Krugman wrote an article in the NYT about the stimulus, and he says that anyone who opposed the stimulus on various grounds can be written off as a dishonest flack.
Specifically, he said:
Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.
Well, it turns out that Cato found 200 economists who believe that we should be cutting taxes instead of applying large amounts of stimulus. Specifically, they said:
To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
And yes, three of those who signed this Cato policy document are Nobel prize winners. Huh.
Paul Krugman is a very smart man. But ever since he won his Nobel, he seems to feel that this gives him the right to declare everyone who disagrees with him to be a moron. From my perspective, all it does is diminish Krugman. Ironically, by stooping to name-calling and ideological bullying, it makes him seem like the one who is a dishonest flack.
Compare and contrast with Greg Mankiw, prominent economics professor at Harvard, former head of the CEA, etc. He disagrees with Krugman about equilibrium business cycle (another example of Krugman’s invective). Unlike Krugman, however, he seems to be able to disagree politely.