4 ms·
The sore point for me was mostly that the article takes it for granted that Reader had this huge positive externality, because a lot of people are complaining.
by alanctgardner2 14y ago
The sore point for me was mostly that the article takes it for granted that Reader had this huge positive externality, because a lot of people are complaining. It's theoretically interesting to say that such a service might be worth publicly subsidizing. It's just annoying that he happened to use Reader as an example, because there has been a glut of news about Reader lately, and I think it's overblown.
- samastur 14y agoWhere does it do that? Basically it says following: * some people I know are upset * we know from economics, but often forget, that some products can be not viable even if people are willing to pay for them * historical solution is to make them public service which also to Krugman seems hard to envison Nowhere does he say anything about importance of Reader.