> That said, Krugman is more of a data-minded columnist, as you would expect since he's an economist, so I find his objections to Silver's new site surprising.

> That said, Krugman is more of a data-minded columnist, as you would expect since he's an economist, so I find his objections to Silver's new site surprising. Krugman in his earlier blog posts was more specific: "I feel bad about picking on a young staffer, but I think this piece on corporate cash hoards — which is the site’s inaugural economic analysis — is a good example. The post tells us that the much-cited $2 trillion corporate cash hoard has been revised down by half a trillion dollars. That’s kind of interesting, I guess, although it’s striking that the post offers neither a link to the data nor a summary table of pre- and post-revision numbers; I’m supposed to know my way around these numbers, and I can’t figure out exactly which series they’re referring to. (Use FRED!) More to the point, however, what does this downward revision tell us? We’re told that the “whole narrative” is gone; which narrative? Is the notion that profits are high, but investment remains low, no longer borne out by the data? (I’m pretty sure it’s still true.) What is the model that has been refuted? “Neener neener, people have been citing a number that was wrong” is just not helpful. Tell me something meaningful! Tell me why the data matter!" krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/sergeant-friday-was-not-a-fox/ So his objections do take the form of something like you'd expect - this post is just the latest in a series. Krugman clearly had very high hopes for the site - this is his 3rd of 4th post about it, which makes sense given Krugman's prior cheerleading for Silver.