One of my favorite thought leaders (Nobel Prize winner), Paul Krugman, explains how he thinks about the current China syndrome, and why he believes that most of the responses that he hears from fans are missing the point.
He focuses on three questions:
The macroeconomics of Chinese currency intervention, the fallacies of elasticity pessimism, and the political economy issue of how to deal with Chinese intransigence.
An interesting state of the economics piece by economist Paul Krugman (pictured), "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"
A snippet from it here:
When it comes to the all-too-human problem of recessions and depressions, economists need to abandon the neat but wrong solution of assuming that everyone is rational and markets work perfectly. The vision that emerges as the profession rethinks its foundations may not be all that clear; it certainly won’t be neat; but we can hope that it will have the virtue of being at least partly right.A few notes about it here.
This looks like someone we should follow: Paul Krugman (pictured), the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist. He won the Nobel economic prize for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences praised Krugman for formulating a new theory to answer questions about free trade.Read more about Paul's background, at least as a New York Times columnist, here.
"What are the effects of free trade and globalization? What are the driving forces behind worldwide urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new theory to answer these questions," the academy said in its citation.
"He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography," it said.
