I still disagree with leaving the sentence as is I have no issue with leaving the Austrian Ron Paul type label that Krugman uses to criticize Schiff but Krugman is making a generalization here that leaves the reader no other interpretation than to accept Krugman s premise and conclusion Because A ergo B If we use just the label economist for Krugman and do not identify the branch of theory that he identifies with it would give undue weight to his criticism of Schiff and his Austrian economic leanings because the lead for the Schiff article does not describe Schiff as a trained economist whereas Krugman is a professional economist writer So to use the earlier analogy if Krugman s view of the Austrian school can be boiled down to Because A ergo B then Austrians may view the Krugman premise as Because A ergo C In otherwords Krugman says Austrians are wrong and Austrians view their position as correct Hence if we accept the disparaging context of Krugman s label and reproduce it verbatim in the Schiff article it must be prefaced giving context to Krugman s self described leanings To allay s concern that Krugman does not consider himself a Keynesian I performed a google search for krugman keynesian and looking at several of the top five results would strongly imply that Krugman holds a Keynesian worldview Here a couple that I was able to glean I April 25 2012 The Big Wrong And now the results are in Keynesians have been completely right Austerians utterly wrong at vast human cost II April 25 2012 WHY AREN T WE ALL KEYNESIANS YET I have often wondered why Keynes unlike say Freud has never become a pop cultural icon I will reiterate this point again since the Schiff article identifies John Maynard Keynes as an opponent of Schiff s and since Krugman seems to identify with Keynes ergo prefacing Krugman s criticism of Schiff and all the Austrian Ron Paul types by using the label Keynesian economist is both descriptive and balanced I see no evidence in wikipedia or wikitionary to show keynesian as a generally accepted derisive term I can see that it may be derisive among those who hold an opposing economic view either as an adherrent to an opposing school or informally by not accepting Keynesian implications on government policies