Columnist Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize (You Have To Be Kidding Me?!?)

AP ^ | 10-13-2008 | KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE

[AndyJackson]

I know it is a real stretch for folks on this forum to understand that there is a serious research world far beyond the understanding of the unwashed, where serious folks write serious articles on serious subjects with a great deal of intellectual rigor.

I am not defending Krugman's idiotic politics in the Slimes. I am really not. But he is schizophrenic, and the academic Krugman is a serious economist worthy of the award. Maybe he should be guarded by men in white coats like Nash was. Ok. But when he is being brilliant he is brilliant.

I think the denizens of the deeper darker levels of conservatism give it an undeserved reputation, but I am getting really tired of defending that proposition against the deliberate anti-intellectual ignorance displayed by folks like you. All it demonstrates is intellectual laziness.

The bile he has been unleashing for quite a while is wrapped around his status as an economist and about economic topics.

But it isn't you see. His serious academic work is quite apart from his idiot ravings in the Times.

[Republican Party Reptile]

careful there ... you are getting awfully close to being ... *GASP* Elitist! :)

[iacovatx]

With all respect, your opinion is not as sophisticated as you have come to believe. Although an academic may have excellent writing and composition skills, his works outside of economic theory and research are not entirely separate. The same neurons are firing in both realms and that does color the perceived quality of his academic writings. It is a pervasive aspect of the social construction of fields of inquiry. A lack of honesty in public discourse is not walled off and then the individual expresses absolute honesty in academic work. Character matters and I have seen the consequence of it in a large number of academic works. A strongly biased view is more obvious in the social sciences than in, for example, physics, but bias does worm its way into academic works. As for peer review—that process has its value and its weaknesses.

[AndyJackson]

a pervasive aspect of the social construction of fields of inquiry

With all due respect, you are not even writing in the English language.

A lack of honesty in public discourse is not walled off and then the individual expresses absolute honesty in academic work.

You re an idiot. No one has rated Krugman on "honesty." The value of his work is not that he says x,y, and z are true. Rather that he has provided new analyitical tools to understand things that everyone sees. it is not that the tools are trusted, but rather than others agree that his insights are correct and provide explanations for what is observed in the real world.

Despite what others think, you don't forge your way into a noble prize by creating patent medicines. You get the prize because lots and lots of other people have proven that you have created something new of really substantial and enduring value that enables further intellectual process by others.

Wanna know why conservatives are losing. Examine your streadfast closed-mindedness in a mirror. When you see how repulsively ugly this is you will begin to understand.

[AndyJackson]

you are getting awfully close...

Naah. I am waaayyy over the edge. Hopefully the shock therapy will start to work, some folks will crawl out of their caves and see that there is daylight outside.

[Minn]

But it isn't you see. His serious academic work is quite apart from his idiot ravings in the Times.

Sort of like a priest who's molesting activities never interfere with sterling Sunday morning sermons on morality. It's silly to claim his political rantings are disconnected from his economics. He's an economist with credentials. That is the foundation for his assertion that Bush tax policies are manifestly evil and shameful.

It is also silly to claim that I am anti-intellectual to wonder (while admittedly not reading his scholarly work) if a man so unglued while discussing the the topic he claims expertise in is capable of real science. I have several degrees in the field, and through all my studying and reading, I never encountered a clown like Krugman.

[AndyJackson]

while admittedly not reading his scholarly work

There is nothing like arguing from an admitted postion of deliberate ignorance. No one claiming to be scientifically educated would criticize another mans academic work without having studied his papers.

[AndyJackson]

Sort of like a priest who's molesting activities never interfere with sterling Sunday morning sermons on morality.

Krugman has not, to the best of my knowledge broken man's or God's laws, despite this backhanded slander.

It's silly to claim his political rantings are disconnected from his economics.

It isn't silly since it is the case. You can pick up his academic work, study it and learn from it quite independent up his political arguments. The only difference between Krugman and most other reputable scholars is that he has told you how he voted. Others hide their political views inside the black curtain of the voting booth. Who is the more honest and trustworthy? You can examine Krugman's writings to see whether his work is influence by his biases because he has told you what they are. With others you don't know and so you cannot do that check. Or is your argument a sort of out of sight out of mind kind of thing. So long as I don't know about the mad uncle in the atic I don't have to think about whether there might be one.