Staff Reports
In a moment that can only be described as both tragic and hilarious, Paul Krugman has finally bid adieu to the New York Times, having completed an impressive streak in which he was reliably wrong about many economic predictions since the dawn of the 21st century. His retirement column was self-referentially titled “My Last Column,” which sounds like something one might hear from a politician promising not to run again while simultaneously launching a re-election campaign for the tenth time. Indeed, Krugman, the self-proclaimed oracle of economics, has certainly made a name for himself by turning theoretical blunders into a sort of artistic endeavor.
Krugman’s career, marked by his 2008 Nobel Prize for discovering that money is, indeed, a metaphor for value, has come to an end, but not without a bang. He regaled readers with tales of his most significant columns—the highlights being “Why the Good Times Will Never End” and his chilling missive “Don’t Blink or You’ll Miss the Transitory Inflation.” If anyone needed proof that economic forecasting is akin to gazing into a foggy crystal ball, Krugman has provided it in spades. His adventures may soon take a turn, as he now claims to focus on cashing in investments in companies like Kodak and Pets.com—both companies that, much like his economic predictions, have had their heyday long behind them.
The farewell party at the New York Times was quite a spectacle. One can only imagine the intellectual firepower on display as Charles Blow demonstrated his dexterity by somewhat successfully buttoning his shirt, while David Brooks and Thomas Friedman engaged in a competitive fashion statement of their own—turning their Super Mario hats to the front. It’s almost moving to think that in a world of serious issues, the Times would celebrate a departure with such vigor, parading around big ideas while waving their emotional support anti-depressants around for everyone to see.
Now that Krugman has cleared out his desk—to presumably make way for new contributors who will also mismanage economic discourse—the Times is left to replace his lofty, albeit misguided, columns. Suggestions for new writers to fill the void include a relationship guru column on mastering triples or a weekly feature on finding empathy for society’s most infamous miscreants. And let’s not forget the wonderful proposal for a piece titled “Why I Hate Donald Trump So Much,” which was almost christened before it became apparent that it would merely add to the Times’ already overflowing pile of hysterical rants about the former president.
One might ask how the Times expects to match Krugman’s work, especially if they plan to stick to their current approach of meaningful characters that closely resemble words—only upon scrutinizing them do they begin to lose their semblance of sense. The editors, it seems, are stuck trying to find the next big columnist who can blend economic insight with a flair for the dramatic, all while delivering the same level of cringe-worthy takeaways that Krugman has left in his wake.
As the dust settles on this remarkable chapter in New York Times history, readers are left to contemplate the legacy of a man who maneuvered through fiscal uncertainties with the grace of a hippo on a tightrope. The editorial board, in its farewell message, poignantly noted that while Krugman’s departure would leave a “dark empty hole,” readers likely wouldn’t even notice a difference. After all, what’s the difference between a Krugman column and a void? Perhaps just a brief moment of contemplative silence before moving on to the next wonderfully contradictory piece of advice from the illustrious opinion page. Keeping up with Krugman might have been a challenge, but as the Times shifts gears, readers can certainly expect more of the same—just with a fresh coat of absurdity.
