The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma… Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
Dashboard
Blog Stats
10/21/10 7:47 PM
Edit Post
Grasping Reality with Both Hands The Semi-Daily Journal of Economist J. Bradford DeLong: Fair, Balanced, RealityBased, and Even-Handed Department of Economics, U.C. Berkeley #3880, Berkeley, CA 94720-3880; 925 708 0467; delong@econ.berkeley.edu.
Economics 210a Weblog Archives DeLong Hot on Google DeLong Hot on Google Blogsearch September 26, 2010
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Smart One Among the Minnesota Economists... ...and that Bill Clinton once knew what economists to talk to to construct his talking points. Paul Krugman: Structure of Excuses: What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there are no quick or easy answers. There is work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it — they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural,” and will take many years to solve. But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand — full stop. Saying that there are no easy answers sounds wise, but it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act. In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions. Who are these wise heads I’m talking about? The most widely quoted figure is Narayana Kocherlakota, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who has attracted a lot of attention by insisting that dealing with high unemployment isn’t a Fed responsibility: “Firms have jobs, but can’t find appropriate workers. The workers want to work, but can’t find appropriate jobs,” he asserts, concluding that “It is hard to see how the Fed can do much to cure this problem.” Now, the Minneapolis Fed is known for its conservative outlook, and claims that unemployment is mainly structural do tend to come from the right of the political spectrum. But some people on the other side of the aisle say similar http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana…as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 1 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma… Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
things. For example, former President Bill Clinton recently told an interviewer that unemployment remained high because “people don’t have the job skills for the jobs that are open”... When jobs are open, it is because employers think that they could sell what new employees would make for a handsome price and profit. Therefore they will be eager to hire--and eager to pay what the market will bear in order to hire. If it is indeed the case that people do not have the skills for the jobs that are open, or if firms have jobs but cannot find appropriate workers, then we ought to see tight labor markets and rapidly rising wages in those occupation-region pairs where there are ample jobs. We don't. Both Kocherlakota and Clinton appear to be following the doctrines that French economist Jean-Baptiste Say set out in 1803: that if there is excess supply in one industry for one kind of labor, then there must be a countervailing excess demand in another industry for another kind of labor--and if unemployment stays high it is a "structural" problem because workers with the skills needed to work in the declining industry don't have the skills needed for the rising industry. As economist Thomas Robert Malthus pointed out at the time, this argument sounds good in theory but fails in practice: It may be said, perhaps, that the cotton trade happens to be glutted; and it is a tenet of the new doctrine on profits and demand, that if one trade be overstocked with capital, it is a certain sign that some other trade is understocked. But where, I would ask, is there any considerable trade that is confessedly under-stocked, and where high profits have been long pleading in vain for additional capital? And Jean-Baptiste Say had come around to Malthus's view, and argued that high unemployment in Britain in 1825=6 was the result of derangement in the financial sector rather than of inadequate skills on the part of workers that kept them from satisfying excess demand for labor in expanding industries: The Bank [of England]... ceased to put new notes into circulation...cease[d] to discount commercial bills. Provincial banks were... obliged to follow... commerce found itself deprived at a stroke of the advances on which it had counted.... As the bills that businessmen had discounted came to maturity... each was forced to use up all the resources at his disposal. They sold goods for half what they had cost. Business assets could not be sold at any price. As every type of merchandise had sunk below its costs of production, a multitude of workers were without work... As Paul writes: [W]hat should we be seeing if statements like those of Mr. Kocherlakota or Mr. Clinton were true?... [S]ignificant labor shortages somewhere... major industries that are trying to expand but are having trouble hiring, major classes of workers who find their skills in great demand, major parts of the country with low unemployment.... None of these things exist. Job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5 percent.... So all the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular? Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana…as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 2 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma… Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
unemployment — in part because pundits and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.... [P]owerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been proliferating: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society. So what you need to know is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back these claims. We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse — a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed. The kicker, of course, is that if we do not act now when our unemployment problem is one of deficient aggregate demand, two years from now we will have a different unemployment problem--our big problem will turn from cyclical into structural unemployment. Brad DeLong on September 26, 2010 at 08:46 PM in Economics, Economics: Labor, Economics: Macro, Utter Stupidity | Permalink Favorite
Reblog (0) | del.icio.us | Tweet This!
