Krugman on Marx

[Mathew Forstater]

A few years back Paul Romer was on the cover of something like a Forbes, Jr.
or Fortune College edition with something like "Future Nobel Prize?" in the
caption.  As a supplement to the article Romer wrote three paragraphs each on
Smith, Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter (another Marx admirer), and maybe one other.
It was dismissive, condescending, typicical in its view that the history of
economics is one of progressive development overcoming the mistakes of the old
timers, so it's unnecessary to read them, all you need to do is look at what's
being written by people like himself today.  This is particularly repulsive
since his bag is "endogeneity"--central to the work and thought of those he
dismissed, yet his stuff was called "new" and its endogeneity extremely thin
(and his framework logically inconsistent!) in comparison. Mat