Paul Krugman wins Nobel Prize for Economics

Nobel Prize gladly hands over it's credibility.

http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/10/13/grade-inflation-swedish-style/

"What’s next – a Nobel prize in biology to a creationist"

"Maybe Krugman will yet propose the economy should be Intelligently Designed…"


5 Comments

Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.
0

Shut out the circumstance

RidingFool's picture

and what he said is actually true.

Choosing Krugman for a Nobel was a wise choice.

Oh no! A BUSH HATER WON A NOBEL!!!!!! (Coaster smiles broadly)

Coaster's picture

A respected member of Princeton's faculty who pens a bi-weekly column for the New York Times wins the Nobel Prize for Economics and all you can post is a blog by some know-nothing whiny bitch?

I think those here deserve a link to the real story.  Here's the AP version: ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvgJXYzXRBOttYAflCSJumnfVXxQD93PRD881

Krugman won the Nobel for his papers on global trade, the first of which was published in 1979.  According to the above article, Krugmen interconnected two separate fields of study in order that international trade could be better understood. 

Do you think Bush will invite him to the White House has he's done in the past with other American Nobel laureates? Tough call seeing as how inviting an unapologetic critic of all things Bush/Republican would require a modicum of class on Bush's part.

"Republicans are becoming the party of the stupid." --Paul Krugman

Congratulations, Dr. Krugman.

Roderick Long as a whiny,

jazzdrive3's picture

Roderick Long as a whiny, know-nothing bitch?  I think not.

I really don't care that Krugman has mean words for Bush.  Bush is one of the worst presidents that this country has ever had.

If he truly won the prize for those theories (I doubt it, since this Nobel prize has become politically charged in recent years and is given by the Swedish central bank, and not by the body who gives out the others) - fine.  But Krugman's still a guy who repeatedly lies in his columns and spouts off Keynesian nonsense.

His latest article on Slate shows a complete misunderstanding of a whole branch of economic study that's would be humorous if so many people didn't take his rants seriously.

 

You diss Krugmen because he is a Keynesian?

Coaster's picture

I know that the theories of Johny Maynard Keynes were still popular way back in the last century when I took my year of Econ.  Though I aced both courses, I retained little, as I was more interested in the economic theories of Maynard G. Krebbs. 

Look at the comments posted by your guy, Long.  Tell me those words don't sound more like the meanderings of of some whiny bitch on a sports blog than they do a Harvard educated economist.

I'm surprised you would have rather seen the board that awarded Gore a Nobel Peace Prize give the award in economics. Would you have been satisfied then that the award would have been less political? I kind of doubt that. I think having that bank make the award had less potential for making the award political. Don't you agree? Krugman has also won the John Bates Clark Medal. Was that award non-political enough? Has your guy been recognized by his peers?  Not to worry: When they get around to awarding prizes for cutesy sniping, I'm sure Roderick Long will be recognized along with Perez Hilton and half the sports blog writers with a viewership of greater than 5.

If you're characterizing Krugman's columns as full of lies because of his statements on Brian Arthur, Krugman has provided an additional source (David Warsh's July 3, 1994, Boston Globe article on Brian Arthur).

I'll admit what I most like about Krugman is his politics. He is, however, a talented writer that speaks well to people at my level who have little understanding of the major economic issues. You know, like John McCain.

Long is hardly my "guy". And

jazzdrive3's picture

Long is hardly my "guy". And he was hardly the only one who thought it was a joke.  I occasionally read his blog and I just linked to him because he posted one of Krugman's more ridiculous whoppers.  And I don't want to hijack the thread by defending Long, but since you brought it up...

He was also educated at Harvard and got his Phd at Cornell.  Currently teaches as professor of Philosophy at Auburn, concentrating on social science.  Also a Senior Scholar at the Ludwig Von Mises institute.

But seriously, did anyone not read Krugman's statement?

"[T]he terror attack could even do some economic good. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. … Rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending."

Complete craziness.  Just one of many.  Krugman's also called the Great Depression the "Great Compassion", because the "gap" between those with high and low incomes was greatly reduced.  When the next great depression comes, which will probably be soon thanks to efforts of Washington, I fully expect Krugman to be the cheerleader for the next wave of true poverty and skyrocketing unemployment.

Krugman has also been the main shill for Fannie and Freddie, claiming that they were paragons of virtue and solid finance, and it was "deregulation" and "private enterprise" that was reckless and ultimately undermined the sound financial practices of the "mortgage giants."

Excerpt from another economist: "The reason that these lenders could throw out new mortgages with ever-increasing appraisals and "teaser" rates of interest was because they were told that Fannie and Freddie were backstopping them. Fannie and Freddie really were the proverbial "man behind the curtain," except that people really were listening to them.

But, in Krugman World, private businesses always are irresponsible "profit-seekers," but the government -- or at least government in a Democratic administration -- always is wise and far-seeing. And, if he can defend this current bailout and if he can defend Fannie and Freddie even after they are exposed, then there really is no hope for this guy. None."

When it comes to the issue of oil, Krugman seems to lose 100 IQ points and forgets basic supply and demand laws.  An "economist", ignoring/forgetting about supply and demand.  Now that is truly funny.

This doesn't even touch on his misrepresentations of basic history, particulary surrounding the Hoover presidency.

Krugman represents lazy, partisan journalism at best, willful ignorance and dishonesty at worst.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.