| Digg This | Save to
TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551f080038834013487bda4f2970c Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Smart One Among the Minnesota Economists...:
Comments DrDick said... Frankly it sounds to me as though they are finding what they want to find (that no action should be taken) and making up justifications as they go. Reply September 26, 2010 at 09:12 PM Full Employment Hawk said... The primary requirement to be a Minnesta economist is that one has to be an idiot savant. A brilliant technician who can model sophisticated theoretical models but who is totally clueless about how actual real world economies, rather than the cloud cuokuoland economies in their models, function. Reply September 26, 2010 at 10:47 PM Full Employment Hawk said... "that high unemployment in Britain in 1825=6 was the result of derangement in the financial sector" http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana…as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 3 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma… Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
Now you have swithed the argument from the cause being an excess demand for bonds to an excess demand for bank credit. This is a major improvement. The former version was clearly incorrect because the bond market is a market in which prices are highly flexible, so that price increases will remove the excess demand for bonds before they can cause an excess supply in the labor market. The market for bank credit on the other hand is a very sticky price market subject to credit rationing which in times of financial crisis can remain in excess demand for an extended period of time and can therefore cause an excess supply in the labor market. Reply September 26, 2010 at 10:53 PM Full Employment Hawk said... It would really help if the book Say wrote in which he changed his postion were available in an English translation. Most economists in the United States who cannot read French (my second language is German) are only familiar with the original version of Say's law and debates about it in the United States are conducted on the basis of the original version, since that is available in English. Reply September 26, 2010 at 10:58 PM SamB said... Technically speaking, it can be argued that in a certain sense the missmatch people are correct. The problem is that the missmatch has a time element, and the key skill the unemployed are lacking is the ability to move forward through time, in order to work (and collect money) at that future time that the people presently looking to save plan to be spending those savings. This, given that there is huge demand for such a "time travel" skill (or technology), perhaps we can encourage Mr. Kocherlakota and his compatriots to invest his retirement savings into a major research/training project in this area. The stimulus effect of such an investment will be a pleasant side-benefit. Reply September 26, 2010 at 10:58 PM Jim Shirk said... But..but.. not only are the 'structural unemployment' school proponents absolved from taking action, they're also striking a blow against our defenseless scapegoat, the American education system - it's a twofer! Reply September 27, 2010 at 05:30 AM Neal said... As a Minnesotan, I take offense at the title. Surely there are economists here that don't make certifiably stupid statements such as,“Firms have jobs, but can’t find appropriate workers. The workers want to work, but can’t find appropriate jobs”. The size of the effect of the housing bubble on the economy can only be gauged in retrospect by its absence. The issue for Krugman and any other policy maker and influencer is to find a policy or series of policies that fill the hole. So far, policies proposed and enacted have been to small or too indirect. The multi-dimensional nature of the issue (export-safe jobs, high wage levels, easy credit, rising assets, easily liquefied assets) have eluded solution to this point. The real problem is how the solution will be obtained without the creation of another credit/asset boom that will blow apart with even greater damage. Reply September 27, 2010 at 05:31 AM Lasthun said...
