jj
Barry Rene DeCicco wrote:
> Note that in his latest column,
> he says that breaking up Microsoft
> is not economically optimal,
> on the basis of 'textbook economics'.
>
> In the second-to-last column, he
> says:
> Consider, on one side, really tough issues -- where there are
> plausible arguments on both sides, where nobody really
> knows how to measure the tradeoffs. Should Microsoft be
> broken up and, if so, how?
>
> So, which is it? Or should we take him literally,
> and assume that that *textbooks* specifically mention
> Microsoft, and the consequences of breaking it up,
> while the *economists* themselves are uncertain?
>
> Overall, both columns are good, in that he points
> out that many are quick to invoke/deny economics,
> as it suits their needs of the moment.
>
> However, Prof. Krugman himself is an excellent
> example of that syndrome (his column on the Microsoft
> break-up, and his column on rent control and SF).
>
> Barry