Coming into this debate from the economics side, and having no respect for Krugman whatsoever, I found his statement most amusing:
Of course most of the people on the losing side of these debates
He should know about the losing side of the debate. In economics there are differences of opinion. Somethings can be settled with quantitative analysis, but as Economics is a hybrid science consisting of part social science, and part hard science, most items are never ‘settled’, and hence there really is no losing side. Just differences of opinion, on how people react given certain economic realities. But like the Dana Nuccitellis of the world, Krugman long ago stopped learning and so feels he is always right. Everything is pigeon holed into his way or the wrong way. And thus even when virtually no economists “lose” the debate, he constantly does. Why? because he no longer understands economics. Only his ego.
I find Brooks’ analysis of the thought leaders to be somewhat optimistic. If only they did retire to anonymity. Instead, most are usually perfect examples of the Peter Principal. Not that they ever were promoted out of competency, only that their BS got them promoted to a level of relevancy where their lack of knowledge assets are readily apparent to critical thinkers, but alas too few critical thinkers exist (or at least use the skill on a daily basis). I point you to Larry Summers as a perfect example of Brooks thesis. He is only gone now because his ego surpassed his common sense. Gone, but just barely. Even when these “thought leaders” are shown to be naked as jay birds prancing around in their pretend clothes, the PC crowd covers for them as they were “once relevant”. Kind of like how NOW covers for Clinton, even though he did more damage to their stated cause than any horde of Conservatives ever could.
