There is a new Political Correctness going about, and that is the claim that anyone whose income is above a certain level (say the upper one percent) only can be evaluated as a parasite, and Paul Krugman is one of the forces behind it. You see, the wealthy -- which include Krugman, since his annual income is in the millions of dollars -- have value ONLY in the amount of money that government takes from them via taxation.
When one views the world in Keynesian terms, then government is the only force that can create demand, since all good Keynesians know that Say's Law is wrong and that the source of consumption is not production, but rather printed money. True, inflation did not work well for Zimbabwe, but it will work for us because Krugman says it will.
Let us take Steven Jobs, for example. Some will mistakenly (according to the Holy Doctrines of the Church of Krugman) claim that by anticipating what consumers would want and then directing the production of goods that consumers readily purchased, Jobs ultimately made our economy wealthier. The profits he made were garnered because his entrepreneurial decision-making was correct.
Obviously, such a viewpoint no longer is Politically Correct. Jobs made more money than anyone else at Apple, so that makes him a parasite. His only value to society lay in the amount of taxes he paid, and the government should have taken more.
An economy, in Keynesians-Speak, is only about aggregates, and whenever government inflates the currency or takes huge chunks of income from the rich, it is "creating demand," and creation of demand ultimately creates jobs, and jobs are the source of wealth. (Note that I have not said "productive services" help create wealth; no, the only value that a job has is the income one earns and then spends.)
As I have said before, Krugman needs to begin with himself. If he were to give all of his income to the government, then there would be more income equality and more aggregate demand. A long journey, we know, begins with a single step.