Yes.
Two general points. There really is NO such entity as "intelligence." And if intelligence doesn't exist, then neither does stupidity.
And secondly, being correct t is no evidence of intelligence in any of its senses. Being wrong is no evidence of a failure of intelligence.
I haven't read much of Krugman, but quite a few of his columns that I have read suggest that there is a connection between bad policy and the intelligence or knowledge of the policy-makers. This is the foundation of the idiocy [sic] of supporting "the lesser evil."
Put another way: Austerity is assumed by too many liberal critics (and even too many radicals) to be the result of economic ignorance. This is a block to left analysis because it conceals the question of the purposes of Austerity. I would argue that its proponents know damn well what its consequences will be, and that is why they support it.
An analogy. The world of print as well as the web is over-running with analyses that show (a) the war on drugs does not reduce the use of drugs and (b) it generates all sorts of supposedly secondary 'evil' results. But quite obviously the purpose of the war on drugs is not to limit drugs but to be the foundation of state repressive power. It is difficult if not impossible to mount a serious assault on the war of drugs as long as this assumption that it fails in its purpose prevails. It has been a magnificently successful government program. Look at all the criminals it has produced. We need those criminals in order to have strong police forces and prison guards.
And of course liberals and too many radicals are continuing to whine that Bush's invasion of Iraq failed. But Bush achieved what every president from Eisenhower to Clinton had failed to achieve: the permanent presence of u.s. troops in the area.
Carrol
^^^^^^ CB; I 'd like to be identified with Comrade Cox's remarks above.