{"title":"泡沫与泡沫:保罗·克鲁格曼宏观经济分析的不一致性","authors":"D. Harding, J. Libich","doi":"10.22459/AG.17.01.2010.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Consistency is one of the touchstones used to evaluate not only arguments but also the people that put forward the arguments. In assessing the person advocating an argument, it is natural to look for coherence over time in their arguments and, secondly, whether the person offers a convincing explanation for a change of view. We apply this framework to evaluate some of Paul Krugman's macroeconomic analysis.","PeriodicalId":41700,"journal":{"name":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","volume":"23 1","pages":"83-88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Froth and Bubble: The Inconsistency of Paul Krugman's Macroeconomic Analysis\",\"authors\":\"D. Harding, J. Libich\",\"doi\":\"10.22459/AG.17.01.2010.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Consistency is one of the touchstones used to evaluate not only arguments but also the people that put forward the arguments. In assessing the person advocating an argument, it is natural to look for coherence over time in their arguments and, secondly, whether the person offers a convincing explanation for a change of view. We apply this framework to evaluate some of Paul Krugman's macroeconomic analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"83-88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.17.01.2010.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agenda-A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.17.01.2010.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Froth and Bubble: The Inconsistency of Paul Krugman's Macroeconomic Analysis
Consistency is one of the touchstones used to evaluate not only arguments but also the people that put forward the arguments. In assessing the person advocating an argument, it is natural to look for coherence over time in their arguments and, secondly, whether the person offers a convincing explanation for a change of view. We apply this framework to evaluate some of Paul Krugman's macroeconomic analysis.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
