If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring.

Thomas was on Paulie Abeles' blogtalk radio show a few weeks ago, indicting himself without seeming to notice.

The most timely thing he said was that "money stories," are too tedious to cover. He prefers flashy fact-free stories about how only racist hillbillies could support Obama's opponent.

Any substantive discussion of Paul Krugman's economic ideas? No.  Any comparison of his views with those of other economists? No.  Any background on why Krugman, who has written about the Japanese 'zombie bank' crisis, might have some credibility in presenting views of our current mess that run contrary to Summers'/Geithner's?  No.  Somehow, that's not news.