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana…as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 4 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma‌ Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
By ensuring that timely intervention is not possible the Republicons ensure cyclical unemployment becomes structural. In turn this creates political dividends for the obstructionist, since the unemployed and traumatised are easier to turn against each other / the immigrants. Divide and rule, nothing to see here, move along. Reply September 27, 2010 at 06:43 AM Mandos said... Export-safe jobs with high wage levels. That's the problem in a nutshell. Reply September 27, 2010 at 06:43 AM allan said in reply to Mandos... "Export-safe jobs with high wage levels." Working at Cato, Heritage or AEI would seem to fit the bill. Maybe the Koch brothers really are our saviors. Reply September 27, 2010 at 07:04 AM DrDick said in reply to allan... Prostitution has always been largely export-safe and does pay well at the upper end. Sadly, most of us would end up on the street anyway. Reply September 27, 2010 at 07:12 AM Jego Bonga said... What do u mean by that DrDick? Reply September 27, 2010 at 07:46 AM Peter K. said... Neal: "The real problem is how the solution will be obtained without the creation of another credit/asset boom that will blow apart with even greater damage." someone commented at another blog: "From Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money: Chapter 21 Trade Cycle - Section III: "Furthermore, even if we were to suppose that contemporary booms are apt to be associated with a momentary condition of full investment or over-investment in the strict sense, it would still be absurd to regard a higher rate of interest as the appropriate remedy. For in this event the case of those who attribute the disease to under-consumption would be wholly established. The remedy would lie in various measures designed to increase the propensity to consume by the redistribution of incomes or otherwise; so that a given level of employment would require a smaller volume of current investment to support it." " Sounds good to me. In the meantime the government and Fed need to supply aggregate demand until the private sector picks up. Like in the Field of Dreams, if you build a baseball field in your cornfield, people will show up. Reply September 27, 2010 at 08:40 AM dilbert dogbert said... I am waiting for the next shoe to drop: The call for more H1Bs. Reply September 27, 2010 at 08:47 AM DrDick said in reply to Jego Bonga...
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana‌as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 5 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma… Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
"Working at Cato, Heritage or AEI would seem to fit the bill. Maybe the Koch brothers really are our saviors." Do I really need to explain this? Reply September 27, 2010 at 09:23 AM hartal said... The mismatch thesis is only one form of structural unemployment. But there is also the question of the structural limits on growth just as ever higher levels of growth are required to attain full employment given the increasing capital intensity of production and employers' wish to overwork the already employed workers rather than hire new workers. There was a book in the 1930s by Alexander Gourevitch reviewing the different theories of structural and technological unemployment. My guess is that the book was never surpassed. Reply September 27, 2010 at 09:24 AM hartal said... Gourvitch, Alexander. 1966. Survey of Economic Theory on Technological Change and Employment. New York: Augustus Kelley Publishers. Original edition, 1940. Reply September 27, 2010 at 09:32 AM save_the_rustbelt said... It doesn't matter how much demand increases, there will be a lot of unemployed and underemployed former manufacturing workers and probably construction workers as well. Seems pretty structural to me. Economists hate to admit that because it messes with their globalization fantasies. Reply September 27, 2010 at 09:38 AM Neal said... I think it is a more difficult problem than simply providing employment--the housing boom was the equivalent of making geese that laid golden eggs. Reply September 27, 2010 at 09:39 AM Ron said... I’m not an economist, but is it possible that the policy response to a “modest” cyclical decline in demand should be different from a “grand” cyclical decline in demand? What if the cycle we are fighting isn’t the minor one since the recession of 2002, but is some longer extended period of overconsumption by the developed world. Something that may go back 20 years, 80 years, 150 years. Maybe that 2% per capita GDP isn’t sustainable forever. That our eyes have been bigger than our stomachs and we have borrowed too much debt, brought forward too much consumption. If that were the case, plugging the hole in demand with fiscal stimulus, would just kick the can down the road. The real problem is that we are over extended and we need to consume less. And the real reckoning is that GDP needs to be lower and that wealth will be destroyed (either through debt defaults or inflation). Reply September 27, 2010 at 10:10 AM Matt Russo said in reply to DrDick... Exactly: As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse — a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed. The kicker, of course, is that if we do not act now when our unemployment problem is
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana…as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 6 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma‌ Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
