Someone at the National Review quoted him saying that “but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.” Taken straight from his Google+ page. Except that . . . “Crackpot” has no Google+ page. So he is angry. And he reacts:
So if you see me quoted as saying something really stupid or outrageous, and it didn’t come from the Times or some other verifiable site, you should probably assume it was a fake.
Logically, that means that for something to be “authentic Krugman,” it must be (1) really stupid or outrageous, and (2) must come from the Times or some other verifiable site. If it is stupid or outrageous but doesn’t come from the Times, it is false. If it comes from the Times but is not really stupid or outrageous, it can’t be Krugman.
Indeed, as I think of it, you mean something more stupid and more outrageous than what “Crackpot” normally says on his own blog? Hardly. It would be an achievement, indeed, to beat him on his ground, whoever that identity thief is. Compared to what “Crackpot” normally blabbers, what the National Review ascribed to him is an innocent amateurish attempt at stupidity. It takes a professional – a liberal professional – to be really authentic and inimitable in this field.
What that “identity thief” said, is it really more stupid than advising the government to stage a fake alien invasion to fix the economy?
Or is it more stupid than saying that the Japanese earthquake will actually improve the world economy?
Or that 9/11 will do some economic good?
And “Crackpot” complained that someone stole his identity? That must be fear of competition, nothing else.
By the way, someone suggest to Krugman to hire the “identity thief” for a ghost writer. Their views don’t differ, obviously; but he may make “Crackpot” look a bit saner.