10/10.  I've never heard Krugman talk for that long in this manner and now I have a newfound respect for Thomas Sowell. Thank you Lex.,(reply>), @Farkas557 Very well put. I think most of it comes down to a combination of laziness and peoples desire for a false sense of security and higher knowledge. Becoming genuinely well informed on any given subject is an unbelievably time consuming task. Additionally as you get past the early phases of the learning curve you tend to be confronted by the vastness of your own ignorance, which can be quite scary for people to deal with. These things combined mean that for the majority of people it's easier to believe in reassuring simplifications than to confront the complex mess that is reality, either that or simply try not to think about it and embrace their own ignorance.,(reply>), @ddandymann Completely agreed. You can disagree with him. But you cannot just say that his views should be neglected as they are so wrong. I said good luck in academia as if somebody has a really serious criticism against him and it was so obvious, then you could easily use strict reasoning to debunk him. The problem I have is with these high-minded internet intellectuals, who have no expertise in economics and think Krugman's views are foolish because they listened to a podcast or read a book by Thomas Sowell. If you can clearly argue with proper reasoning why he is wrong, then you are welcome in the arena of academia. The problem is that most of these people don't put the effort in and choose a worldview that sounds good for them at first glance and then go by it out of confirmation bias. Actually, I have nothing against Sowell or Austrian / right-wing economics. I don't like arrogant people though, who neglect a complete very well-reasoned worldview out of laziness, confirmation bias, and ignorance. People should have humility and respect for different fields to admit that they don't know sufficiently enough to make such a bald statement. Criticism and debate are always welcome though from anyone. But be aware of your own potential shortcomings. I believe if people lived by these recommendations I've just laid out than we would have less fragmentation and tribalism. CNN and FOX would not be motivated to create their own self-confirmation bias bubbles and there would be less hate and more openness towards fruitful discussions between different worldviews that would help us all flourish...,(reply>), @Farkas557 I'd amend you comment slightly. You don't necessarily have to agree with Krugman to have a future in academia, however you at the very least have to seriously consider his views before disagreeing with them, rather than simply dismissing them off hand. I think the key is to recognise than in all aspects of economics there are trade offs and that anyone who fails to recognise this has no place in the field.,(reply>), @Laurence that's a non sequitur. Ideas don't have to be quantitative to be meaningful. Is moral philosophy and ethics not meaningful because it lacks quantitative rigor? Furthermore, robust quantitative methods do not in and of itself give validity to ideas. Often times their application is erroneous and inappropriate. Economics and social science runs rampant with misuse of statistics. Debunking economics by Steve Keen is a good book to read on that topic. With regards to subjectivity, his ideas are far from it. They are objective and articulated in a way that the layperson can understand.,(reply>), @J MS In other words, most of Sowell’s ideas are highly subjective and non-quantitative, and thus wouldn’t pass peer review?