What are the odds that Krugman has actually read any Garrison, Hayek, Horwitz, Mises, Salerno, Rothbard, Selgin, Robbins, or White?
I’d estimate … none.
Let’s look at it. Krugman tells us directly he doesn’t have the stomach to waste his time with economics written in prose, especially economics written “in the past”. And I can’t say I’ve ever picked up a trace of evidence Krugman has actually read the work of Hayek or Garrison or Mises or Horwitz — and I’ve spotted a great deal of evidence that he has not.
I think we should take Krugman at his word. He’s attacking a economic construction he doesn’t know, hasn’t studied, and doesn’t understand. And he’s disparaging economists whose work he hasn’t read, hasn’t studied, and could care less to understand.
And the evidence of Krugman’s deep ignorance and academic malpractice is staring us in the face.