Friday, September 11, 2009
In my last post, I criticize Krugman for failing to mention heterodox economics in his recent NYT article. In many ways, I thought the article was good but the same old, mainstream Krugman. However, the last entry in his blog (see here) is more surprising and reveals some changes. After insisting for years in the importance of presenting all arguments in mathematical language, he now recognizes that there is some good work in economics with no math. If only this view could expand a little...
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Paul Krugman has succeeded once again in explaining the basic conflicts in economics in a simple way. In Saturday´s article on the crisis in the NYT, he explains the conflict between New Classical Economists and New Keynesian Economists and he even recognize the mistakes of the latter. He also makes sensible proposals for the evolution of mainstream macro... AND YET what is most surprising is his total unwillingness to recognize the extensive work of heterodox economists (post-Keynesian in particular), who have done extensive work on the problems of financial markets and the instability of the capitalist economies. It is still surprising how mainstream economists forget the work at the fringes... and very sad for the future development of the discipline.