It’s absolutely relevant. By Eugine’s account, Krugman’s opponents were predicting the stimulus would make things worse. Most economists now agree that Krugman’s opponents were wrong and the stimulus helped.
Beyond that, I’m a little unclear on what Eugine is saying: “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus” is ambiguous between “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than with stimulus” and “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than they were at the time he was speaking.” Link to what Krugman statement exactly Eugine has in mind would be helpful. In any case, this is at least semi-relevant.
No, Eugine is perfectly clear. The only way to interpret his “things are even worse then his without stimulus prediction” is that Krugman made absolute predictions.
The simplest hypothesis is that economists are impervious to evidence and are just backdating their predictions. Yes, inference can be complicated by mechanisms; that link is relevant, quite unlike your previous link.
It’s absolutely relevant. By Eugine’s account, Krugman’s opponents were predicting the stimulus would make things worse. Most economists now agree that Krugman’s opponents were wrong and the stimulus helped.
Beyond that, I’m a little unclear on what Eugine is saying: “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus” is ambiguous between “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than with stimulus” and “Krugman said things would be worse without stimulus than they were at the time he was speaking.” Link to what Krugman statement exactly Eugine has in mind would be helpful. In any case, this is at least semi-relevant.
No, Eugine is perfectly clear. The only way to interpret his “things are even worse then his without stimulus prediction” is that Krugman made absolute predictions.
The simplest hypothesis is that economists are impervious to evidence and are just backdating their predictions. Yes, inference can be complicated by mechanisms; that link is relevant, quite unlike your previous link.