In the grand theater of modern journalism, the curtain has fallen on a luminary of errant economics: Paul Krugman, the erstwhile columnist for the New York Times. After more than two decades of dispensing economic wisdom—some might argue more akin to fortune telling without the crystal ball—Krugman has issued his final farewell wrapped in a headline that could only have been crafted by a master of irony. He boldly announced, “I will not be retiring,” as if attempting to defy the very concept of permanence. Perhaps he believed that words can create an economic utopia all on their own, but for most, they remain little more than abstract thoughts on a metaphorical parchment.
Krugman, who garnered a Nobel Prize for holding the philosophical belief that money doesn’t really talk (let’s blame the metaphor), is now set to explore greener pastures—or at least those that are a tad more outlandish. In an alarming twist of fate, he revealed plans to invest in vintage stocks like Kodak and pets.com, the digital equivalent of acquiring fine china at a yard sale. With the financial acumen displayed through the imaginative essays of yesteryear, one wonders how his tinfoil farm venture—the one aimed at growing communication hats for contacting invisible spirits—will fare. Perhaps those unseen entities will finally set him straight on his endless miscalculations.
In reminiscing about his greatest hits—such as “The Good Times Will Never End” (spoiler alert: they did) and “Inflation is Just a Figment of Your Imagination,” one can practically hear the faint echoes of laughter ringing through the halls of the Times’ editorial suite. It seems fitting that, at his farewell party, his fellow pundits gathered to relive their own glories, including the perennial winner Charles Blow, who has a knack for sowing discord among skin colors, and David Brooks, whose discussions on character often resemble a guidebook for betrayal. As they quaffed their bubbly, the room filled with a nostalgia that bordered on farce.
But don’t be fooled; the void left by Krugman’s departure is not one to be ignored. The editorial board is now burdened with the Herculean task of replacing this economic oracle. Here come the brainstorming sessions, featuring brilliant ideas like columns on how to arrange modern relationships—who needs monogamy when you can have a thruple? Or let’s sprinkle in a compassionate piece every week spotlighting the next terrorist to garner sympathy, showing: we can always find a reason to pity the perpetrator while ignoring the suffering they caused. The pièce de résistance? A daily dose of “Why I Hate Donald Trump So Much,” which would do nothing more than echo the prevailing sentiments that already flood the airwaves and op-ed sections.
As the Times plows ahead, it’s essential to remember that change is hard. They even took a moment to inform their dwindling subscriber base that Krugman’s absence would create a “dark empty hole” in their opinion section. One can only hope that a glimmer of light might shine through this void. But fear not, dear readers; in a world where journalists decorate their columns not just with facts, but with an imaginative flair that occasionally defies reason, it’s likely you won’t notice much difference at all. After all, in a realm where ideas can comically dance around reality, who really needs accuracy? Just grab your tinfoil hats and hold on; the journey of progressive thought in the op-ed pages is sure to get even wackier from here!
