Skip to comments.Columnist Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize (You Have To Be Kidding Me?!?)
Posted on 10/13/2008 9:23:02 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache
Columnist Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, won the Nobel prize in economics Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity.
Krugman has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in The New York Times, where he writes a regular column and has a blog called "Conscience of a Liberal."
He has come out forcefully against John McCain during the economic meltdown, saying the Republican candidate is "more frightening now than he was a few weeks ago" and earlier that the GOP has become "the party of stupid."
"Krugman is not only a scientist but also an opinion maker," economics prize committee member Tore Ellingsen said. He added that Krugman's analyses tend to back free trade and his research gives no "support for protectionism."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Three guesses. First two don't count.
Have fun, laddy!
I agree that is probably the argument for his prize. However, my point is that he has seriously damaged science and that, in my judgement, would reduce his suitability for the Nobel. I would balance his career work — if he made a significant discovery or advanced a new and explanatory theory, that would be diminished if his hobby was public dishonesty about matters that effect the lives of a great many people. I am not suggesting that is his situation, but if that was the case, the prize would be unwarranted. How could anyone determine where his honest science left off and his dishonest activities took over. Could you trust his research?
The paper as I read it is merely a description of Krugman's analytical contributions to understanding the observed patterns of trade and are does not discuss any policy prescriptions. I simply see nothing "Marxist" in the article.
You demonstrate the same lack of comprehension of how the scientific world operates as most people. You seem to think that a scientists work is relied upon as somehow being trusted and becomes some sort of gospel, prescription or recipe that is blindly followed, but that is never the case.
An influential scientist paper only becomes influential because other scientits read the paper and discovers that the paper provides a way of analyzing a problem or measuring a phenomenon that others had not thought of before. The solution demonstrated, however, other scientists will replicate that calculation or that experiment for their own purposes. Either they will verify the result, confirming the original paper or refuting it.
The only advantage that a scientist's reputation brings him is that his papers will be more broadly read than those of other scientists. It means that they are also more carefully scrutinized than other scientists, and if he starts turning out whacky or incorrect stuff, his reputation will vanish in meteoric splendor. A flash and then gone.
Folks don’t understand that this reaction to sound scientific achievement is why scientist despise conservatives. They think that conservatives are closed minded, ignorant bigots, and the closed minded bigoted conservatives conspire to prove them right.
Here is what Donald Luskin of the Krugman Truth Squad has to say about his prize ) :
KRUGMAN WINS THE NOBEL PRIZE The Nobel Prize is never posthumous — it is only awarded to living persons. So some great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the prize in Economics. All that has changed. With today’s award to Paul Krugman, the Nobel as gone to an economist who died a decade ago. The person alive to receive the award is merely a public intellectual, a person operating in the same domain as Oprah Winfrey. And even as a public intellectual, the prize is inappropriate, because never before has a scientist operating in the capacity of a public intellectual so abused and debased the science he purports to represent. Krugman’s New York Times column drawing on economics is the equivalent of 2006’s Nobelists in Physics, astronomers Mather and Smoot, doing a column on astrology — and then, in that column, telling lies about astronomy.
But what’s done is done. The only question now is whether Krugman will pay taxes on the prize at the low rates enabled by the Bush tax cuts he has done so much to discredit, or if he will volunteer to pay taxes at higher rates he considers more fair.
Krugman has much to be faulted for, but not his work on international trade. It would be nice if just for once a criticism of Paul Krugman receiving the award would focus on the issue at hand.
Furthermore, I have long been familiar with Krugman's brilliance at creating simple mathematical models to explain complex economic behavior, which is what he is really famous for.
The Marxist view of his Times writings is dumb, and he discredits himself by writing that trash, but he is a brilliant economic analyst.
Maybe, if you are speaking of long ago work, before unhinged rage became the man's most defining characteristic. The bile he has been unleashing for quite a while is wrapped around his status as an economist and about economic topics. Everybody is entitled to political opinion, especially in a science so intertwined politics and policy. But do you ever remember Friedman or Galbraith red faced while declaring their hatred for anybody? If you had do you think that may have discredited their work?
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.
careful there ... you are getting awfully close to being ... *GASP* Elitist! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.