Well, I've been a bit out of touch, so I missed Noah Smith's half
Noah more or less recants before it's all over. Really, he was straining much to hard for too little reward all along anyway.
Krugman get's the last, trivial word.
I’ll repeat myself: Mulligan is critiquing something he heard about Keynesian economics somewhere, maybe in a bar, without bothering to inquire at all whether that’s how it really works. And I stand by my equally well-sourced assertion that Chicago economics relies on goat sacrifices.
IMHO, if you're going to criticize somebody or something, that's fine. But argue against something on it's merits, or lack thereof. Don't focus on trivia, engage in straw man arguments, or worse yet, make shit up. But this is increasingly the kind of distraction you get from the crooks, liars, and dupes who erroneously call themselves "conservatives."
They are reduced to that level, by their own actions and words, because they have nothing - NOTHING - real or positive to offer.
I am skeptical that there has ever been a valid intellectual basis for 20th century American political conservatism; but now there is close to a total absence of anything even remotely resembling thought, knowledge, or even coherence.