it's an okay article, but I sincerely doubt that PK will receive the Nobel Prize in economics. His NYT column is in some ways a consolation prize. Not only is PK controversial (doing a job that economists aren't supposed to do), but the "new trade theory" is passé.
------------------------
Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Murray [mailto:seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 7:28 PM
> To: pen-l
> Subject: [PEN-L:32552] the Krugman advantage
>
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.confessore.html
>
>
- [PEN-L:32573] Re: John Rawls, Michael Hoover Tue 26 Nov 2002, 18:47 GMT
- [PEN-L:32571] RE: Re: John Rawls, Devine, James Tue 26 Nov 2002, 18:12 GMT
- [PEN-L:32572] Re: RE: Re: John Rawls, Louis Proyect Tue 26 Nov 2002, 18:25 GMT
- [PEN-L:32570] Re: John Rawls, enilsson Tue 26 Nov 2002, 17:42 GMT
- [PEN-L:32569] RE: the Krugman advantage, Devine, James Tue 26 Nov 2002, 17:27 GMT
- [PEN-L:32567] PK on NSR, Devine, James Tue 26 Nov 2002, 16:23 GMT
- [PEN-L:32568] Re: PK on NSR, Bill Lear Tue 26 Nov 2002, 16:55 GMT
- [PEN-L:32565] RE: Re: Re: John Rawls, Devine, James Tue 26 Nov 2002, 16:17 GMT
- [PEN-L:32563] Re: John Rawls, enilsson Tue 26 Nov 2002, 15:43 GMT