Well, Glenn Beck might not, but Keith Olbermann might. A nazi, at least. I've actually taken to reading Krugman's blog lately, and I've realized something: he's a very very very bright guy whose mind just has some kind of roadblock when it comes to the mutual benefits of exchange. For example, after a couple of very well thought out paragraphs on post WWII employment history he says "What about the way the war left our competitors in ruins? Well, yes it did — but it also left our markets in ruins. This goes back to stuff I wrote way back, about the fallacy of thinking about a country as if it were a company; basically, there’s no reason to believe that economic growth in the rest of the world necessarily makes us poorer." He doesn't realize that a business's competitors doing well doesn't make it "poorer" any more than my buddy Mike deciding to hang out with my buddy Joe this weekend instead of me makes me "poorer", and that countries are vulnerable to losing personnel, resources, etc to other countries the same way businesses are to other businesses (I'm assuming this is what he meant by "poorer"). In Paul Krugman's mind, voluntary exchange being beneficial or at the very least neutral to everyone (excluding externality) and scarcity working the same way with the public sector as it does with the private just doesn't make sense.
 

Just skipped over to his blog, and saw this.

"Actually, let me put it this way: the economy is a complex system of interacting individuals — and these individuals themselves are complex systems. Neoclassical economics radically oversimplifies both the individuals and the system — and gets a lot of mileage by doing that; I, for one, am not going to banish maximization-and-equilibrium from my toolbox. But the temptation is always to keep on applying these extreme simplifications, even where the evidence clearly shows that they’re wrong. What economists have to do is learn to resist that temptation. But doing so will, inevitably, lead to a much messier, less pretty view.

So be it."

See what I mean? That's downright Hayekian, and yet I doubt Krugman's gonna come out tomorrow calling for free banking and the abolition of medical licensing boards.
 

Hey, Krugman's totally right about this: "Obama could have come in proposing to pursue an agenda identical to Bush, and he would still be a socialist/Commie/fascist"

For the most part I feel like that is what happened...
 

That is rich reading Krugman, of all people, complaining about the vitriol he receives.

Krugman's real problem is his complete lack of consistency. I can't think of any columnist (and I read a prodigious amount every day) that more frequently contradicts something he, himself, wrote in the past.
 

Krugman is not an economist. He is a fantasy monger who applies the label 'economist' to himself (the Princeton and Nobel people helped him with that).

You don't throw away many pieces of the puzzle just because they will show a part of the picture you don't like. It's dishonest.
 

Wait, so is Krugman saying that the Bush agenda was not "socialist/Commie/fascist"?
 

Comments are no longer being accepted, and guess what, he chose not to post your reply. But the "oh, it must be racist" crap got posted. Hmmmmm, can you say unobjective?