Of course if one takes the conclusion out of the argument that tries to justify it it is no difficult task to question it increduously (angela) and dismiss it cynically (mbs). The conclusion may not follow from the basic idea; the basic idea itself may be flawed. I had hoped the conclusion about which I was rather serious would be challenged in the context it was made. At the very least, it is interesting that Krugman has challenged social scientific complacency by encouraging an investigation of the lessons of Depression Economics, given the utter failure of so many recent initiatives which have instead hurtled millions of people into degradation and starvation. Without having to agree with the actual arguments, one can appreciate Krugman's attempt to return basic theory in the arrogantly vacuous Mankiw age to the questions of the business cycle and depression and the limits of "easy solution" govt stabilisation programs, just as one can appreciate Brenner for helping to focus attention on the dynamics of the falling profit rate.
rnb