Of course, one can argue that Krugman gave up economics a long time ago. He claims that Bain destroyed wealth, while at the same time telling us that the billions in taxpayer subsidies spent to prop up "green energy" create wealth and make us better off.
Frederick Bastiat noted that one of the most fundamental errors made in economic analysis is that people (including people like Krugman who should know better) make judgments only on what is seen without understanding what is not seen. Bastiat writes:
In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil.Krugman looks at the people employed via subsidies to "green energy" producers and real subsidies given to "Government Motors" and concludes that wealth MUST be created, otherwise these people would not be employed. He literally cannot tell the difference between politically-based subsidies and the actual process of how a market economy produces wealth. Thus, he becomes the perfect prophet for an utterly-politicized age.