Heterodox doctrines, in economics and elsewhere, often fail to get adequately discussed in their formative stages. Both the intellectual and the political establishment tend to regard them as unworthy of notice. Meanwhile, those doctrines can seem compelling to large numbers of people, some of whom may have considerable political clout, financial resources, or both. By the time it becomes apparent that such influential ideas — say, supply-side economics — demand serious attention after all, reasoned argument has become very difficult. People have become invested emotionally, politically, and financially in the doctrine, careers and even institutions have been built on it, and its proponents can no longer allow themselves to contemplate the possibility that they have taken a wrong turn.

— Paul Krugman, “Is Capitalism Too Productive?,” Foreign Affairs 76, no. 5 (1997), p. 80.

Krugman might find it ironic that an Austrian quote this, given that he probably considers his words here just as applicable to the Austrian school (in the paper, Krugman is referring to theories which suggest that supply can exceed demand — including, certain interpretations of Keynesiam, according to Krugman). I thought it was interesting, because (a) Krugman is one of the few very famous economists (given his columns, his blog, contributions, and the various accolades he has received) who pay attention to heterodox theories and (b) I do not think his theory has been working out all too well.

It seems to me that even negative attention is positive in some ways. When Krugman attacks the Austrians, for instance, most of the commentators are going to take his side (although, Krugman gets a lot of flak even on his blog). However, he also directs a lot of other readers to these views, and I think it tends to give heterodox economics enough of a spotlight to give it greater credence (especially if the school’s ideas seem attractive and/or plausible). This is the exact opposite effect that Krugman intends.

What is truly ironic is that Krugman is employing an argument against heterodox economics that is incredibly similar to that employed by some Austrians against the Keynesians.