Krugman and writing styles

I don't write well, but I don't care. I am willing to pundicize about writing well. When I read economists, I look for completeness. Let's listen to Jared for example:

The question is whether the interventions will promote fairness, opportunity, and growth. Too often, our political economy debate tries to preclude these choices in the defense of some pristine vision of unfettered markets. Jared Bernstein

I know his audience, and his audience has no concept of completeness. What I mean is this: Fairness, opportunity and growth are not the complete set of results from government intervention. Self protection, greed, unknowledge and corruption on the part of government officials count also. Then there is arbitrage by private actors as well as the free rider problem, yet he fails to list them. One can make no comparison between side effects when Jared is speaking to his base, his writing will be deceptive. On seeing a post like Jared's, it seems he is deliberately failing to list a complete set of outcomes. He is likely contained within a limited vision. semantic bubble, hence fails completely on completeness.

Does it matter? His approach, and the other side does the same, but the approach sours the readers on the issue of political economy. It fails to educate, leaves the wider set of readers with the impression that economists are all liars; ruins the reputation of the economics profession.