Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
Well considering that Krugman has a giant chip on his shoulder and the Obama administration CLEARLY did not want him on their team even though he has spent every drop of ink he is given on beating down the present administration might give you a little clue as to his uh 'soundness'...
btw -- He is a very (or at one time was) a very bright guy, and his work on trade theory is completely accepted by basically everyone, though that gives him no special insight into how effective the efforts to turn around the economy, either globally or dosmetically will be...
|
Pretty accurate assessment. While he's obviously got a strong intellect, any time an economist is that political, I start to question how sound his theories are. I'd say the same thing of any supposedly "academic" economist who is as viciously anti-Democratic as Krugman is anti-Republican.
At any rate, Krugman's statement is flawed from the outset. The goal, the ideal, is not full employment or as little unemployment as possible. The goal is maximum efficiency in allocation of available productive and material resources. Employment is a means to that end, not the end itself. Maximum efficiency in resource allocation probably entails nearly full employment (for those with a work ethic who want to and are able to work).
Whether government has any role in helping to ensure that resources are efficiently allocated is another argument for another thread...
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
