Do you have any complaints about the article itself, or do you simply stop thinking once you find out that you don't agree with everything somebody says, or everybody somebody gets money from?

Did Krugman claim that nominal interest rates couldn't go below 0%? Did Krugman claim that austerity would lead to a double dip recession? Did Krugman claim high unemployment would go hand in hand with spiraling deflation? Did Krugman claim that anybody who disagreed with him was evil or stupid? Has Krugman now decided that, even though interest rates went below 0%, austerity did not cause a double dip recession, and high unemployment did not accompany spiraling deflation that he was "right about everything"?

Did the New York Times ombudsman say that Krugman has a "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults"?

I do change my default attitude toward the message once I find it is coming from someone working for a neocon think-tank. They have a history of being intellectually dishonest to put it charitably.

For a hashing of the claims you might have a peek in the comments about this article on Reddit (spoiler: claims don't exactly get a free pass): https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/386ntm/paul_krug...

Then stay in your ideological bubble, don't bother to talk with anybody who disagrees with you, and see how well that works out.