Yes. Because both of those have actual data, and are thus useful—your reasoning can be tested against reality.
We just really don’t know very much about the roman economy, and are unlikely to find out much more than we currently do.
Generalizing from one example isn’t good .. science, logic or argument. But it’s better than generalizing from the fog of history. Not a lot better—Economics only very barely qualifies as a science on a good day, but Krugman is completely correct to call people out for going in this direction because doing so just outright reduces it to storytelling.
Yes. Because both of those have actual data, and are thus useful—your reasoning can be tested against reality.
We just really don’t know very much about the roman economy, and are unlikely to find out much more than we currently do. Generalizing from one example isn’t good .. science, logic or argument. But it’s better than generalizing from the fog of history. Not a lot better—Economics only very barely qualifies as a science on a good day, but Krugman is completely correct to call people out for going in this direction because doing so just outright reduces it to storytelling.
On the other hand we do know a lot about what happened in 1921, Krugman just wishes we didn’t because it appears to contradict his theories.
Um, no. History contains evidence, it’s not particularly clean evidence, but evidence nonetheless and we shouldn’t be throwing it away.