But today, after Pamela Sampson, Niall Ferguson suggesting that Paul Krugman is the victim of an abusive childhood:

In my view Paul Krugman has done fundamental damage to the quality of public discourse on economics. He can be forgiven for being wrong, as he frequently is–though he never admits it. He can be forgiven for relentlessly and monotonously politicizing every issue. What is unforgivable is the total absence of civility that characterizes his writing. His inability to debate a question without insulting his opponent suggests some kind of deep insecurity perhaps the result of a childhood trauma. It is a pity that a once talented scholar should demean himself in this way.

Krugman’s response is to the point:

What a pathetic response. Notice that he is doing precisely what I never do, and making it about the person as opposed to his ideas. All I have ever done to him is point out that he seems to not know what he is talking about, and that he has been repeatedly wrong. I would never stoop to speculating about his childhood! If he can’t handle professional criticism — which is all that I have ever offered — he should go find another profession.

Krugman is right.

There is a qualitative difference between the two arguments.  Krugman is blunt.  He has no problems telling people that he disagrees with that they are full of sh%$.

He’s blunt, but he does not pull the kind of crap that Ferguson tried to pull.

H/t Atrios.