The quality of critiques of Paul Krugman are very depressing to me. People mostly whine about his partisanship or his tendency to lump a lot of mid-century macro together and exaggerate their mistakes. These may be valid critiques, but they're pretty banal as far as I'm concerned.
A lot of people are worried right now about a double-dip as bad news about early 2011 continues to mount.
In 2009, Krugman noted that we'd start to see trouble in early 2011. He's citing Menzie Chinn and Deutsche Bank too, but they're all on the same page in terms of this analysis. The stimulus would have its peak effect on GDP growth at the end of 2009, it would have its peak effect on output in late 2010, and the unwinding of the stimulus would be a drag on GDP in early 2011. This is how it played out. And there was no mumbo jumbo. No fancy epistemology. No political philosophy. No morality tale. A few cracks at politicians, at most. He made a prediction, provided a reasonable explanation, and over a year later we're seeing it essentially play out.
He also said not to worry about interest rates in 2009. Others were worried about deficits and increases in the money supply, and the primary problem with that in their ideas was higher interest rates and the crowding out of private investment which would plunge us deeper. How are interest rates doing? How is inflation looking?
If people can point to another person who:
1. Noted in 2009 that GDP growth would peak in late 2009 and we would start to see problems in late 2010/early 2011
2. Noted that despite tremendous increase in base money, interest rates and inflation would not increase, and
3. Has a straightforward explanation for these occurrences, preferably one that was (a.) fully fleshed out before the crisis occurred, and (b.) consistent with a wide range of the data that's out there
Then we can talk. Otherwise I'd prefer we all acknowledge that Paul Krugman is an important economist to listen to and digest. You may not like his style or his politics. That's fine. But don't act like I'm some kind of thoughtless minion for noting that the man is intelligent, articulate, insightful, and most importantly: seems to be right on a variety of occasions where I'm simply not aware of others being so consistently right.
I suggest that people pick their favorite blogs and start working through posts from 2009. See what you think of them after revisiting it with about a year and a half's perspective.
We can add Brad DeLong to the list, but Krugman distinguishes himself by the specificity of a lot of the predictions, whereas Brad does a lot of the work conceptualizing the problems we're facing and being a watchdog of sorts.