patrick.net

He's a real visionary...

Yea, fire doesn't hold a flame to being able to send nude selfies to the opposite sex.

How did humanity survive this long without the www?

Heraclitusstudent says

He's a real visionary

Alvin Toffler move over

Everybody knows that Nobel Prize winners are complete idiotic, moronic atrocities when talking about issues and subjects outside of their narrow fields of study or academic interests.

Unfortunately, Krugman is talking about issues that ARE in his field.

Ceffer says

Everybody knows that Nobel Prize winners are complete idiotic, moronic atrocities when talking about issues and subjects outside of their narrow fields of study or academic interests.

Unfortunately, Krugman is talking about issues that ARE in his field.

Hehehe! So true.

Yep Krugman was totally off base when he didn't get how the Internet would change the world. It's the most significant invention ever, including the printing press. Then again, Krugman is in the newspaper biz, and they just didn't get it back in the 1990s.

The first is a prediction that the growth of the Internet would “slow drastically.”

The growth of anything as measured by the percentage of the world population adopting it must eventually reach 0% simply because any growth eventually leads to 100% adoption and by mathematical definition you cannot grow pass that.

He has also pontificated that an alien invasion would save the global economy

And his hypothesis is correct if and only if Keynesian economic theory is correct, in particular that aggregated demand is the prime determination of the health of the economy. However, Keynesian economic theory is completely wrong regardless of its popularity, and the central dogma of Keynesian that the aggregated demand for war goods in WWII is what ended the First Great Depression is wrong.

If that central dogma was correct, then we could repeat history by spending four times as much on warfare as we did in the past decade and our economic would be great. If our economy didn't recover or got worse from this wasteful spending, then that would be empirical proof that the central dogma of Keynesian is wrong. As much as I'd hate to see the loss of life and waste of resources, I'd be acceptable to running that experiment to prove once and for all that Keynesianism is completely wrong.

But of course, even proving that Keynesianism is wrong would not change the minds of Keynesians because fundamentally, the economic theory is a religion, not a theory. Theories are subject to empirical verification. Religions are not.