Until I read all of the context and the later article, I had the same interpretation as you, but it just doesn't hold up. From the article I quoted: "But a few

Until I read all of the context and the later article, I had the same interpretation as you, but it just doesn't hold up. From the article I quoted: "But a few pessimists, notably Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, argue that we have not yet paid the price for our past excesses. I've never fully accepted that view. But looking at the housing market, I'm starting to reconsider." That is him reconsidering; it says so right in the text. Did you read it? A careful reading of the 2002 article reveals that his criticism of Greenspan and Co isn't that they want to create a housing bubble, it's actually that the bubble will fail in lifting the economy. In other words, both articles are pessimistic, but one is about a bubble isn't bubbly enough and the other is him realizing it will burst and that's bad. So he missed the first time in the wrong direction and had to do a complete 180. And in that context, it's hard not to read his 2005 article as seriously advocating yet another bubble. I think you are vastly overestimating the negativity being attached to the word "bubble", and are thus simply reading Krugman as critical because he used a term you're putting in the "bad" bucket. But there simply isn't any support for that in the text. > Is reading comprehension a lost art? His writing is not even ironic (where one could be justifiably confused). Seriously?