I know DU hates the NYT with the heat of a thousand suns, but they've got good writers whose pieces don't see print because Krugman (and Freidman) have dibs.

Michelle Goldberg will probably become a lot more visible, and there's no one that dislikes MFer more.

And also famously predicted that the Internet wouldn't be any more valuable to commerce and the economy than the Fax machine lol.

Enjoy your retirement, Pauly.

The article that is sourced from is literally titled "Why Most Economists' Predictions Are Wrong." It's often used to prove how "stupid" he is but he was predicting what people from 2098 would say about 1998. And honestly it will probably come to fruition as we will have something way bigger than the internet by then.

But yeah the Enron thing was really suspicious, since 1) he only attended 1 meeting that whole year and 2) it didn't even have anything to do with economics and 3) he got paid an enormous sum to basically have his name on some advisory board. The last part is one where he should have asked himself why they were paying him so much but he shrugged it off.

The same reason every other company gives you a nice paycheck for a board. To use your name.

(Almost $100k in 2024 dollars. To attend one meeting.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12

Business Insider published Krugman's explanation:

Well, two things.

First, look at the whole piece. It was a thing for the Times magazine's 100th anniversary, written as if by someone looking back from 2098, so the point was to be fun and provocative, not to engage in careful forecasting; I mean, there are lines in there about St. Petersburg having more skyscrapers than New York, which was not a prediction, just a thought-provoker.

But the main point is that I don't claim any special expertise in technology -- I almost never make technological forecasts, and the only reason there was stuff like that in the 98 piece was because the assignment required that I do that sort of thing. The issues about Bitcoin, however, are not technological! Everyone agrees that it's technically very sweet. But does it work as money? That's a very different kind of question.

And the fact that people are throwing around my 98 quote actually shows that they don't get this point -- that they're confusing technology with monetary economics.

Of knowledge and truth. Hate to see him go!

Do they:

A.) Split up Krugman's space among the existing crowd of talent-free rightwingers already on-staff (David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens); or

B.) Pull in some newbie from trump's inner circle; or

C.) Replace Krugman with a talented, experienced liberal commentator?

Personally, I think C.) has about a 1-in-500 chance of happening.

...most of the time.

Over the years he is one of my favorite journalists at the Times. Sorry to see him go but I expect there will be a lot of journalists that can't stomach what is coming down the road for us.

... that Paul Krugman continues his writings, analysis and sharing them with us.

As much as the Times reporting has gone downhill, a handful of op-ed writers upheld the excellence that has been The New York Times since 1851. Krugman will be missed.

Not sure for how long...

cute.