David Theroux <DTheroux@independent.org> wrote:
If you knew anything about the academic debate over "path dependence" ("network externality") theory you would know that the work by our research fellows, Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, has been appearing in the leading, scholarly, peer-reviewed, economics journals for the past ten years. They have conclusively shown that "network externality" theory has absolutely no empirical evidence. And, no economists or any others have been able to show any errors in the devastating Liebowitz/Margolis analysis. Indeed, hundreds academic economists have signed our Open Letter agreeing with this analysis.
Not an argument, of course -- also, would you be more specific? You appear to resemble remarks made by Paul Krugman in Slate a few years back: http://slate.msn.com/Dismal/96-08-15/Dismal.asp So why does the supply-side idea keep on resurfacing? Probably because of two key attributes that it shares with certain other doctrines, like belief in the gold standard: It appeals to the prejudices of extremely rich men, and it offers self-esteem to the intellectually insecure. The support of rich men is not a small matter. Despite its centrality to political debate, economic research is a very low-budget affair. The entire annual economics budget at the National Science foundation is less than $20 million. What this means is that even a handful of wealthy cranks can support an impressive-looking array of think tanks, research institutes, foundations, and so on devoted to promoting an economic doctrine they like. (The role of a few key funders, like the Coors and Olin Foundations, in building an intellectual facade for late 20th-century conservatism is a story that somebody needs to write.) The economists these institutions can attract are not exactly the best and the brightest. Supply-side troubadour Jude Wanniski has lately been reduced to employing followers of Lyndon LaRouche. But who needs brilliant, or even competent, researchers when you already know all the answers?
(For your information, it was the acclaimed, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko who first showed how antitrust has been used repeatedly for corporatist purposes since its initial adoption.)
Why should this impress us? Do you always break things down into left & right? Ralph Nader & Pat Buchanan can't /both/ be wrong about trade, can they? Oh, my.
you apparently prefer to defend the blatant campaign for corporate welfare (antitrust protectionism),
Fyi, Phill has opposed the MS antitrust case.
Incidentally, so you do not continue to embarrass yourself, I would suggest you first learn the difference between the terms, "network effects" and "network externalities." Reading the book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, would make an excellent way to do so.
Assuming we're suspicious of spending our money & our time, would you provide links to articles? Thanks, Paul