weren't we celebrating krugman's newfound radicalism last week and now we're making fun of him for not getting the cambridge capital controversy

or are his comments on the capital debates proof of his radicalism, since now he's acknowledging robinson (like when he said he was "rereading" kalecki years ago and PKs everywhere started frothing at the mouth)

i haven't read the tooze piece so i'm not sure i actually care about the answer to this but it seems like this is just something heterodox economists do from time to time as if krugman is a site of class struggle and we need to instrumentalize his NYT column for socialism