Paul Krugman wins Nobel Prize for Economics "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity"
He certainly wasn't going to win the peace prize:
The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand.
Irish Liberty Forum
Grand comedy from the Swedish Central Bank as usual.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Hahahahah oh wow. Why not just drop the charade and award Marx a posthumous prize?
He says WWII ended the Great Depression. Is he implying that FDR's socialistic policies did not? That would be blasphemy, would it not? I'm confused.
Really.....unless he would say the government fixed the Depression nonetheless
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.
Here is Ritenour's critique of Krugman's business cycle writing. The Nobel committee mention only his trade writing in the prize.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
I'm told Robert Higgs demolished the myth that wars are great for the economy, but I haven't gotten around to reading his book yet.
Tim Russert, in 2004, interviewed Krugman and neocon Bill O'Reilly together on CNBC and O'Reilly was hitting Krugman hard about Bush's "tax cuts". O'Reilly told Krugman that Krugman said that the tax cuts would be "terrible". Krugman stated that "my forecasting record is not that great." Even Krugman admits that he is a terrible economist.
Has the Nobel Prize become more political over the years, or has it always been so and I haven't noticed until recently?
Al Gore winning pretty much used up the remaining credibility they had with me anyway.
Personally I only know Krugman from his horrible NY Times and popular media writings. Anyone have a comment on the work that he one this prize for? Is there actually anything new or noteworthy about his "analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity"?
richie2044: Tim Russert, in 2004, interviewed Krugman and neocon Bill O'Reilly together on CNBC and O'Reilly was hitting Krugman hard about Bush's "tax cuts". O'Reilly told Krugman that Krugman said that the tax cuts would be "terrible". Krugman stated that "my forecasting record is not that great." Even Krugman admits that he is a terrible economist.
I saw that interview. Krugman and O'Reilly were equally ignorant, however Bill-O made up for it with his boorishness.
It's not even on par with the other watered down Nobel prizes. It is an award given in memory of A. Nobel, and is awarded by the Swedish central bank. In sum, it is of little to no use in revealing one's academic worth.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
MatthewWilliam: Paul Krugman wins Nobel Prize for Economics "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" He certainly wasn't going to win the peace prize: The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Oh please. Have you people ever even read one of Krugman's books? Really, it's rather ridiculous how much this place bashes the man. The fact is that his trade policy analysis is rather outstanding and to ignore it shows exactly how "scientific" you really are. The Origins of Capitalism And for more periodic bloggings by moi, Leftlibertarian.org | Post Points: 50
Oh please. Have you people ever even read one of Krugman's books? Really, it's rather ridiculous how much this place bashes the man. The fact is that his trade policy analysis is rather outstanding and to ignore it shows exactly how "scientific" you really are.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Funny, I seem to recall you had a bitter hatred for Krugman on the old Austrian forum. Krugman is good where he is good, but so what? Many economists are. He's not special on this.
Do Austrians claim to be scientists? I've never seen those claims on this site. In fact, they frown upon the mathematical mumbo-jumbo that comes from the economists pretending to be scientists.
Yes, the economists definitely do, and rightly so. They're not "scientists" in the way that is current in many intellectual circles though, but methodological monism is out of fashion and dying out, except for fields which take time to wake up to such changes (economics is one.)
someone pointed out in the comments section of a blog post on this at The Austrian Economists that most of Krugman's stuff on international economics is taken from much older writings and that even Krugman himself admits this. So even if what he's written is valid (I can't comment on this as I haven't read it), it seems odd that he is the one winning the prize for it.
They should give the Nobel Prize in Biology to Kent Hovind.
Jon Irenicus: I seem to recall you had a bitter hatred for Krugman on the old Austrian forum.
I seem to recall you had a bitter hatred for Krugman on the old Austrian forum.
Yeah.
Then I learned a thing or two.
Niccolò: The same could be said for FA Hayek's prize. Much of what he did was just a rehashing or collection of thoughts from people like Wieser, Mises, and Bohm-Bawerk. Do you deny his greatness even in that breath then?
The same could be said for FA Hayek's prize.
Much of what he did was just a rehashing or collection of thoughts from people like Wieser, Mises, and Bohm-Bawerk. Do you deny his greatness even in that breath then?
