Paul Krugman is the archetype of improbably excellent columnists, which means that over time he’s taken on a kind of abstract quality: a gap has opened between who he was and what he is. (Glenn Greenwald is another, different example.) Most of the time I just glance at Krugman’s stuff now because being mostly right is mostly boring; but it’s my sense that, post-Trump, his work has taken a more interesting, speculative turn as he tries to make sense of what that episode was, is, and will be. This column is an excellent example of that, absolutely worth reading, as is the paper it points to. But
O
M
F
G
am I tired of economism, i.e., the ideological belief that the field of economics is a magical baseline, foundational discipline.