Is Sumner Today's Milton Freidman?

      Krugman seems to doubt this because a recent post's title of his asks 'Where are the Freidmans of Yesteryear?'

     http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/where-are-the-friedmans-of-yesteryear/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

     I thought that Sumner is today's Friedman? Even Krugman has suggested this in the past. Yet, when you read Krugman's description of what today's Freidman would have to look at, you get it. 

    "I never got around to commenting on the infamous Economist list of influential economists; they’ve been given plenty of deserved grief, to which I needn’t add. But I think I might have something useful to say about a fact that is really unmistakable when you look at a list corrected by removing central bankers, or make a moresubjective judgment: these days, the economist as public intellectual is overwhelmingly likely to be a liberal."

     "As Noah Smith says, it was not always thus. He argues that the field of economics has changed, with greater emphasis on market failures, and there’s arguably something to that. I’d also argue that the descent of right-leaning macroeconomics into hermetic absurdity matters quite a lot, because macro looms larger in the public sphere than it does within the academy."

      "But there’s another important factor. Modern conservatism doesn’t have Friedman-like figures — people who would be prominent economists thanks to their research whatever their politics, who are also public intellectuals– because it doesn’t want them. The movement prefers hacks, who needn’t be even minimally competent but can be counted on to defend the party line without any risk of taking an independent stand."

       In other words, Sumner is not a public intellectual? In any case Scott does have some good news. 

       http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=28363

      The more charitable view could be that Krugman doesn't see Sumner as politcally conservative as he's avoided being a booster of the GOP. So maybe he doesn't consider Sumner a conservative economist here? We'll see if  Sumner complains about this. 

       "So in trying to understand where the Milton Friedmans of yore have gone, you want to look at the demand side. The right lacks heavyweight economists with independent reputations partly because they are hard to find, but also because it doesn’t want them. Only hacks need apply."

     I think that Krugman would really do us a service if he repsonded to Sumner now and again. I mean Moore is an obvious hack, but, Sumner with in intellecual circles may have more impact. 

    P.S. So I'm not sure how to read Krugman here. Maybe he means that Sumner is not a public intellecual as he has no important academic work-like Krugman himself did at the start of his career on trade as he might suggest here. 

   "Let me offer my own two short subjective lists. I think if you were going to name the two current econoheroes of U.S. liberals they would probably be Joe Stiglitz and yours truly. (Thomas Piketty has made a huge and well-deserved splash, but so far only on one issue.) The thing that is obvious about Joe is that before becoming a public figure with a political following he established his reputation with vast amounts of widely cited academic research; you can get a sense of what he did by looking at his top entries on Google Scholar. And here are mine."

    Certainly Sumner can't compare to these achievements. Still, at least in part this is about politics isn't it? In the long term I think Sumner has had some effect-for now not too much with the GOP itself but Sumner has been smart enough not to hitch his wagon the today's Repubs too closely. I think the fact that  his benefactor-Kevin Duda- is not a partisan conservative hack might actually help him.