I still remember that NYT article where Krugman boldly proclaimed that a columnist can either be controversial and popular (like Robert Reich), or economically accurate and widely ignored. He wrote it in such a way that you assumed he was declaring he would take the high road, but he clearly chose to join Reich on the populist path.
Because he is a political economist. The politics come first. The economics second. In most discussions about free trade the basic assumption is that it works both ways. In reality it doesn't. There is a deliberate ignoring of rules and regulations that act the same as tariffs but aren't called tariffs so they "don't count".
I still remember that NYT article where Krugman boldly proclaimed that a columnist can either be controversial and popular (like Robert Reich), or economically accurate and widely ignored. He wrote it in such a way that you assumed he was declaring he would take the high road, but he clearly chose to join Reich on the populist path.
Because he is a political economist. The politics come first. The economics second. In most discussions about free trade the basic assumption is that it works both ways. In reality it doesn't. There is a deliberate ignoring of rules and regulations that act the same as tariffs but aren't called tariffs so they "don't count".
He is a court economist. Full stop. No longer worth any attention, like his boss.