Indeed, Krugman has been influential, but his influence hasn’t been a good thing. He is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes and has played an important role in legitimizing the application of Keynesian schemes by governments to “stimulate” their economies. Those governments were unsuccessful, Krugman claimed, because they had failed to inflate their economies enough to break out of the Keynesian “liquidity trap,” an imaginary state of affairs that Murray N. Rothbard fully debunked.
Krugman even resorted to fantasy in his quest to fight the mighty “liquidity trap,” claiming that if the US were to prepare for a never-to-come alien invasion, the burst of government spending would revitalize the economy. That nonsense alone should have discredited him as a serious economist, but instead cemented his status as the great advocate for the Keynesian trope that government spending is the key to economic prosperity.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, is the most generous thing I can say about this annual clown show Keynesian. He was blind to what was going on around him and made many a wonky prediction about economics that looked to be pure fantasy. He was a true columnist at the New York Times.
BSinformational view. I’m not sure in which world he earned a Nobel Prize in Economics, though. Must be clown world.