Comments on: Reactionary Economics

By: Bart Ingles

Bart Ingles — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:47:35 +0000

Actually “liberal economy” was what I meant to say.

But I don’t see where Krugman gets the idea that modern economics doesn’t allow for the existence of market failure. Because some practitioners are either not good economists or did not anticipate a particular failure? Or because he’s deliberately setting up a straw man?

Interestingly, I actually agreed with one of his columns. In the spring of 2008 he wrote one about the various housing subsidies as a contributor to the real estate bubble.

By: Bart Ingles

Bart Ingles — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:33:33 +0000

Paul Krugman calls himself a “progressive,” but I don’t know why.

Perhaps because being a “liberal economist” doesn’t quite square with the term “liberal economics”?

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:58:27 +0000

The most irritating thing about Krugman’s writing is that he is so insulting to his colleagues. I’m sure most of them hated it when he got a Nobel Prize –probably because of all his editorials insulting President Bush.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:03:44 +0000

Thanks for identifying Krugman correctly. He is indeed a reactionary and not just in the field of economic theory.

He is also a political reactionary — he would like to resurrect the politics of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who tried to impose Italian facism on the entire country.

By: Devon Herrick

Devon Herrick — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:54:17 +0000

Paul Krugman has done some great work in the field of the international trade and economic geography — the research for which he won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics. Too bad he has ventured far afield from where his core competencies are.