I thought Hayek was the first to discover how inflation lengthened the production cycle?
I could be wrong, though.
Niccolò: nje5019: someone pointed out in the comments section of a blog post on this at The Austrian Economists that most of Krugman's stuff on international economics is taken from much older writings and that even Krugman himself admits this. So even if what he's written is valid (I can't comment on this as I haven't read it), it seems odd that he is the one winning the prize for it. The same could be said for FA Hayek's prize. Much of what he did was just a rehashing or collection of thoughts from people like Wieser, Mises, and Bohm-Bawerk. Do you deny his greatness even in that breath then? I think Paul Krugman is a deserving candidate for the nobel prize.
nje5019: someone pointed out in the comments section of a blog post on this at The Austrian Economists that most of Krugman's stuff on international economics is taken from much older writings and that even Krugman himself admits this. So even if what he's written is valid (I can't comment on this as I haven't read it), it seems odd that he is the one winning the prize for it.
I think Paul Krugman is a deserving candidate for the nobel prize.
Anonymous Coward: Niccolò: The same could be said for FA Hayek's prize. Much of what he did was just a rehashing or collection of thoughts from people like Wieser, Mises, and Bohm-Bawerk. Do you deny his greatness even in that breath then? I thought Hayek was the first to discover how inflation lengthened the production cycle? I could be wrong, though.
It's generally agreed that Hayek got the prize right after Mises died so they wouldn't have to give it to Mises for the same reasons.
He is deserving of an award from Sweden's central bank.
jtucker: Here is Ritenour's critique of Krugman's business cycle writing. The Nobel committee mention only his trade writing in the prize.
Thanks for the link.
Niccolò: MatthewWilliam: Paul Krugman wins Nobel Prize for Economics "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" He certainly wasn't going to win the peace prize: The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Oh please. Have you people ever even read one of Krugman's books? Really, it's rather ridiculous how much this place bashes the man. The fact is that his trade policy analysis is rather outstanding and to ignore it shows exactly how "scientific" you really are.
MatthewWilliam: Paul Krugman wins Nobel Prize for Economics "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" He certainly wasn't going to win the peace prize: The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand.
You hit the nail on the head man. Krugman is a top notch economist. I agree with the opinion that he doesn't really understand the ABCT, but I can't fault him too much since it is a rather unknown theory to New Keynsians. People here love to hate on Krugman, but his contribution to international trade theory is undeniable, not to mention he has written some great books that expose the folly of protectionism in a way that modern American progressives can understand. I don't like how he selectively invokes his economic research to win political points in his NY Times essays, but it is hard to deny that he is a true economist.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Solid_Choke: jtucker: Here is Ritenour's critique of Krugman's business cycle writing. The Nobel committee mention only his trade writing in the prize. Thanks for the link. Niccolò: MatthewWilliam: Paul Krugman wins Nobel Prize for Economics "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" He certainly wasn't going to win the peace prize: The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression. The $10 billion or so we’re spending each month in Iraq mainly goes to US-produced goods and services, which means that the war is actually supporting demand. Oh please. Have you people ever even read one of Krugman's books? Really, it's rather ridiculous how much this place bashes the man. The fact is that his trade policy analysis is rather outstanding and to ignore it shows exactly how "scientific" you really are. You hit the nail on the head man. Krugman is a top notch economist. I agree with the opinion that he doesn't really understand the ABCT, but I can't fault him too much since it is a rather unknown theory to New Keynsians. People here love to hate on Krugman, but his contribution to international trade theory is undeniable, not to mention he has written some great books that expose the folly of protectionism in a way that modern American progressives can understand. I don't like how he selectively invokes his economic research to win political points in his NY Times essays, but it is hard to deny that he is a true economist.
Should this prize be for the progression of economics or the regression of thinking? I believe the argument that he is deserving only stands if the second one is true.
Solid_Choke,
Exactly. I think many people here would benefit greatly from actually taking a step into the mainstream and perhaps borrowing from some of the better thoughts out there. Now, Paul Krugman wouldn't be my first choice, but honestly, I don't think it's a terrible pick and he is one of the top economists in the world.
Do I agree with his NYT articles? Not at all, usually, but I can still appreciate his contributions and the progression to the science of economics. This is essentially the difference between someone interested in learning and a mere partisan. Most people here seem to be partisans.
