Paul Krugman (1998): By 2005 Internet will have no more economic impact than fax

http://web.archive.org/web/19980610100009/www.redherring.com/mag/issue55/economics.html

by wslh • 13 years ago

79 99 13 years ago

web.archive.org

rayiner4• 13 years ago

While he missed this particular one, he's not wrong (and note that he's wrong for social reasons more than technological ones). People generally overestimate how quickly technology will change in the future. In 1998, I was fretting over the 333 MHz processor that had just come out rendering my 300 MHz processor obsolete. Today, I'm happily using a 2010 MacBook Air with a processor that was already almost three years old when the thing was brand new. I don't think I saw that coming in 1998.

What people generally get wrong is the shape of technology curves, which are generally S-shaped rather than exponential. Low-hanging fruit yields exponential growth at first, then advancement becomes difficult and capital-intensive. The amount of capital being spent to e.g. keep up with Moore's low is breathtaking. So if a technology is advancing rapidly now, it probably won't look all that different 30 years from now. It's the unexpected technologies that you have to watch out for.

JamesArgo• 13 years ago

One of the reasons Moore's law seems to be slowing more than it is, is Intel is putting most of their new transistors into integrated graphics.

rayiner4• 13 years ago

Moore's law as a practical matter has been dead for awhile. If you hold capital expenditures to achieve a given level of improvement constant in real dollars, the pace has slowed dramatically since say the late 1980's. What's been hiding the extent of the slowdown is exponential increases in capital expenditures.

rdl• 13 years ago

It is kind of interesting to think self aware AI, under certain assumptions, and thus possibly the "singularity", could be an issue of an extra decade of Moore's law or not.

grannyg00se• 13 years ago

"It's the unexpected technologies that you have to watch out for."

Some would argue that the unexpected technologies are what keep technology curves exponential rather than S-shaped. (I'm thinking of Kurzweil here). Once advancement starts to slow something else crops up and re-energizes progress, keeping the exponential growth curve intact.

rayiner4• 13 years ago

It doesn't make a lot of sense to think of "the technological curve" as opposed to various technological curves. If you look at things like power technology, aerospace, medicine, etc, improvements have not been exponential in the last 5-6 decades.

gregschlom• 13 years ago

So he was wrong, no doubt about that. But I'd be interested in an analysis on why he was wrong? What assumptions he made to reach his conclusion proved out to be untrue?

nl9• 13 years ago

That's a really good question.

After thinking about it a bit, I'd suggest it was technological naivety - he didn't see ecommerce coming (!?) or thought that there was some reason it would fail.

I suspect he was deliberately being contrarian and pessimistic too.

flipcoder• 13 years ago

He wasn't wrong if you consider he was talking about macro. He appears to be addressing the claim that the standard of living was going to shoot up so high that we'd all be able to live cheaply and not work as much. He predicted instead that demand would stay high since more tech would cause us to keep wanting more.

Sometimes I think there are more anti-Krugman people than actual economists...

disclaimer: I only read a small part of the article

podperson3• 13 years ago

His comment about WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS suggests he missed the significance of the GUI too. I think he didn't realize the web and email would see truly widespread adoption versus merely being another thing that made the tiny minority of people who (really) used computers slightly happier.

nl9• 13 years ago

I think his predictions were consciously pessimistic, designed to underline the title of the article Why most economists' predictions are wrong.

I figure he scored 2/5 (The American triumphalism lasted until 2001, and the raw-material crunch happened multiple times).

coldtea7• 13 years ago

Not to mention the pace of tech change (computing-wise) seems to slow down, unless we can do something about Moore's law that doesn't involve 2000 cores, battery life, and such.

nl9• 13 years ago

I don't understand your comment.

The pace of tech change doesn't seem to be slowing down to me.

The iPad was only released 3 years ago and yet now even government websites are optimizing for tablets.

guylhem6• 13 years ago

What is the point in beating a dead horse ?

