NEW YORK, NY Nov. 10 (DPI) – Left-wing economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman immediately declared a “never-ending” global recession hours after last week’s election results,  and then backed off in a subsequent column that was equally shrill and melodramatic.

In fact both of Krugman’s columns post-election – “Trump Slump Coming” and “Thoughts for the Horrified” – are not simply the usual ultra-partisan rants; they are now approaching apocalyptic in tone, reflecting a bull-headed self-certainty that reminded a few readers of the deeply flawed insurgent candidate who won the election.

Krugman has been central to the Washington economic narrative of the last eight years, that of continued neo-Keynesian deficit spending, financial regulation and distrust of markets.  In many respects he’s a pillar of a political establishment that faced its defeat at the hands of angry voters last Tuesday.

Consider some of Krugman’s remarks this week:

My own first instinct was to say that Trumponomics would quickly provoke an immediate economic crisis, but after a few hours’ reflection I decided that this was probably wrong. I’ll write more about this in the coming weeks, but a best guess is that there will be no immediate comeuppance.

I’m not ready to accept that this is inevitable — because accepting it as inevitable would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The road back to what America should be is going to be longer and harder than any of us expected, and we might not make it.

While most readers seemed to share in the horror of the prospect of a Trump presidency, a few readers pointed out that Krugman has been almost as shrill – and irresponsible – as Trump himself. Some comments:

Krugman’s hypocrisy and hubris are almost unfathomable. Just consider two examples:
1. Truth – “First of all, remember that elections determine who gets the power, not who offers the truth.” Let’s remember that it was Krugman who immediately predicted after Trump won a “never ending recession”. Really ? But now he says, “My own first instinct was to say that Trumponomics would quickly provoke an immediate economic crisis, but after a few hours’ reflection I decided that this was probably wrong.” Do you realize how irresponsible that is for any economist to immediately jump to such extremes without a shred of evidence ?
2. Authoritarian – “The White House will soon be occupied by a man with obvious authoritarian instincts.” The White House IS CURRENTLY occupied by a man with obvious authoritarian instincts. Do you forget that Obama after voters strongly disagreed with him in the midterms declared that he “had phone and a pen” ? He threw away our system of Checks and Balances to move forward with his liberal agenda in the environment, foreign policy and others. In immigration, Obama himself previously said that he lacked the authority to do what he later did anyway. That is an authoritarian ! It is simply one with whom you agree politically.
I am not saying that Trump has all the answers. Politics is about preferences. And the voters had already tried to tell Obama that he had gone too far. But he didn’t listen. Now maybe the liberals will listen.

The “road back” in the eyes of Mr. Krugman means finding the next “establishment candidate” Hillary Clinton clone. The New York Times parades itself around as a liberal fair minded publication. In reality, much like the out of touch democratic party – which is now a full blown establishment party under the thumb of big business – the times is on the same page. Hillary and the Times are totally out of touch with suffering working class Americans, and continue to advance the interests of the elite – just those elite with a more liberal agenda. Nothing was more evident when shills like David Brooks and Krugman offered absurd explanations as to why a non-entitled candidate like Bernie Sanders was not the right fit to be our president – while astonishingly touting Hillary as something of likes of a female JFK. Supporters of Sanders were labeled as the “Bernie Bros” by Krugman. Why? Because they were passionate in their support of a candidate that did not take money from big business (like the NYtimes). Meanwhile, despite the fact that many of his supporters were young women, Krugman’s articles had headlines referring to “Bernie Bros”. The Times often referred to Hillary’s time spent in government, incredibly, as public service notwithstanding the vast sums of money made during her tenure that a struggling middle class person could only marvel at. Let this election be a wakeup call to the liberal elites and the liberal elite media.

Any excuse, any rationalization, anything other than just admit that this was a wholesale rejection of entrenched political elitists, progressive globalism, socialist collectivism, and ruthless duplicitous politicians.  Anything. Classic Krugman.