> The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. Krugman has managed to make the Keynesian premise completely unfalsifiabl

> The second reason: Keynesian economics works, at least in the short to medium term. Krugman has managed to make the Keynesian premise completely unfalsifiable using a tall podium and a variety of rhetorical techniques. Krugman believes his own press, rarely reads opposing views and mischaracterizes opponents such that to read his column, you'd think everyone who disagrees with him must be a moron. According to Krugman: If the economy isn't doing well, it's because we need to pass a stimulus package. If the economy STILL isn't doing well, it's because we need a BIGGER stimulus package or ANOTHER stimulus package. (repeat this assertion until things get better, which they are likely to eventually even if it's despite rather than due to all this stimulus.) If the recovery is surprisingly slow, it's because we didn't listen to him when he said we need a bigger stimulus package. If the recovery is surprisingly fast, it's because we DID listen to him about the need for the ORIGINAL stimulus package. Thus there is no real-world outcome which he can't explain in terms of the need for government to spend more. (Constructing a similar argument for the need to spend less in all these circumstances is left as an exercise for the reader)