I audibly sighed.
I love how you say his estimate is not cited, but then continue to say what it entails. We can't make numbers say anything we like. It's impossible. Numbers say what numbers say and it's the interpretation of the methodology that matters. Of course, you deem this analysis as cherry picking, because that fits your narrative.
Regardless of how you want to view Krugman (because the value is in what he wrote and not who wrote it) and even more so, it was slightly flippant (well, in terms that it's obvious that you cannot extrapolate an instance like this across a long time period and expect it to be really valid in terms of an actual metric).
The point is that people are EATING up this Trump "victory" like it is significant when it pales in comparison to what Obama has already done in terms of "saving" jobs.
There is only 1 "study" that has been published that provides the number of jobs "saved" that provides an estimate in range of his claim. It is from CAR Anne Arbor. Or are you arguing that he just pulled these numbers from the ether and we should trust them because he is Krugtron the Invincible? I easily could have just dismissed your claim due to absolutely zero evidence, but I tried to be charitable, and assume that these numbers actually came from somewhere--an actual study. Now, if we look at CAR--who lists GM as a client and affiliate--they actually revised these numbers down to ~1.2M jobs, something not included in the Krugman numbers. (He sets it at over 2M)
Now, it is cherry-picking, to take numbers based on the assumption that when a company as massive as GM dissolves it will just cease to exist, along with any assets it had. Bankruptcy generally does not end that way, and in fact, a simple, high-profile and relatively recent example would be Hostess. As it turns out, although Hostess died, it's property was bought, and the same items are being sold under the same names today. As it also turns out, GM did file bankruptcy, and this didn't happen...
Now, when we talk about a company being "saved", do we count only the actual employees, or do we estimate how many ancillary positions will be lost due to clients of osing business? If you include ancillary 3rd party jobs, do you do the same for this Trump project? Are these fair comparisons? Is it fair to compare a President Elect, who has no actual power as of the moment, to a then sitting POTUS whose party had significant majorities in both house and senate? (And to be clear, the $7M was already on the table before the election. The state wanted them to stay and was begging)
Now, as to your audible sigh, if you take the time to study Taleb, you'll find he is neither a conservative nor right wing. He is actually on the left. He's just not a political hack. Krugman is the favorite toy of the left, because he says what they want to hear. He's a part of the echo chambers that I personally abhor. People like Taleb are less loved because they aren't concerned with forcing their ideas to conform to a political ideology.
Krugman is a pundit. He is rightly discounted, and for good reason.
But you are right, I shouldn't have been charitable. I just should have refuted your assertion with its lack of evidence. I shall remember that next time.