Seriously, his rantings and ravings should be an embarrassment to (most of) his fellow Nobel Prize winners. His entire repertoire seems to consist of demonizing those who would even question his crackpot pronouncements.
For example, he recently opined that "the Fed isn't printing nearly enough money" in response to "the growing public backlash against austerity." Then, rather than defending this seemingly nonsensical conclusion, he simply accuses those who would disagree with him of not knowing what they are talking about and "trying to bully us into doing what they want." Isn't that exactly what he is trying to do?
One way of assessing the validity of an argument is to string its facts, logic and conclusions together. Anyone reading Krugman's diatribes will find that task impossible.
For example, he recently opined that "the Fed isn't printing nearly enough money" in response to "the growing public backlash against austerity." Then, rather than defending this seemingly nonsensical conclusion, he simply accuses those who would disagree with him of not knowing what they are talking about and "trying to bully us into doing what they want." Isn't that exactly what he is trying to do?
One way of assessing the validity of an argument is to string its facts, logic and conclusions together. Anyone reading Krugman's diatribes will find that task impossible.