Paul Krugman is an economist. Economics is a social science. Therefore, Paul Krugman is a social scientist. Does this strike you as scientific? Wouldn't a social scientist hesitate to draw causal connections on the basis of mere correlations? But Krugman isn't really a social scientist. A social scientist, like any scientist, is driven to discover the truth, and Krugman doesn't care about truth. He's a rabid ideologue who happily ignores the truth when it doesn't further his agenda. He's even been known to tell falsehoods when he believes they will advance his cause. (The end justifies the means!) What I want to know is why anyone would take a course from Krugman, or read one of his textbooks. You're as likely to be indoctrinated as to be educated. Then again, maybe some people don't mind being indoctrinated.
Addendum: It looks to me as though the decrease in life expectancy is limited to blacks and Indians, and that means cultural factors are at work. This is too sophisticated for Krugman, however. He wants it to be the case that individual liberty causes ill health, because if it does, he can justify massive state control over individuals' lives. Krugman, like all progessives, is a totalitarian manqué. Thank goodness he has no power.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 