It's interesting to see the structure of your post.
He has a large conduit for his whacked opinions.
Since you offered no evidence they are "whacked", I gather you feel this way about any one who disagrees with you at some fundamental level. So, rather than have a conversation about Krugman's columns, you prefer to throw darts. And consider that a conversation.
Without that conduit, he'd be relegated to guest columns, occasional TV appearances, and his own blog that he'd force his poor students to read.
I think it best you read a bit about him. Try this wikipedia link. About as good as any. en.wikipedia.org.
One thing of note. He won the John Bates Clark award. For an economist, it doesn't get much better, save a Nobel. It's the most prestigious professional award for economists under 40. In short, he was judged the brightest of a very, very bright lot.
Another thing of note. The publication list is just about as good as it gets. Any serious academic, of whatever political persuasion, would give several portions of flesh to have that resume.
In short, he could well be someone to argue with. To disagree with. But you only put egg on your own face when you use ad hominem attacks on him.
The merit of most of the Powerline post is that it's about policy issues. Not all of it. |
