At 11:42 AM 8/7/00 -0400, you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Krugman is clearly smart, but his originality is fairly limited. This is
>>the sort of smart that neoclassical economists like.
>
>And he writes very well. How does his professional rep compare with his
>status as a popular writer? His success, as Max pointed out, is in large
>part the result of his appeal to the kind of audience he professes to hold
>in disdain as economic thinkers. But as long as they listen and admire, I
>guess that's all that counts.
"Thomas Friedman's views on globalization, reiterated twice a week, are
simple: 'Shut up and eat your spinach. Globalization is good for you, even
if you're too stupid to understand why. Besides, there's nothing you can do
about it.' He resolves complex disputes on large matters with words like
'crazy' and 'ridiculous,' accusing globalization's critics of being
'quacks' and 'extremists.' His [New York TIMES op-ed] colleague Paul
Krugman relies on a loftier form of condescension. 'Economists are smarter
than most people, and I'm smarter than most economists. Anyone who
disagrees is an unlicensed hack with an economics degree from a second-rate
university.' Regularly readers of the TIMES can attest that my mild
caricature does not exaggerate." -- William Greider, THE NATION, July
24/31, 2000.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
