tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post4556506781360657817..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Scott Sumner v. Paul Krugman on a Simple IdentityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-7090472789264202962012-01-17T09:19:44.119-05:002012-01-17T09:19:44.119-05:00I find it curious the way you (and so many others)...I find it curious the way you (and so many others) state (1), as if it were immutable truth--as opposed to a proposition that follows from a specific set of assumptions. Shake off your religion, man. Read Nick Rowe's post today.(Also, I agree with the comment above. More generally, you attributing statements to Scott that he did not make. Please leave that to Krugman.)David Andolfattohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12138572028306561024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-26695173703333041892012-01-16T10:21:02.565-05:002012-01-16T10:21:02.565-05:00Sumner tried to tease out the proposition that a r...<i>Sumner tried to tease out the proposition that a rise in government purchases has no effect on the real economy</i><br />Sumner says he's not trying to show this. Rather, he's trying to show that consumption smoothing does not refute Cochrane.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com