An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Long-refuted doctrines that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history were stated as if they were fresh new ideas — and they were fresh and new to many economists, because our profession had lost so much of its heritage.
Long-refuted doctrines that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history were stated as if they were fresh new ideas — and they were fresh and new to many economists, because our profession had lost so much of its heritage.
I'm not sure where PK is going with this. Most of his article does a pretty good job of showing why Keynesian approaches weren't considered, but this confuses me. So which is it, Paul, that there was useful knowledge in the tradition that could have been brought back into play or just embarrassing long refuted lore from the past whose continued existence underscores the collective shame of the your profession?
I left a comment on PK's blog saying that he is once again making himself to be one of those who kinda-sorta saw it coming and have useful models. This is pure self-aggrandizing.
He has no idea how the monetary system works, has no idea about actual constraints faced by fiscal policy and his predictions/precriptions reflect that.
Now he is making himself to be one of those who can criticize others, fancy that.
5 comments:
Long-refuted doctrines that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history were stated as if they were fresh new ideas — and they were fresh and new to many economists, because our profession had lost so much of its heritage.
mnkk
Long-refuted doctrines that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history were stated as if they were fresh new ideas — and they were fresh and new to many economists, because our profession had lost so much of its heritage.
I'm not sure where PK is going with this. Most of his article does a pretty good job of showing why Keynesian approaches weren't considered, but this confuses me. So which is it, Paul, that there was useful knowledge in the tradition that could have been brought back into play or just embarrassing long refuted lore from the past whose continued existence underscores the collective shame of the your profession?
not again?!
http://nyti.ms/qFyvF4
http://bit.ly/qzTwd4
http://bit.ly/olNs10
dear paul krugman: what's wrong with your economics profession is that you won't listen to those who can tell you where you have gone wrong!
p.s. thanks for the link.
I left a comment on PK's blog saying that he is once again making himself to be one of those who kinda-sorta saw it coming and have useful models. This is pure self-aggrandizing.
He has no idea how the monetary system works, has no idea about actual constraints faced by fiscal policy and his predictions/precriptions reflect that.
Now he is making himself to be one of those who can criticize others, fancy that.
Post a Comment