one of deficient aggregate demand, two years from now we will have a different unemployment problem--our big problem will turn from cyclical into structural unemployment. IOW, "they" are anticipating structural employment down the road, indicating that they intend to do nothing. Why? Because this recession is a _capitalist_ recession why would they want to employ those whom they have just unemployed. Only if the current rate of profit - recovered by means of massive unemployment - can be sustained on the backs of a rising re-employment will this be reversed. We are certainly not at that point now, and any government action that absorbs this unemployment from the demand side will tend to block this avenue by putting a floor under the wage rate, which must fall (either relatively or absolutely) as a condition for capitalist re-employment, one that also sustains the rate of profit. So the justification makes sense from "their" POV. The issue is they want to restructure investment into new channels, but capitalist structuring is a slow, socially painful and economically wasteful and inefficient process that is guaranteed to produce structurally redundant layers of the workforce in one place while also producing labor shortages in others. The real conceptual problem lies in the Krugman camp, in its refusal to forthrightly answer this with advocacy of state directed economic planning that is the only way to accomplish the restructuring of investment in a timely manner, even under the "rules" of capitalism that the neo-Keynesians are so anxious to play by. Simply pumping up demand (into the same old channels) is not not going to do it, as "they", who have just dis-invested from these channels, recognize. Reply September 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM orionATL said... NAE, either. with respect to the contrast between the men and women who are unemployed, maybe out of unemployment insurance, possibly without medical insurance, some behind in their mortgage payments, 401 k's melting like ice-cream and our presidential and congressional decision makers with their economist, banking, and corporate advisors, an image comes to mind of those 600 cavalrymen riding to injury or death on the orders of a small set of peers of the realm who have poorly understood the immediate circumstances, have bungled command communications with each other, but have little to risk personally (other than embarrassment) for the most gross failures of their leadership. the game always works the same: leadership operating in safe harbor has no compunction about ordering sacrifices from others others far, far away. Reply September 27, 2010 at 12:47 PM Matt Russo said... More refutation for KP, this on the China front, and on the NYT Op-Ed page - and it is noted here that Mr. Krugman's bit of "China bashing" on the currency has gotten little http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana‌as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 7 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma… Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
discussion on this forum: Blaming China Won’t Help the Economy By ANATOLE KALETSKY Published: September 26, 2010 Key excerpts: "Instead of obsessing over China’s currency manipulation as if it were a unique exception in a world of untrammeled market forces, the United States must adapt to an environment where exchange rates and trade imbalances are managed consciously and have become a legitimate subject for debate in international forums like the Group of 20." "In this climate, the market fundamentalism now represented by the Tea Party, based on instinctive aversion to government and a faith that “the market is always right,” is a global laughingstock. Yet more moderate figures from both parties largely hold the same view: a measure to punish China over its currency passed the House Ways and Means committee on Friday with bipartisan support." "Rather, it would make it likely that the newly dominant economic model will not be a product of democratic capitalism, based on Western values and American leadership. Instead, it will be an authoritarian state-led capitalism inspired by Asian values. If America opts, for the first time in history, for nostalgia and ideology instead of pragmatism and progress, then the new model of capitalism will probably be made in China, like so much else in the world these days." "Anatole Kaletsky, the chief economist of a Hong Kong-based investment advisory firm, is the author of “Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis.” " It can only be added that if "state-led capitalism" is inevitably authoritarian, it is because it remains in the final analysis, still capitalism. Reply September 27, 2010 at 01:12 PM pulo said... How often will an American company hire an American worker when demand increases anyway? American companies continue to improve in utilizing outsourced resources; examples include, but are surely not limited to, manufacturing, back-office financial processing, software development, customer service of all kinds, even reading radiology diagrams. Venture firms have focused initiatives to ensure maximal leverage of off-shore resources. Large companies have workforce staffing strategies focused on finding and leveraging foreign labor sources. Foreign governments invest in programs to take advantage of the out-sourcing trend. If recessions accelerate underlying economic trends, great recessions greatly accelerate those trends. American firms will hire American workers when they deem it less expensive, both short and long term, than other approaches. Welcome to the 21st century; American labor and white-collar workers are competing internationally. Foreign workers are competing internationally as well, with the twin advantages of lower cost-structures and explicit government intervention and support. It used to be: "whats good for General Motors is good for the USA." We seem to have decided that whats good for American companies is whats good for their investors - and good luck to the American laborer or white-collar worker. Reply September 27, 2010 at 02:18 PM marcel said... http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana…as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 8 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma‌ Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
