tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post3037703859221870714..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Whoops! Paul Krugman Contradicts, Well, Paul Krugman!William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-92055409166690556932010-03-07T22:27:35.137-05:002010-03-07T22:27:35.137-05:00Sean,
I was thinking the same thing when I first ...Sean,<br /><br />I was thinking the same thing when I first read Dr. Anderson's post. Sure enough, Krugman has since posted a response to 'stupid' critics who have called him out on his contradiction; his textbook answer does not apply to recessions (depressions).Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17549032234900026846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16316561512029182552010-03-07T11:46:25.276-05:002010-03-07T11:46:25.276-05:00I suppose Krugman would point to this part: "...I suppose Krugman would point to this part: "when the economy is deeply depressed," and say he was referring to the multiplier effect to reduce cyclical unemployment, while his textbook reference refers to structural unemployment. <br />He does seem to imply that there is unanimous consent for this aspect of Keynesian economics amongst economists, which is utterly fallacious (and more so with each day). <br />"A lack of sufficient demand"--I suppose I could claim my business, Dog Feces Inc, which sells dog feces and dog feces accessories, is going under because a lack of sufficient demand. <br />And as usual, he's also parading under the label of noble-prize winning economist while spewing partisan nonsense.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12632853986166127995noreply@blogger.com