Nothing earth-shattering, but if criticizing Krugman were an academic discipline, this post would be part of what Kuhn would describe as “normal science.”
==> Scott Sumner explains Krugman’s unfair blanket condemnation of “inflationistas” by reminding us that Krugman (famously) doesn’t read stuff by economists from the other side, but I point out to Scott that Krugman can’t actually rely on that excuse in this case.
==> In this post on US health care Krugman makes two specific claims:
(1) The “pre-ACA system drastically restricted many people’s freedom, because given the extreme dysfunctionality of the individual insurance market, they didn’t dare leave jobs (or in some cases marriages) that came with health insurance. Now that affordable insurance is available even if you don’t have a good job at a big company, many Americans will feel liberated — and this hugely outweighs the minor infringement on freedom caused by the requirement that people buy insurance.”
(2) “But no discussion of this latest argument should fail to mention the original insurance-is-slavery campaign — Operation Coffeecup, in which the AMA recruited doctors’ wives to gather their friends and listen to a recording of Ronald Reagan declaring that Medicare would destroy American liberty.”
Does anyone see why that’s at least a Kontradiction, if not an outright contradiction? (Here’s a hint: Medicare went into effect before the Affordable Care Act.)