Jim Devine wrote
> The only way to successfully debate PK, therefore, is to
> present a theory. Ideally, it would be a general theory
> which would include PK's theory as a special case.
> Can anyone on pen-l provide?
Here's my theory, it's a play on Keynes' famous quote:
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
intellectual influences are usually the slaves of some defunct
economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling
their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back."
In my version, though, the academic scribblers have become the slaves of
some defunct madmen in authority. I guess I'd have to defer to Veblen's
_The Higher Learning in America_ and his rambling observations about the
business domination of university boards and the corrupting influence of
mixing the regimented teaching of undergraduates with the inchoate pursuit
of knowledge.
My theory, in short, is that Krugman's theory isn't much of a theory. It's
a convoluted rehash of a simplistic textbook rehash of a madman in
authority's rehash of the scribbling of a defunct economist. It's hearsay
about hearsay.
Case in point: Krugman discussed Greider's book _One World: Ready or Not_
in a pair of articles in Slate and Foreign Affairs. The Slate article is
called "The Accidental Theorist" and, as the title suggests, plays on the
Keynes quote about the implicit theory underlying the
"untheoretical". Krugman criticizes Greider for failing to test drive his
"thoroughly silly" conclusions with "seemingly trivial thought
experiments" used by "competent economists".
The Foreign Affairs article "Is Capitalism Too Productive" gives more of
an idea what kind of "seemingly trivial thought experiments" Krugman has
in mind. Because I don't want to misrepresent what Krugman actually wrote,
I will quote at length the paragraph where Krugman sets up his critique of
what he calls the doctrine of global glut:
Let me give that economic doctrine a name, and call it the doctrine of
global glut. It may be summarized as the view that capitalism is too
productive for its own good - that thanks to rapid technological
progress and the spread of industrialization to newly emerging
economies the ability to do work has expanded faster than the amount
of work to be done. In its milder forms, the global glut doctrine
involves the belief that policies should be aimed at increasing demand
rather than supply; thus its American advocates have opposed efforts
to eliminate the budget deficit or increase national savings, claiming
that such efforts will actually reduce the economy's growth. In its
more extreme forms, the doctrine calls for actual reductions in the
economy's capacity, in particular through "work-sharing" schemes that
reduce the length of the work week. And it was this extreme form that
was a central plank of Jospin's program: he called for a mandated
reduction in France's work week from 39 to 35 hours.
Need we go any further than Krugman's second paragraph? No. Therein we
have a tidy statement of the BOGUS lump-of-labor claim against
work-sharing. Unbeknownst to Krugman, this claim has no standing in
economic thought. NONE. It is a counterfeit, a fraud, a forgery, an
imposter. The "thought experiment" isn't just trivial; it's
tripe. Krugman, the "competent economist" doesn't know that. As Veblen
pointed out, what we're talking about is not a competence but a "trained
incompetence".
Why hasn't anyone told Krugman that he is performing not a "trivial
thought experiment" devised by economists but a two-bit dog and pony show
choreographed by a scab labour contractor, a paranoid buggy-maker, a
cereal huckster and their hired "captain of erudition"?
Tom Walker
