Don’t believe me? Read this, in which he reviews Thomas Piketty’s new book and says the following:
So what’s a conservative, fearing that this diagnosis might be used to justify higher taxes on the wealthy, to do? He could try to refute Mr. Piketty in a substantive way, but, so far, I’ve seen no sign of that happening. Instead, as I said, it has been all about name-calling.
(Emphasis mine.) Krugman really thinks that there have been no substantive refutations of Piketty? Has he read none of the refutations linked here or here? I recognize that Krugman has not heard of my wee little blog, but perhaps he has heard of some of the people whom I linked and who did a lot of refuting, and the web sites where those people write. I mean look, I recognize that Paul Krugman has epistemic closure issues, but apparently, they are worse than I ever thought they were. And I thought they were pretty bad indeed.
But leave it to Krugman to think that no ideas in the world matter except for the ones he agrees with:
. . . if you think you’ve found an obvious hole, empirical or logical, in Piketty, you’re very probably wrong. He’s done his homework!
Maybe you too can get a gig at the New York Times, provided that you are willing to live the rest of your life in an intellectual cocoon.