They also reveal what makes Krugman unique. Unlike many of his peers, who loll in the academy, stressing econometric models that rarely intersect with public policy, Krugman has repeatedly turned his eye toward the intersection of math and the masses. The focus hasn't always won him praise. Michael Wolff's April 2 profile in New York magazine, for example, portrayed Krugman as something of a media sensation in training -- "the face of gloom," in Wolff's words, who would fall out of favor as soon as the market turned.

But for the most part, Krugman's work has earned him wide acclaim among his peers. Krugman, 47, has won the John Bates Clark Medal (given by the American Economic Association every two years to an economist under 40) and many economists believe that he'll eventually take home the Nobel Prize. But Krugman is equally proud of the criticism he's received. "You know you've achieved something," he says, when you manage to inspire collective anger.

"My belief is that if an op-ed or column does not greatly upset a substantial number of people, the author has wasted the space," he says. "This is particularly true in economics, where many people have strong views and rather fewer have taken the trouble to think those views through -- so that simply insisting on being clear-headed about an issue is usually enough to enrage many if not most of your readers."

These days, Krugman -- who generally votes Democratic but also worked in the Reagan White House as an advisor -- has been particularly busy. He was one of the first economists to criticize Alan Greenspan, and he's used his New York Times column to rail against everything from the Bush tax cut to the electricity generators that manipulated California's energy market.

But with a China-U.S. diplomatic crisis looming, a recession on the horizon and an energy crisis reaching deep into everyone's pockets, even Krugman is cautious with his predictions.

Let's talk about China first. You're an expert on international trade; do you think that China will choose its desire for trade over its penchant for nationalistic showmanship?

China obviously has something to gain from U.S. goodwill, though I don't know that these things usually play a big role when tempers are high. As for U.S. business, some people are anxious to be on good terms with China, but others are not. All I know is the general rule that for all we talk about how "the bond market rules the world," nationalism always trumps economic interest in extreme situations.

Look at the Palestinians in Israel. They essentially have no economy. Their only export is workers having day jobs in Israel, and so intifada II is extremely counter to any concept of economic self-interest.

What might the standoff with China do to the American economy?

Well, nothing per se, nothing you'd notice. China is not a big export market; it's not yet a crucial source of supply for anything in particular.

And yet the markets continued to free-fall this week, in part because of the perceived threat from China. Could the situation with China push us closer to a recession?

I have no idea. One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day. And actual shooting wars are incredibly expensive. But luckily I'm not contemplating that at the moment.

The Free Software Project
Read Andrew Leonard's book-in-progress on Linux and open source -- and post your comments.