Posted on 04/13/2012 6:09:36 AM PDT by richardb72
Few prominent economists have a worse record predicting the impact of Obama’s economic policies than Paul Krugman. Writing for the New York Times and touting his close “genuine contact” with the “smart” economists and others in the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership, Krugman has been, and remains, Obama’s most important champion. Not only has he been defending Obama’s Keynesian-type deficit-spending, but he has been advocating still more of these same failed policies.
The economy just can’t gain ground. Thirty-four months since the "recovery" started in June 2009 and the actual number of jobs have increased by just 0.4%. Hardly making up for the 5.5 percent drop in jobs from the peak. Given Krugman’s continued prominence in supporting Obama during the coming election, the best way of evaluating the advice is going to give voters is to see how accurate his claims have been up to this point.
It is important to realize just how terrible Krugman’s record has been. He predicted on CNBC: “I am still guessing that we will peak out at around 9 percent [unemployment] and that would be late this year.” He assured listeners that double-digit unemployment was “not the most likely event” and “Actually, we are already seeing some positive effects [from the Stimulus].” . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
All I can say is the standards for Nobel Prizes in economics must be nonexistent!
Krugman’s Nobel Prize was in international trade theory. Specifically, for the pattern of trade that emerges when there are economies of scale in production, there are cost of transportation and differences in consumer tastes. Bottom line: there will be cross-border (or, back-and-forth) trade goods deemed similar by statisticians. but differing in ways important to consumers. For example, the U.S. will tend to export large vehicles, farm and construction equipment and aerospace equipment, while Japan will tend to export small cars. His was fine work. His Keynesian macroeconomics, however, is looney tunes.
It looks like you must be socialist, redistributionist and get lots of face time in the media. With those qualifications you are a shoe in for a Nobel economics prize. Remember, these are the same people who gave Obama a peace prize one month into his term of office.
Bump
I can name several free market economists and one mathematician who have one Nobel Prizes in economics.
“...His Keynesian macroeconomics, however, is looney tunes.
...” <— Which is driven by his ideology!
That was back when he did economics. He’s been doing strictly political propagandist for over a decade.
I wasn’t calling you a socialist - I was listing the attributes which will qualify one for a Nobel in economics. Poorly worded post. But who are the conservative economists in the last 20 years who have won Nobel prizes?
Krugman couldn’t predict a snowstorm in Antarctica.
And there have been other free market oriented economist when that prize recently. I would have to do some research to pull up their names. I am not an economists so I don't follow that field's “movers and shakers” very closely!
Why would he? His employer encourages his reprehensible rhetoric.
As far as I know, he still stands by his contention that Sarah Palin is responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords and the murder of the others that day.
This, despite the fact that it is now known that Laughner was a mentally disturbed Karl Marx fan, who began stalking Giffords when Palin was mayor of a small town in Alaska.
But it's still Palin's fault, according to this dipshit.
Why did you leave out yasser arafat?
Krugman is irrelevant. Sure, he has credentials and a pretty resume. [shrug] That’s about it. But, given his default setting; what you end up with is kinda like having a smokin’ hot cheerleader working for a 0-10 team: Interesting, at times, but not that helpful.
the standard is... you must have a (D) after you name.
>> Carter won, Gore won, and Barry earned one preemptively <<
You’re confusing the Nobel Peace Prize, which is awarded by the Norwegian parliament, with the Nobel Economics Prize, which is awarded by the Central Bank of Sweden.
The Economics Prize has been handed out almost always on the basis of solid scientific work (Arthur Lewis was the only glaring exception I can remember), and has been received by a slew of free market economists like Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Theodore Schultz, Gary Becker, James Buchanan and Friedrich Hayek. When leftwingers like Krugman and Gunnar Myrdal have received the Economics Prize, they’ve generally been recognized on the basis of scholarly work that’s respected across the political spectrum.
On the other hand, the “Peace” Prize has been awarded to a decidely mixed bag of (a) worthy and (b)markedly disgraceful recipients.
Among the worthy recipients of the peace prize have been Norman Borlaug, Aung San Suu-Kyi, Gen. George Marshall, Albert Schweitzer, Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, Mother Teresa and Liu Xiao-Bo. A finer group of humanitarians would be hard to name.
But then, there have been a bunch of absolutely disgraceful selections like Jimmy Carter, Baraq Øbama, Al Gore, Rigoberta Menchu, Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan and Mohammed el-Baradei.
Bottom Line:
When it comes to the “Peace” Prize, the bad selections pretty much cancel out the good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.