Niccolò:Most people here seem to be partisans.
Pot, Kettle: Black
Niccolò:Solid_Choke, Exactly. I think many people here would benefit greatly from actually taking a step into the mainstream and perhaps borrowing from some of the better thoughts out there. Now, Paul Krugman wouldn't be my first choice, but honestly, I don't think it's a terrible pick and he is one of the top economists in the world. Do I agree with his NYT articles? Not at all, usually, but I can still appreciate his contributions and the progression to the science of economics. This is essentially the difference between someone interested in learning and a mere partisan. Most people here seem to be partisans.
What is in the mainstream(ie Krugman) is not progressive, rather is regressive. What is popular is not always right, and he embodies that.
Any economist that calls for a new "New Deal" is NOT a top notch economist. His contribution to the area of trade theory has been great for sure, but calling for socialistic policies that destroyed economic growth and inhibited freedom is not "top notch".
Anonymous Coward: Niccolò:Most people here seem to be partisans. Pot, Kettle: Blacky
Pot, Kettle: Blacky
I am by no means a mere partisan.
I am zealot, but not one that does not see what is in front of me with the eyes God granted me to have.
Jonathan: What is in the mainstream(ie Krugman) is not progressive, rather is regressive. What is popular is not always right, and he embodies that.
So, let me get this right. Anything that you don't agree with is regressive?
Niccolò: Jonathan: What is in the mainstream(ie Krugman) is not progressive, rather is regressive. What is popular is not always right, and he embodies that. So, let me get this right. Anything that you don't agree with is regressive?
Socialism is a policy which in the early 1900's failed miserably in many countries, and which is failing miserably today. Advocating socialism, as Krugman does, would therefore be his attempt at regressing us to what other countries have already tried to do unsuccessfully.
I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either.
Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist."
Indeed. It's one thing to say Krugman has some good ideas (which other economists share and have expressed as well or better) and another thing to say he's a good economist overall.
Jonathan: Socialism is a policy which in the early 1900's failed miserably in many countries, and which is failing miserably today. Advocating socialism, as Krugman does, would therefore be his attempt at regressing us to what other countries have already tried to do unsuccessfully.
No. Just answer the question.
John Ess: I think calling Keynesianism and New Deal-type crap "regressive" is pretty spot on -- if it isn't then I don't know what is. I mean it's old stuff, been proven bunk over and over again, has diminished in credibility, and will not yield market anarchism in any possible way, either. Quit being a contrarian. I love how you spend so much energy saying that Austrian anarchists on this site are vulgar and worthless because of one misstep in your opinion (though maybe that's correct). Then Someone like Krugman comes along who has one or two good ideas among a large body of extremely harmful policy suggestions that won't lead anyone near any form of anarchism but to massive growth in the state... and Krugman becomes a "top economist."
First, that's because they claim to be representing something that they're actually damaging. Paul Krugman does not do this, he's pretty open about his statism.
Second, he is a top economist.
Third, quit calling everything you don't like socialism. Are brussel sprouts socialism now too?
Jon Irenicus: Indeed. It's one thing to say Krugman has some good ideas (which other economists share and have expressed as well or better) and another thing to say he's a good economist overall. -Jon
Apparently not well enough to associate them with the same circle inhabited by FA Hayek.
How, pray tell, does he even begin to compare with Hayek, apart from receiving the same token of appreciation, awarded by some central bank? I'm curious.
Jon Irenicus: How, pray tell, does he even begin to compare with Hayek, apart from receiving the same token of appreciation, awarded by some central bank? I'm curious. -Jon
Well, he begins to compare with Hayek by being in the same scientific field, for one - just as every economist would compare to him.
Two, I did not say that he was as influential and outstanding as FA Hayek, just that he was a good economist with an actual ability to analyze economics - as opposed to just going on the same soap box for political economy.
OK, so what would be exceptional about him then, as compared to other economists?
Jon Irenicus: OK, so what would be exceptional about him then, as compared to other economists? -Jon
You really should read his Pop Internationalism.
If more people understood the benefits of international relations, less wars would take place, more prosperity would be delivered to the poor, and we could finally move closer to a single world where liberty and fraternity were the only common principles.