This post suggests that those who view our economic malaise as a structural problem are winning the battle against those, like Paul Krugman, who argue for countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies. It suggests that Krugman should stop arguing against austerity and get into the structural game.
The problem that I have with this view is that Krugman has been making structural arguments. They are just different from the structural changes proposed by economists from Chicago and Harvard. He has beaten the austerity issue about as hard that it can be beaten, but he is not guilty of ignoring structural issues.
The post that I made below on different ways of looking at the economic crisis is more to the point. There is a lot of value in the heterodox proposals for structural change that are much stronger than those that come from Chicago. They could be pursued without giving up on policies to deal with unemployment. Joe Stiglitz and James Galbraith, for example, have made very strong proposals for structural change.
No comments:
Post a Comment