The man is like catnip to some people, and I just don't know why.
Don Boudreaux ties Krugman to Paul Ehrlich and other environmental doomsdayers. I set him straight in the comments.
Bob Murphy thinks that if you think that workers will and should move from low marginal productivity areas to high marginal productivity areas you are (1.) an Austrian, and (2.) somehow in violation of Keynesianism. I set him straight in the comments.
Alen Mattich of the WSJ published a list of the best economics blogs that has been making the rounds. He weirdly accuses Krugman of ad hominem attacks. Does Mattich know the meaning of the term? I can't think of any ad hominem attacks that Krugman has made. I imagine there have been some over the years... maybe... but I entirely clueless as to what he means and can't come up with any specific examples. I think Mattich confusing "criticism of a specific person that you name" with "ad hominem attacks". I'm sorry, but if you get bothered by criticism you shouldn't read blogs. Good solid criticism is one of their most important functions. Ad hominem is a different story. Mattich completely fails to mention Brad DeLong's blog which is absurd - but DeLong is one who veers into ad hominem with his "stupidest man alive" act (the quality of the analysis still makes it worth reading, although that is frustrating... still, I've been called worse on other blogs). But Krugman? When has Krugman ever done this?
Not everyone is a hater, though. Apparently Paul Krugman is the "most influential figure on the European left-of-center" beating out Habermas and Zizek (both of whom have been discussed on F&OST here and here, respectively). Go figure - apparently New Jersey is in Europe.
I don't get this. Krugman is just a really great economists all around and I don't see how he inspires all this animosity. He is a creative thinker (see his work on trade theory and economic geography), he is a great exponent of very traditional macroeconomics, and he is a great public educator/public intellectual/public commentator - which a lot of economists can't do. It's not hard to recognize what a great economist the guy is - you don't have to strain for a justification for that claim. You also don't have to be obsessed with him or be a "Krugman lover" to recognize the value of his contributions to the discourse. Why he inspires such animosity is beyond me, even if he can be "shrill" at times, which I'll certainly admit.