Krugman is often wrong. He got a nobel prize, good for him, but we should not take his opinions - or the opinion of any nobel prize or other authority figures - as words from the gods.

Remember, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results - and this is as good as an example as it gets.

At least I reckon he made a testable prediction this time.

We are all human and faillible. What authority figures may provide is better calibration - ie not being humble or arrogant, but say how good their prediction is, and not be wrong too often (http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical).

At least, we should hold them to that standard since their past declarations are available to the public and can be tested against current results.

kevinskii3• 13 years ago

He's gotten remarkably good at not making testable recommendations or predictions. If an economy collapses, it's because the government didn't do any stimulus spending. If the government tries to stimulate but its economy still collapses, it's because it didn't stimulate enough. I don't think he's ever gone on record to say specifically how much stimulus is needed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

skylan_q6• 13 years ago

He's gotten remarkably good at not making testable recommendations or predictions.

That's the problem with empirical economics with idealistic theories. You can't separate the variables, so there's always another excuse to weasel yourself out of having your hypothesis nullified.

mikeyouse3• 13 years ago

You're wrong.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithme...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/the-story-of-the...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/stimulus-issues/

martythemaniak4• 13 years ago

Actually he did - it was about 2 trillion, which does not include tax cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html

This was not a unique opinion at the time - the people who correctly diagnosed the crisis of 2008 prescribed more or less the same medicine.

ritchiea• 13 years ago

He's also been pretty open about the fact that he views himself as a voice of the left and he's gradually seen himself as more political and less of an academic economist. So he's usually not trying to make testable predictions. I recall this being because he feels he has greater political impact that he did as an academic economist. If you're interested, the New Yorker did a fantastic profile of Krugman a year or two ago that covers how he views his writing for the Times [1]. That said, as other posters have pointed out you're wrong about the specific instance of the stimulus.

1. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/01/100301fa_fact_...

skylan_q6• 13 years ago

I can give him a break on predictions, as no one can be good at predictions on this sort of thing. Just lucky. What really bothers me is what he advocates...

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

-Paul Krugman, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip...

guylhem6• 13 years ago

Sometime you get what you pray for :-/

Krugman wanted the housing bubble, he got it.

Please tell me, has he asked for any education bubble? I'm not really following what he says unless it's too wonky (like he last piece about Adam Smith hating bitcoin, because you know Adam Smith could have predicted bitcoin and peer to peer and computers http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates...)

coldtea7• 13 years ago

>What really bothers me is what he advocates...

What exactly bothers you on this piece? On hindsight, it is extremely prescient. He got the recession AND the housing bubble right, 5 to 6 years before the fact.

(And in case you were confused: he doesn't advocate the creation of a housing bubble here. He predicts one -- and he believes that Greenspan thinks he needs one and will help in creating it, which both were proven true).

mikeyouse3• 13 years ago

A Cato contributor describes Krugman's alleged advocacy:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/defending_what.h...

stcredzero2• 13 years ago

> Krugman is often wrong. He got a nobel price,

Being wrong now and then is excusable, clearly.

guylhem6• 13 years ago

As someone else said, "He's gotten remarkably good at not making testable recommendations or predictions."

With a bad spirit, one could say he got medal for that.

Yet his work on new trade theory in international commerce, and how the european union data contradicted standard HOS theory is quite interesting. He should have kept to that.

But when your self proclaimed intention is to be a voice from the left (or the right, or anything) and have political impact instead of academic impact, you may have to take distance from reality :-/

zimpenfish• 13 years ago

You can swap "often wrong" for "economist".

martythemaniak4• 13 years ago

FYI: Digging up old, unrelated things Krugman has said that are wrong isn't going to make your bitcoins worth more.

For those of you confused why this is a top item, Krugman wrote a bitcoin piece today: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/krugman-the-antiso...

guylhem6• 13 years ago

I'm sorry, but how constructive is your comment really? Do you think it's and ad-hominem on Krugman? He's not popular with me, but even leaving that aside, there's something more here.

