Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:00 PM
Part ego, sure. Mostly, it is his livelihood and spotlight. He has built an entire career on advocating central planning and authority. His work on trade theories was work well done and is now the standard theories taught in schools on international trade. But he just keeps looking to stay relevant, and what better way than to promote failed Keynesian policies?
He has a NYT blog spot, is asked to be debated and for his opinion on news outlets the world over and maintains a presence in academia. All fine and dandy.
But his deliberate obsession with changing facts and history to favor his centrall control mind frame, really puts him on the edge of credible. He would do himself a favor to be a bit more humble and objective, than a loud roar of dogmatic jargon regarding macrecon.
just reading his articles is PAINFUL.