Shot in the Dark

Krugman

Paul Krugman is leaving the NYTimes. 

Podhoretz sums up my thoughts on the matter.

https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/1865073678087520693

I can’t speak for Krugman’s career as an economist – I wish King Banaian was still blogging, and hopefully he’ll talk about this in his show one of these days. 

As for me? Fact-checking Krugman – the guy who said the Internet was a passing fad – has been a fairy steady pastime on this blog for a long, long time.

So while his retirement leaves me with one less source of material, [1], it is enough for today to rejoice in the fact that for a moment, America will be incrementally less dumb by omission.

[1] Although the Cano Corollary to Berg’s 21st Law warns us to not celebrate too hard: ” “blue” never gets “lighter” or less “progressive”.  There is only one electoral direction – more “progressive”. While written about elections, the New York Times would seem to be germane.

Posted

in

, ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “Krugman”

  1. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    That Podhoretz quote is very good.

    I admit I don’t know, but as you implied, I too am very curious about the the quality of Krugman’s work in economics when almost everything else he pontificated on was wrong.

  2. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Krugman’s Sverige Riksbank prize (a.k.a. Nobel) was a treatise about how certain areas become dominant in various endeavors, more or less a notion that there is a critical mass of expertise that makes that region dominant in a given area. Examples would be the Detroit area in vehicles, Silicon Valley in technology, and so on. If memory serves, Banaian’s perspective on it was that it was probably deserved, but that it was granted in 2008 in part because of Krugman’s association with Barack Obama, and his disdain for George W. Bush.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.