The Krugman usually never confuses me. The Krugman is the man! That’s what I dig about him. I also dig that I can understand most of the stuff he blogs about. You know, economic stuff. Or–maybe not. In fact, it would probably be über-cool to have him as a professor–I bet he’s a good teacher. That said, he’s confused me this morn. Words like “historical knowledge” and “economic history” are confusing–especially when used in the realm of economic theory. He is an economic theorist, right? Nomatter. What I don’t get about this blog post is the connection he’s trying to make between what is basically being a teacher (and trying to teach Americans about their (economic) demise) and assuming that there is a lack of intellectual thought behind how some economists explain economics. It’s as though one side of the coin can see both heads and tails but the other side of the coin can only see the ass. Or what I’m trying to say is this: The Krugman is trying to explain theory to the masses that are only capable of reacting and NOT thinking about their actions. Or something like that. Rant on.
Macro Debates and the Relevance of Intellectual History | Paul Krugman | NYT Blog
worstwriter 