The Sad Thing Is That NK Was Supposed to Be the Smart One Among the Minnesota Economists And I am sure he is. As ever, it is important to distinguish between, or rather among*, smarts (which is probably the same thing as technical savvy and perhaps brilliance) intelligence, a larger category that does not completely overlap smarts, and finally wisdom which is almost another thing altogether. This last requires judgement and, typically, experience. *I don't know the etymology of distinguish and hope that it does not refer to only 2 categories. Reply September 27, 2010 at 02:23 PM Zosima said... This strikes me as another "starve the beast" type strategy. A policy of deliberate sabotage that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just stonewall policies to ameliorate unemployment for long enough and the unemployment becomes structural(ie the workers' faults) and then we can justify further cutting their benefits from t+2 years to t+infinity. Reply September 27, 2010 at 05:35 PM rl said... Brad, what I'm hoping that you and Paul Krugman can glean from the set of comments you've attracted this time, is that something is really missed when you fire back at a corporate-led missive in this narrow-tactic way. Indeed there is structural shift - for 30 years - that has led us to an economy without employment. I don't see how it is going to change without balanced rollback of those causes. That would it seems give us an adequate time to actually roll forward into new productions, this time with the idea that all citizens are included in their construction. Sharing our work has done more to improve life - yes, some in long trickledowns - in the bleak parts of the world than decades of 'aid'. Thus a _proportion_ of work-sharing is justifiable. A 'market' cannot govern that proportion, as must be clear, neither to assign nor stabilize it. Rolling back to that proportion to what we can support while being healthy ourselves, and encouraging India, China, etc. and their new protoges to build in reverse proportion across their entire peoples is what we need to do now. It will be in fairness to everyone, and visibly so now that the consequences of the West not consuming have become apparent. This is a politics and an economy, isn't it? I'm not a professional in your field, but let us say there is a little worldly experience, in that larger world. With regards, and hoping who needs to can see this, and that it helps. Reply September 27, 2010 at 07:36 PM j said in reply to Matt Russo... " According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the proportion of income tax raised from the richest tenth of the population is 45 percent in America, compared with only 28 percent in France and 27 percent in Sweden. These countries raise money for public services mainly from middle-class voters, through consumption and energy taxes, not by soaking the rich." Funny how those percentages roughly match up precisely with the respective Gini coefficients. (Incidentally, China's Gini coefficient and the US's Gini coefficient crossed
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayana‌as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 9 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma… Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
10/21/10 7:47 PM
over during the crisis- China's used to be higher). Of course, it's one of those OpEds you can't reply to. Why? Because Anatole Kaletsky is a damned good economist, that's why. How good? "there will be no US recession", said Kaletsky in 2008. But he might be right, after all- perhaps mercantilist beggar-thy-neighbor is indeed the future of the global economy, complete with it's attendant (cyber)armed struggles (stuxnet). Global Thermonuclear CyberWarfare, here we come! Reply September 28, 2010 at 12:56 PM Comment below or sign in with TypePad
Post
Twitter and more...
Preview
I Want the Facts: Ray Griggs' I Want Your Money reviewed
economics DeLong
Me:
Media Matters for America - Oct 19, 2010 In a November 17 post on his personal blog, University of California-Berkeley economics professor Brad DeLong wrote, "Private investment recovered in a very ... Related Articles » « Previous Next »
Economists: Juicebox
Moral
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayan…as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 10 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma‌ Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
Paul Mafia: Krugman Ezra Klein Mark Thoma Matthew Cowen and Yglesias Tabarrok Spencer Chinn and Ackerman Hamilton Dana Brad Setser Goldstein Dan Froomkin
10/21/10 7:47 PM
Philosophers: Hilzoy and Friends Crooked Timber of Humanity Mark Kleiman and Friends Eric Rauchway and Friends John Holbo and Friends
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayan‌as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
Page 11 of 12
The Sad Thing Is That Narayana Kocherlakota Was Supposed to Be the Sma‌ Among the Minnesota Economists... - Grasping Reality with Both Hands
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/the-sad-thing-is-that-narayan‌as-supposed-to-be-the-smart-one-among-the-minnesota-economists.html
10/21/10 7:47 PM
Page 12 of 12