Some say love and passion are two sides of the same coin, and the only separate sentiment is indifference.

He sure seems to hate bitcoin with a passion now. Today's article is at least not as bad as his last piece from only 3 days before, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates-bitcoin/ that was discussed here.

At least this time in the article he properly acknowledged bitcoin as the "ultimate fiat currency", that's an evolution.

Yet he still sees nothing wrong with quantitative easing and the greenback, and compare that situation to the goldbugs. Poeple who are too optimistic about gold do not necessarily have to be right to make a good investment - if the fiat currencies are doing down, that alone would make gold an interesting investment (I for one would not place a single cent in a heavy precious metal the US government has already confiscated in the past following executive orders)

Just notice how sentimentally charged his article are - look at the keywords in the titles, "hate" or "antisocial". It would be interesting to grab them all and feed them into a sentiment analysis software, to see how he positionned himself on other topics in the past, and if these position evolves over time.

Still, it's weird and funny. Does he intend to write a bitcoin article a day when the $300 cap is reached? He should post them on bitcoin related sites and rename his blog.

martythemaniak4• 13 years ago

He is a prolific blogger (2-3 items per day, about 6-7 days a week) and he has written about bitcoin a grand total of 3 times over the 3 years.

The feelings he seems to have for bitcoin are much worse than hate - it's bemused indifference, which must be what drives bitbugs so mad.

rpgmaker• 13 years ago

Ugh, he commented now on the story because bitcoins are the craze now - or were. He doesn't hate bitcoins: he's just used it to make many of his arguments clearer. This is his style, it's not personal. The only people that could leverage that accusation against him (and be wrong) are JoeScar and the Flimflam man. Is just about the data. He was wrong about the internet because he commited the mistake he usually criticizes in others: talk about something without the data or knowing the data. He is not wrong about bitcoins. It doesn't mean bitcoins don't work as alternate currencies (which they obviously do) but how reliable can they be when their value changes so drastically? Bitcoins will hardly matter on a post apocalyptic world because it hardly matters today (unless bitcoins holders increase dramatically): that's why he called it antisocial.

olalonde• 13 years ago

And why was this a top item https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548976 (around the same time CATO published a positive review on Bitcoin)? HNers shorting bitcoins?

jebblue• 13 years ago

>> HNers shorting bitcoins?

Or maybe it's just a dumb idea. Let's see, I buy enough computing hardware and I can create money! I think it's a glorified pyramid scheme.

wslh• 13 years ago

Today, John Mauldin, a lesser known (but well known) financier wrote a more positive note on BitCoin. You can freely subscribe and read his position: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ttmygh/bit-happens

bitcartel• 13 years ago

What worries me is that the guy who couldn't see the potential of the Internet is the same guy who thinks that five years of quantitative easing is "temporary" and that printing trillions of dollars of funny money is just "fine".

> The practical misconception here — and it’s a big one — is the notion that we live in an era of wildly irresponsible money printing, with runaway inflation just around the corner. It’s true that the Federal Reserve and other central banks have greatly expanded their balance sheets — but they’ve done that explicitly as a temporary measure in response to economic crisis... We have huge economic problems, but green pieces of paper are doing fine — and we should let them alone.

charlesjshort• 13 years ago

Krugman's error is to label the the bitcoin open network 'antisocial' in comparison to the federal reserve closed network. If antisocial means 'not wanting the company of others' : I think that means a closed network not an open network; the exact opposite of what he postulates.

nl9• 13 years ago

Krugman doesn't mention it in that article, but I suspect his real issue with Bitcoin is that it is deflationary and thus increases the risk of a deflationary spiral[1].

Edit: Krugman actually has written about the deflationary nature of Bitcoin previously. Quote: In effect, Bitcoin has created its own private gold standard world, in which the money supply is fixed rather than subject to increase via the printing press. [0]

Krugman's arch nemesis' - economonists from the Austrian and Chicago schools - dispute whether deflationary spiral occur, whereas Keynesian like Krugman consider them a real risk.

