Paul Krugman has put up a post in which he complains about apparent closed-mindedness of Chicago-Minnesota RBC and ratex macro-modelers who do not like sticky-prices-wages New Keynesian models and are controlling some leading journals. He argues that at saltwater schools students learn about RBC and such like, while those at the freshwater ones do not learn about other approaches. I think there is some truth to this, and, with some exceptions, such as Robert Lucas, some of the people out of the Chicago-Minnesota mafia have made complete fools of themselves with their hysterical attempts at explaining what has gone on, combined with an overbearing arrogance and aggressiveness towards anybody who disagrees with them.
However, I think that once again Krugman is dropping the ball here. In terms of explaining what has gone on the NK sticky-wages-prices gang has not done any better than the fundamentalist loonies out of Chicago and Minnesota (and related places such as Arizona and Rochester and certain regional Feds). They all look pretty silly. After all, the bubble and the crash do not look like they are at all explained by either some exogenous productivity shock or by excessive wage stickiness. Neither is even remotely in the ball park.
Of course, what may have Krugman really upset is that his department at Princeton has hired one of the most overbearing and arrogant of all the Minnesota macro-modelers, Pat Kehoe, who is very loud about stating that "we have all the answers," and reportedly he is attempting to take over grad macro teaching at Princeton. In this case, maybe Krugman has a bone to pick, given that this stuff would probably be displacing the NK stuff, although what they really need to do is get serious about Hyman P. Minsky and agent-based modeling and some other approaches.