People who follow me know that I think little of Paul Krugman as a person.  He was a brilliant economist, one who changed the way economists thinks about international economics, and his Nobel Prize was well deserved.  That was a long time ago.

He then provided a service to all of us by writing books where he tried to improve the quality of the public debate when it comes to economics.  I highly recommend Pop Internationalism and Development, Geography, and Economic Theory.

During that period, Krugman started his drift into partisanship and insults.  He seemed to enjoy insulting people.  Now, he routinely attributes stupidity or evilness to people he disagrees with, politicians, pundits, economists, anybody.  That’s ok as far as it goes.  He’s earned the right to be a cranky old professor.  The problem really began when he started changing his views, depending on which party was holding down the United States President’s job.

Because of the way he insults people, I have visceral dislike of Paul Krugman.  I used to say that it bothered me when I agreed with him.  Then, I realized that he takes multiple positions, depending on who would benefit from the position.  For example, government debt is bad when a Republican is President, good when a Democrat is President.  With that sort of flip-flopping, we have to agree sometimes.

The problem is bigger than Krugman.  Economics has an image problem.  It’s the two-handed economist issue.  You know, on the one hand, on the other hand…  Economics, particularly macro-economics is unsettled.  We know some things, such as if you increase the price of something, less of it will be consumed, but there is a lot we don’t know, and our macro models are frequently contradictory.  I often say that the art of macro-economics is determining which model best fits the situation being analyzed.

Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics.  That gives him a bigger platform and more credibility than most of us.  In my book, it also gives him more responsibility.  It hurts the industry when he abuses his position and changes his opinion to advance his politics.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that Krugman changes his opinion to facilitate his politics.  That’s a serious charge, but it’s not a new charge.  Some people have ridiculed him for flip-flopping.  The Wall Street Journal’s James Toranto, for example, takes a special glee in reporting Krugman inconsistencies, and he does it often.  I’ve refrained, because I don’t have the time to do the research to defend myself.

Now, someone has done the research.  Here’s a peer-reviewed paper that tests economists’ flip-flopping.  The author tests if prominent economists change their position on deficit spending based on who’s in office.  The key results are shown in the table on pages 122 and 123.  Krugman is the only economist in the group that significantly changes his position based on politics.  One economist, Blinder, moderately changes his position.  Four make minor changes.  I’m happy to report that most do not change their opinions.