(Note that this is also the reason why goldbugs generally agree with the Austrian and Chicago schools of thought regarding economics, whilst Keynesian regard gold merely as a safe value store - the "flight to safety" school of thought).

[0] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/golden-cyberfett...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral

gojomo• 13 years ago

As much as I'd like to Krugman-bash, with respect to the implied context of his prediction -- the Internet's effect on the macroeconomy, overall income growth, and standard-of-living -- it wasn't that bad of a prediction.

The Internet has massively changed many industries and our ways of living and communicating, especially those of us active on HN. But, the impact in the macro statistics is still.. meh. See also Peter Thiel's laments and Tyler Cowen on 'the great stagnation'.

Personally, I suspect there's been a lot of qualitative improvement that doesn't show up in the time-series statistics. (For example, we're taking a lot of the benefit of the Internet in economically-unmetered leisure/shirking.) Also, I'd guess much of the benefit of new computer/telecom efficiencies has just helped offset continuing losses to outdated and parasitic arrangements by entrenched incumbents. (That is: the Internet's boosts-to-growth have somewhat hidden the continuing losses-to-growth from festering things like anti-competitive regulations, socially-broken education and medical incentives, and income-sapping entitlement program financing/payments.) Net-net, we're still on the same (or even a slowed) long-term income trend, whereas if we fully addressed these older things, we'd be seeing the full bonanza of Internet technology.

guylhem6• 13 years ago

I strongly disagree about a "qualitative improvement". facebook may be fun, but not that fun if you can't put a dollar value on it or the surrounding ecosystem.

The great stagnation is a real issue.

There is a visible disconnect in the growth rate of OECD countries. It's not just reaching Solow long term equilibrium - it happened too fast. It's just weird and troubling.

Hopefully the "rest of the world" will keep growing and improving the human lot. Too bad for OECD countries.

gwern• 13 years ago

I pointed this out on Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bl0jd/in_2011_paul... (that Krugman was merely making a well-known point in the academic literature that 'you can see the computer age everywhere but the statistics'). Didn't get much of a reception.

crazy1van• 13 years ago

All this talk of Krugman reminds me that there's an awful lot of scientism out there today -- beliefs masquerading as science. The scientific method has been thrown out the window in this regard. If someone is going to propose a theory they claim is proven in someway, I want them to also identify the specific event that if it occurs will disprove their theory.

The whole economics profession is filled with scientism, but my two pet peeve issues on this are stimulus spending to fix the economy and man made global warming. For them to be viable scientific theories, there must be an observable event that if actually observed would disprove the theories. Without that, they are just beliefs. Nothing against beliefs, but let's not call them scientific theories.

snowwrestler2• 13 years ago

Global warming is disprovable at numerous points of evidence.

- Disprove the absorbtion and emission spectra of greenhouse gases like CO2, methane, and water vapor.

- Disprove correlations between measurements of fossil fuel usage and measurements of rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

- Disprove measurements of changing carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere.

- Show that the oceans absorb CO2 more quickly that currently estimated.

- Show that insolation has recently increased more than previously thought.

- Show that measurements of recent global temperature rise are wrong.

etc.

pcvarmint• 13 years ago

http://library.mises.org/books/Helmut%20Schoeck/Scientism%20...

parasubvert5• 13 years ago

This is wrong, though I empathize.

Social scientists come up with useful models that help explain events and behaviours, that aren't disproven by empirical evidence. There are plenty of ways to falsify a social science theory: wait long enough, or study enough data, and you'll amass enough empirical evidence to determine whether your theory holds up or not.

Of course, this does not mean it is proven - there may be a falsifiable data point some day. But that's why we call it a theory.

Environmental science is somewhat harder because the timescales are much longer than we have existed. But we also have well established ways of estimating the climate of ancient eras. This is why global warming is considered a scientific theory.

