Paul Krugman on How did Economists get it so wrong ?

<i>In late nineteenth century, the term "political economy" was generally replaced by the term economics,</i><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy</a><p>Economics isn't a science. Physicists can agree on 99.99 percent of what they talk about, and the other .01 percent is agreed to be unknown or arguable. Economists can barely, just barely, hold a tenuous consensus on things like comparative advantage. The reason economists "get it wrong", is:<p>1. They want to direct the money into XYZ set of pockets instead of ABC set of pockets, thus they're always "wrong" as for as ABC is concerned, and<p>2. They don't have the predictive consistency typical of scientists because...they aren't scientists.

I just ordered Krugman's book, so this is a premature hypothesis but: I think Krugman says things he knows to be false but thinks are worth saying in order to pull the median voter towards his line of thinking. His NYT editorials are not only written for a general audience, but are written at such a simplified level that they are absurd. However, they are instantly touted across the blogosphere by self-styled progressives. His Nobel is a big stick to carry -- I think he is using it in a utilitarian (from his perspective) way.

Paul Krugman continues to write the best articles about the state of the economy for laymen. I'm continually impressed (despite his years of research, training, and a nobel prize to boot) with his ability to explain what is happening and why.<p>Sometimes I lament the fact that instead of running the show, he's left to opine about the policies of others.

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. --Reagon