can grow very
quickly with people much better off for a time, but then they contract and
difficult, even miserable, conditions return. Economists have been taught to
think in terms of cycles, but I wonder if they shouldn't think more in terms of
bubbles - e.g. the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis and the dot-com bubble of
the late 1990s or, going way way back, the South Sea bubble and the Dutch tulip
bubble. Maybe I'd better take another look at Reinhart & Rogoff.
Ed
I didn't play much chess, but I had a game with the guy who was recognized as
the best player at UBC when I was student there and hey! I beat him. Not
wanting to ruin a good thing, I quit playing then and there.
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: Futurework , Ed Weick
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you
gotta watch dem machines...
At 11:53 31/12/2012, Ed wrote:
(EW) 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.
(KH) I think I'm the only one who goes after Krugman fairly frequently. But I
only do so because his NYT op-eds are constantly flaunted at us, as though
there were no other economists around. It's not as though he has anything
significantly new to say each time. He hasn't. About 80% of his pieces are
exactly the same -- pushing Keynesianism as the only economic elixir. And as
much of it as possible. I've often been tempted not to spend time giving
arguments in detail why Krugman is, at best devious, and, at worst perilous. It
would be easier for me to put up an article by several economists, such as
Kenneth Rogoff, who think he is wrong. (Rogoff once described one of Krugman's
pieces as "ridiculous" Rogoff is not only one of the most reputed US
economists but he also plays chess at world championship standard.
Incidentally, my eldest son drew against Karpov in the 1970s when he was world
champion and giving exhibition matches all round the world. This was not a
straight fight, of course. My son, then aged 14 was a member of a Coventry City
team of 20 players who sat in a ring while Karpov went from board to board. He
beat 18 of them fairly quickly but my son and another player hung on grimly,
refusing to be tricked into making an error. Anyway, perhaps because Karpov
wanted to get to the drinks party afterwards, the two Coventry players were
offered a draw. Needless to say, they snatched at it straight
away!)
(EW) 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.
(KH) Fair enough! I prefer to pick and choose quite carefully where I choose
my liberal ideas (certainly not from the LibDems of the UK!) and my socialist
ideas (far to the left of the Labour Party of the UK). (The Labour Party in the
UK, still reacting with horror from the irresponsible welfare spending of
George Brown until two years ago, are presently like a weak form of the Tory
Party.)
Keith
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION ; Ed Weick
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
