Many of my commenters think so.  I don't. 

Joe Weisenthal calls Krugman a serial bubble blower, which I don't think is right.  But Krugman, like many people, was in favor of a sizeable stimulus to help inflate the housing market from an already pretty high level.  As Weisenthal and others have noted, that wasn't the only thing he wrote which at least strongly implied support for a housing-led recovery.

Rather, I'm literally glad I didn't write that paragraph.  All pundits have at least partially supported policies that turned out to be a bad idea.  There was absolutely no reason whatsoever, IMHO, for Krugman or anyone else to have foreseen the disaster seven years later.

But I do think that this raises an interesting question which really has very little to do with Paul Krugman: what are we doing now?  Are we just blowing more bubbles?  If we do stimulate our way out of the current mess, what's waiting for us seven years down the road?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.