In economics, there is, for example, a lot of evidence these days in favor of the standard Keynesian IS-LM model for a macroeconomy in liquidity trap conditions, and a dearth of evidence supporting neoclassical models and Real Business Cycle theory. This is almost a paradigm re-shift, in that a previously abandoned paradigm (by many), thought by some to have been falsified, is actually proving more predictive with respect to actual events than previously recognized. Unfortunately economics is closely intertwined with politics and ideology which doesn't mix well with science -- thus the profession is in crisis.

An alternative, I suppose, is to go "full Austrian" and presume economics is an inherently unfalsifiable subject, based on fundamental logical truths. Thus it is justified to ignore all empirical evidence and mathematical analysis in favor of deductive praxeology. This is what Von Mises and Rothbard (founder of the US Libertarian party) believed, and they've been a common source of contra-Krugman arguments.

lake992• 13 years ago

I'm with you on global warming.

> An alternative, I suppose, is to go "full Austrian" and presume economics is an inherently unfalsifiable subject, based on fundamental logical truths.

This explains in what way: http://mises.org/daily/2025

> Thus it is justified to ignore all empirical evidence and mathematical analysis in favor of deductive praxeology.

Austrian economists don't ignore evidence. The evidence is interpreted according to their ideological framework, just as any other kind of economist does. It's 2002, house prices are rising rapidly. I have money to spare. What do I do? None of the Austrian economists said "ignore the prices". Instead, they used that data and said "bubble coming up".

podperson3• 13 years ago

Economics is a long way from, say, climate science in terms of its demonstrated ability to make useful predictions. We routinely get advance warning of both short term weather effects (such as storms) and long term climate effects (such as unusually dry seasons). The effects of these predictions have been measurable and palpable.

Economists tend to struggle even to agree on post-hoc explanations of well-documented past events. E.g. serious economists still argue over the root causes of the Great Depression.

Tarring Economic theory and climate science with the same "Scientism" brush is unfair if not downright dishonest.

And even Krugman's economic predictions are testable. The linked article was an example of him opining outside his area of expertise.

snowwrestler2• 13 years ago

I tend give more weight to what people say when they are in their area of personal expertise. Krugman on economics, I give a lot of credit. He's demonstrably an expert on that topic. Krugman on the Internet or politics, less so.

ashamedlion• 13 years ago

What happens when the topic of discussion is the intersection between the Internet and economics?

cromwellian2• 13 years ago

Krugman isn't perfect, but he actually has been one of the more accurate prognisticators (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/130485/claim-kr...)

More importantly, Krugman actually admits when he is wrong based on new data, as he has done on several occasions in his blog and the NYT. To me, that is the mark of a scientist, one who is able to be swayed by data.

Very few of the Austrians and Chicago types seem to admit to being wrong, and often, contradictory data is simply waved away as conspiratorial (inflation, econometrics). The whole notion of praxeology turns their conclusions into untestable pseudo-science. It takes on the air of a religion rather than geeky engineers willing to hold their ideas to fire of real world tests.

There are two issues at play here: the deep desire of technolibertarians for "free money" and decentralization, and moral arguments surrounding the function of the state and application of force, and the real world where their predictions often fail. It's possible to love Bitcoin, but also admit Krugman is right about it.

Bitcoin is a magnificent creation of cryptography. In fact, the entire field of modern cryptography, from one way functions, zero knowledge proofs, oblivious transfer, to high level schemes involving money, voting, homomorphic encryption, et al, is staggering beautiful. When I first read of Broadcast Encryption, despite its use in DRM, my mind was blown. I love all this stuff, and have a deep affinity for subversive systems.

But Bitcoin isn't the anarchocapitalist utopia enabler that converts the world into Galt's Gulch, because the deep beliefs about how a totally free economy would work in practice don't have to be any more true than the beliefs about how anarcho-syndicalist communities would work when scaled up. The real world is complex, and a mixed set of strategies is more adaptive and stable than a set of purist ones.

nateabele• 13 years ago

Ah, Krugman... love that guy. He's my favorite comedian!

