Ignore the Nobel prize for a moment and see his other accomplishments: He is one of the most influential academic economists by number of citations, started a

Ignore the Nobel prize for a moment and see his other accomplishments: He is one of the most influential academic economists by number of citations, started a whole new field of Applied Economics (New Economic Geography). His textbooks (including Econ 101 and International Economics, 12 editions since 1987!) sell very well, which must mean that they are well regarded by the professors that assign them. In policy debates around the response to the Great Recession he revived the Liquidity Trap idea central to which was admitted as valid by the central banks and formulated a modern theoretic explanation for it (instead and in addition to the old IS-LM). In his punditry at the New York Times and elsewhere he has represented the mainstream/orthodoxy of economic opinion. The liquidity trap was controversial initially, but it is well accepted now - by central banks, policymakers in governments and economists in the private sector. If you think he is outlandish, you have to check your assumptions to what other academic economists think, and although it might different in style and presentation it will be the same. He is hated intensely for his politics (he has a book called a "The Conscience of a liberal" and hasn't held back criticising people like George W. Bush, Trump and Putin) and by followers of heterodox economic schools and crypto-enthusiasts. It is your loss to ignore his insights.