Krugman Admits He Was Wrong

[donquixote99]

The OP isn't the piece from Foreign Policy, as implied here, it's a commentary by an unknown person that quotes the piece in Foreign Policy. It's a little hit piece on Krugman. It's just a typical Whell tactic to try to pass it off as if it was from Foreign Policy.

The actual Foreign Policy feature, published in Oct 2019, was a Big Think piece, long, wide-ranging, digging into many ideas about the economic profession and economic policy. And shocking as it may be to some, part of being a serious intellectual is an easy willingness to take in new data and argument, and admit you were wrong if you decide that you were.

The conclusion of the FP article, which I'm pretty sure Whell hasn't read, may be of interest to him and others:

Hence, economists themselves are surprised at how quickly the mainstream of their profession has moved leftward—as many of them found at last week’s conference on inequality. And when it comes to 2020 U.S. election politics, the profession is much more with progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, some of the participants said, than the centrist Joe Biden—open to radical solutions that give back bargaining power to labor (for example, Warren’s proposal to give workers a large place on corporate boards). “I came here as a French soc ialist, and now I find I’m in the center,” joked former IMF chief economist Blanchard.

And this may be the ultimate downstream effect of all those misreadings dating back to the ’90s. “People,” Tyson remarked, “missed how fast things could change.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/22...krugman-china/

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It's just a typical Whell tactic to try to pass it off as if it was from Foreign Policy.

Thats very kind of you. Some folks here don't think I'm smart enough to have tactics.

By the way, the part of the article you quoted - the part you said I didn't read - is actually present in the link I provided.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

And shocking as it may be to some, part of being a serious intellectual is an easy willingness to take in new data and argument, and admit you were wrong if you decide that you were.

A significant component of intellectual dishonesty is trying to publicly berate and demonize those who might disagree with you. That has been the essence of Krugman's "intellectual discourse." I'd hardly call that behavior evidence of "easy willingness to take in new data and argument".