> But Bitcoin isn't the anarchocapitalist utopia enabler that converts the world into Galt's Gulch [...]

I think the Austrians would be the first to admit that the world is complex.[0] ;-) To be fair, BitCoin has come extraordinarily far in an incredibly short period of time. Just imagine trying to explain its present-day state to almost anyone two to three years ago.

It seems to me, the whole point of this posting is that trying to judge BitCoin as a technolibertarian savior today is a bit like judging the internet's equivalence to a fax machine in 1998: it's just too early to tell, especially if (like Krugman), you have so little vision.

Who knows, maybe BitCoin is only cryptocurrency's ARPANET. Just give it a minute.

[0] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/102966-the-curious-task-of-e...

parasubvert5• 13 years ago

"Just give it a minute"? Krugman isn't saying "shut it down", he is making fun of the euphoric media reaction that looks a lot more like the Pets.com IPO than anything rational.

The problem with Bitcoin is twofold,

- it presumes (by some) to be changing the nature of money, but if you look closely, it really isn't; its just fiat currency with a different framework for issuing the fiat other than the nation-state.

- there are some very old and obvious issues with its specific limitations (such as mining and being a fixed quantity). This is not necessarily a fundamental limitation, however - just limits its creators declared by fiat. But it betrays a misunderstanding of what money is.

None of the critiques have anything to do with crypto currency in general or the cooler/geekier aspects of Bitcoin like the global ledger.

Bitcoin is a useful experiment but let's also not get ahead of ourselves.

martythemaniak4• 13 years ago

You nailed it. My view is that bitcoin fans tend to be so enamoured with the cool technology that they wholly ignore the economics and social aspects of it.

From a mainstream view though, the technology is completely irrelevant - no one cares if iPhone apps are written in Objective C or Lisp - what matters is the end product and what people can do with it.

When someone like Krugman looks at bitcoin, they do not see any of the technology (nor should they). They see a deflationary currency with vicious boom-bust cycles. Knowing the miserable experience with such currencies in the past, they don't think highly of this particular one.

cconroy• 13 years ago

Does it not have business appeal in that it allows transacting parties to pay direct -- without a middle man (banker) collecting fees?

Also it being deflationary (to me) is as much as a problem as USD being inflationary. I don't spend all my USD as quickly as possible fearing next week those things will be more expensive.

EDIT: Also rereading the post there is nothing substantial in his arguments to support his conclusion -- mostly focusing on red herrings to discredit it: He may not like it politically.

wdr1• 13 years ago

> Very few of the Austrians and Chicago types seem to admit to being wrong...

You either don't know what you're talking about or are just making hand-wavy generalizations and hoping nobody calls bs on your bs. Both Hayek and Friedman have multiple occasions were they would explicitly correct themselves on past statements and admit they were wrong.

They were economists, not politicians or theologians.

illuminate2• 13 years ago

"Very few of the Austrians and Chicago types seem to admit to being wrong"

In the case of the Austrian school, they invent scenarios where they can't be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology#Criticisms

egsec• 13 years ago

"Sometime in the next 20 years, maybe sooner, there will be another '70s-style raw-material crunch: a disruption of oil supplies, a sharp run-up in agricultural prices, or both. And suddenly people will remember that we are still living in the material world and that natural resources matter. "

Very true, in consideration of the article on the Rent seeking economy recently posted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548730). Vanity, thy name is apps.

cpursley• 13 years ago

Has anyone ever listened to Paul Krugman? Well, yes, unfortunately.

'Krugman's Call for a Housing Bubble" http://mises.org/daily/6372/

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

I love this prognostication:

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

It hinges on a such a fundamental misconception of humanity. It matters not that people have nothing to say to each other, they will still talk at each other! But more importantly humanity has an endless depth of vanity that can only be treated but never filled by an endless depth of drivel. Never before in our history have so many said so much to so many with so little content.

Ok, enough pith for now. :-)

Paul Krugman (1998): By 2005 Internet will have no more economic impact than fax

Related Stories