The Inconsistency of Paul Krugman
Don Harding and Jan Libich on why Paul Krugman can’t be taken seriously:
Consistency is one of the touchstones used to evaluate not only arguments but also the people that put forward the arguments. In assessing the person advocating an argument, it is natural to look for coherence over time in their arguments and, secondly, whether the person offers a convincing explanation for a change of view. We apply this framework to evaluate some of Paul Krugman’s macroeconomic analysis…
The contrast between his assessment of 2002/2003 and 2008/2009 is so large and the justification for the changed view so ephemeral that we feel his policy recommendations no longer have the required consistency and coherency.
posted on 13 July 2010 by skirchner in Economics
(0) Comments | Permalink | Main
Next entry: No Future in Future Funds
Previous entry: Why Richard Epstein Will Never be a Keynesian