Krugman would only agree with me about the necessity of fiscal measures at the ZLB. If you read the whole 1997 post I linked, he gives the strong impression of believing that monetary policy should be sufficient all the rest of the time. Keynesian economics has, he suggests, been rendered irrelevant by Alan Greenspan.

This attitude -- that demand- and employment-management are the business of monetary policy alone -- was, in my view, a driving force behind the complete abandonment of the Rust Belt to its fate, with no support from the national government.

Krugman *could* have supported a deficit-financed training programme in the RB. But if he supported such a policy he never recommended it explicitly, to my knowledge. And he really does make it sound like such policies are redundant now that we've "figured out" monetary policy. Maybe you get a different impression from his post?

At best you could say that he declined to comment on the effects trade policy could have on the distribution of employment. But just failing to comment on something that could be so damaging to so many lives shows the sort of contempt I’m accusing Krugman of having.