If You Wonder Why I'm High on Krugman

I'm not surprised that Paul Krugman's performance as a "prognosticator" was better than anyone else in this Hamilton College statistical study. Krugman had the advantage over most of the commentators because his opinions (as opposed to those, say, of Newt Gingrich) are based on objective fact and thus more likely to prove to be true. Commentators who argue from belief without evidence are far more likely to be wrong. George Will is a perfect example. He has a world view that informs everything he believes--evidence is secondary. Thus, he is more often wrong.