Paul Krugman was thought at one time to be a likely candidate for best and best known contemporary US academic economist. He was tenured at MIT where some of the best academic economists of the last century sat and taught: Samuelson and Kindleberger among others.
But he suddenly left for the green pastures of Princeton and to become political gadfly-in-residence of the liberal left journalists at the New York Times. In short he morphed, or "Galbraith'd", into a spokesman on everything and expert on nothing.
His "Return of Depression Economics" which he rushed into print after the LTCM failure in 1998, and which I have on my crash books shelf, was embarassingly shallow and wrong-headed. All the reasons and implosion predictions we all read incessantly all over the rant internet websites were crystallized in the book.
In this NY times article he has descenced into bathos with stitched-together resumes of the popular cliches of public perma-bears, and "hopes he's wrong".
Where DID you go wrong, Paul? You had such promise.
His "Return of Depression Economics" which he rushed into print after the LTCM failure in 1998, and which I have on my crash books shelf, was embarassingly shallow and wrong-headed. All the reasons and implosion predictions we all read incessantly all over the rant internet websites were crystallized in the book.
In this NY times article he has descenced into bathos with stitched-together resumes of the popular cliches of public perma-bears, and "hopes he's wrong".
Where DID you go wrong, Paul? You had such promise.
Recent Comments