Krugman is such a faux-expert, that is way overhyped. He clearly doesn't understand the technology very well, and he seems to be confusing RSS, the protocol, with Google Reader the app. And even then, RSS is not a "critical public infrastructure" that the government should maintain or whatever. It seems like he's just fishing for (more) fame/hits here, as there was no reason for him to write about this.
He's commenting as an expert in Economics, not internet protocols. In this case, he's looking at the economic effects of a service that is valuable to it's users, and that appears to be both slightly unprofitable and a nautral monopoly. He's not coming to any definite conclusions, he's exploring a set of ideas; not drafting policy. Your comment adds nothing to the discussion; so what are you getting out of making it?
> He's commenting as an expert in Economics, not internet protocols.
Unfortunately, he isn't either. He isn't an expert in internet protocols because he doesn't have a sufficient understanding of how the internet works. He isn't an expert in economics because there's no such thing as an expert in economics.
I mean this seriously: [macro]economics isn't an empirical science; no experimentation, no experience, therefore no expertise. Mastering untestable theoretical doctrine doesn't count as substantive expertise.
Not to get too deeply into the weeds of philosophy of science; but macroeconomics very is at least as much of a science as climate science. Observations are made, hypotheses are tested against reality, and predictions are derived that fail or succeed.
That said it also suffers from a similar pathology where academic investigation is systematically distorted, occasionally suppressed outright and researchers in the field are sometimes attacked ( literally ) for the views that are ascribed to them.
