"There's a fair amount of this on the right, as well--a lot of your goldbugs and "Austrians" are, like Krugman, taking one side in a 1930's era doctrinal dispute and ignoring the last several decades of economics."

Can you show me a goldbug with a Nobel Prize in Economics and a column in a New York Times-class newspaper or other similar venue?

I know what you're saying, and it is literally true, I don't deny that. But Krugman should be held to a higher standard.

Personally, I find him very disappointing. A guy with a Nobel Prize in Economics ought to be making compelling arguments that are a surprise to me, and thus contain information in the information theoretic sense. (That's my favorite way of looking at information in an English context.) Instead, I can predict in advance what Krugman's position on a topic will be now with virtually 100% confidence, which should not be possible if he's actually writing with insight that someone of such stature should be bringing to topics, as I most assuredly hold a Nobel Prize in absolutely nothing. Even if he chooses doctrinaire liberal choices completely reliably, he should be able to defend them with far more interesting arguments than I actually see from him, the kind of interesting that even when you disagree you at least stop to think.

I was writing mostly for the audience of people who already dismiss Krugman as an incorrigible liberal but might consider the opinions of self-trained Austrian economists who post on comment threads. Those of us who dismiss goldbugs on comment threads already should have been convinced by the article to give up on Krugman.

But yes, I am also disappointed in Krugman.

Austrians are not goldbugs. They're free market money advocates. A lot of them just happens to think gold would be the currency to emerge in a free market.

The debate being doctrinal seem to make the debate seem unimprotant especially when people don't know what it is about. The debate is about how to study the science of economics and the proper use of the scientific method. That's a pretty improtant debate that has been waging on for years.

Note: Edit to correct inaccuracy in the presentation of my comment's intention.

The point isn't so much that Austrians are wrong, or that they are goldbugs, but rather that they don't learn--and don't value--the past several decades of economic research. The debate's been going on for years, yes, but the self-proclaimed Austrians are making 70 year old arguments against a 70 year old straw man while ignoring any points that have been made over those 70 years.

Cool as behavioural economics (and santa fey school economics, while we're at is) are, they're not really up to predicting macro economic change yet.

Although, it's easy to argue that neither is macroeconomics.

Austrian's and Goldbugs not the best comparison. Instead, I would say Krugman is the left's equivalent of the right's extreme supply-siders who assert that government revenues will increase relative to T0 for all decreases in tax rates (something that no well-respected economist currently says but many partisan's love to claim).

Probably true, but I haven't seen nearly as many Laffer curve enthusiasts trolling comment threads, loudly redefining the word "economics" to refer to their pet theory, and dismissing all the real economists who argue otherwise.