From: T0Morrow@aol.com
Date: Tue Jan 26 1999 - 12:32:34 MST
Take my comments with as much salt as you like, given that I tout no formal
degrees in economics, but think that Krugman fairly well botched the "network
externalities" issue. The mere fact that he calls them "externalities"
reveals error. Liebowitz & Margolis convincingly argue that "network
*effects*" more properly fits the phenomena. We amatuers may regard that as
an arcane distinction, but surely professional economists should use
consistent and accurate terminology.
Krugman has moreover made highly suspect and hotly controverted claims of
having pioneered the idea of network effects, has bought into the QWERTY myth
too uncritically, and has failed to revisit his views in the face of new and
contradictory evidence.
So goes my opinion--an opinion you may rightly discount--of Krugman's work in
one area. He may get a great deal right on other fronts, of course, and even
good economists make mistakes from time to time. Query, though, whether
Krugman knows much about biology. I recall thinking that his criticisms of
bioeconomics were about half-right.
>Paul Krugman is a very good economist.
>
>Robin Hanson
T.0. Morrow
t0morrow@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/T0Mpage.HTML
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:56 MST