Krugman, wearing his journalist hat, was obviously oversimplifying a
complex business. So, perhaps, are some of his critics. Here are some
germane points:
	Richard T. Ely, founder of the AEA, steered it toward the German
Historical School approach, not the English classical approach. Even then,
however, he depended on funds from Abram Hewitt, one of America's richest
power brokers, and as he aged he honed his skills as a rainmaker and bent
his views accordinly.
	Ely was soon threatened with loss of income by a political attack on
his tenure at Wisconsin. He survived, but turned cautious, and then
progressively rightwards, as did several other economists of the times.
"Rightwards", however, did not necessarily mean market-oriented. It can also
mean property-oriented and subsidy-seeking and monopoly-defending. Long
before Howard Jarvis, Ely proposed capping property tax rates and turning to
sales taxes.
	Herbert Hoover all through the 1920's, in tandem with Sec'y Mellon
and later Mills of the Treasury, pushed for "business associationism", i.e.
cartel control. This was the politically correct position then, and we may
be sure many economists adapted their views accordingly, as they have before
and after. Veblen was one of those who did not, and he went out of fashion.
He did, however, in a last blaze before dying, team up with Stuart Chase to
write on consumerism and castigate false advertising, finding a new outlet
for liberal activism in a reactionary era.
	Keynes did not say much about micro-economics, but before 1936
Robinson and Chamberlin wrote critically about imperfect competition, and
Berle and Means made a splash with The Corporation and Private Property.
	There were many more eddies and undercurrents in the stream to
overturn the boats of those seeking to generalize.
	
Mason Gaffney