Paul Krugman's Nobel

[Hal2005]

Curious on FoH's take

On one hand he was (and still is by most) regarded as a contender to the populist throne of Keynes (Stiglitz was weaksauce). His trade theory ideas were a breakthrough that everyone from NAFTA / EU tariff group owes a tip of the hat.

On the other hand, in the past 4y he's pretty much retired from academic pursuits and elected the life of a columnist and opinionated curmudgeon. As such, alot of colleagues who elected to hit the tenure trail find this Nobel pretty weak, esp. given the long list of overlooked members from the 2002-2006 shortlist.

Personally, I think he was a nice nod by the committee to those phuds still pushing 'applied' research v. the last 3 Nobels for 'theorycraft'. The field I feel needs more Krugman's and less Ben Steins/Stiglitz' giving blogging educations.

[Sabyn]

Keynes is pretty horrible, and has been corrected since Hayek. I really can't support giving the noble prize to any shade of keynesian, but he was "important" and influential, so its not a horrible thing or anything.

[Soriak]

He was pretty much certain to get it eventually. Focusing on an area others have largely given up on is commendable, making a breakthrough that revitalizes the whole field and actually impacts global policies is Nobel worthy.

This year is just good timing. He's been injecting himself in the current financial crisis and taking positions that may have turned (or still may turn) out to be wrong. Most economists speak up long after something is done and they had time to analyze it properly... I think it takes guts to stake your reputation on ongoing events.

By the way, he didn't retire from academia altogether. He still teaches classes at Princeton and publishes stuff, though I don't know how he finds the time.

[Tallyn]

I always thought it was an interesting point of trivia that there is no true Nobel prize in economics. Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize, which is funded by the Bank of Sweden and is not associated with the Nobel Foundation.

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[rinthea]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Most economists speak up long after something is done and they had time to analyze it properly... I think it takes guts to stake your reputation on ongoing events.

criticizing the bush administration hardly takes guts

its a 'sign of the times' he wins during a crises... like that front cover of the economist magazine

the nobel prize is a political tool, moreso this year then ever

[rinthea]

KRUGMAN'S POSTHUMOUS NOBEL

Prior to 2008 the Nobel Prize had never been awarded posthumously. So great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the coveted award. But all that has changed. This year, the prize for economics is going to Paul Krugman, an economist who died a decade ago.

To clarify, the person named Paul Krugman, the living and breathing man who will accept the Nobel in Stockholm this December , is merely a public intellectual — a person operating in the same domain as, say, Oprah Winfrey.

The living Krugman’s rabidly liberal New York Times column has, for nine years now, traded on the dead Krugman’s reputation as an economist, a reputation that only will be burnished by the award of the Nobel Prize. Yet his column is pure politics, not economics. It is the equivalent of astronomers Mather and Smoot — the 2006 Nobelists in physics — writing on astrology.

This living Paul Krugman can’t be the same person as the dead economist. The dead economist wrote eloquently of the supreme importance of globalization and international trade as engines of prosperity. But the living public intellectual remains silent on these subjects when the Democratic party’s nominee for president threatens to abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

These days Krugman’s liberal agenda always takes precedence over economic principle. He has described himself as “an unabashed defender of the welfare state.” He has declared, “For me, Sweden of 1980 would be ideal.” He has called Barack Obama’s sweeping plan for socialized medicine “naïve” because it doesn’t contain enough mandates. He has said that “We should be getting 28% of GDP in [tax] revenue,” when the highest level ever collected, even in wartime, is less than 21 percent.

Krugman is entitled to such opinions, whether as a public intellectual or an economist. But there have been serious questions about his journalistic integrity — suggestions that the living Krugman has debased and corrupted the very science the dead Krugman did so much to advance.

In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine. But he would change his tune. After Enron collapsed in 2001, Krugman wrote several columns excoriating the company. (One featured what may be the most absurd howler in the history of op-ed journalism: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”) In most of these columns Krugman worked hard to link Enron to the Bush administration, and in one he actually blamed Enron’s consultants for the company’s collapse — while neglecting to mention that he, too, had been an Enron consultant.

Daniel Okrent, while ombudsman for the New York Times, wrote that “Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers.” Indeed. But Krugman’s distortions were so rampant, and his unwillingness to correct them so intransigent, that Okrent — no doubt pressured into service by my Krugman Truth Squad column for NRO — did something about it. Okrent forced the Times op-ed page to adopt for the first time a corrections policy for op-ed columnists. That was in 2004. Later, when Krugman flouted that policy, the Krugman Truth Squad went to work on Okrent’s successor, Byron Calame, who pressed for the adoption of a new, more stringent policy in 2005.

Krugman wasn’t happy about the pressure coming from the Krugman Truth Squad. After I met him in person at a lecture he gave in connection with one of his books, he smeared me on national television by saying, “that’s a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.”

That didn’t stop me from writing many more Krugman Truth Squad columns for NRO. But this one is the first in quite a while. I stopped not because I was afraid of Krugman’s defamations, but because I became aware that Krugman’s influence was waning.

Before the Times began to hold Krugman accountable for what he actually wrote in his columns, Krugman was having a powerful impact on the way public policy was being debated and decided. But no longer. Funny thing — it’s a lot harder to have a political impact when you can’t lie.

In this sense, Krugman is not only a dead economist. He’s also a dead propagandist.

With last year’s Nobel Peace Prize having gone to Al Gore, one has to wonder whether Krugman’s award is a left-leaning political statement, perhaps intended to revive Krugman’s influence. Probably not. In recent years several right-leaning economists have won the prize.

More likely, the Nobel committee decided deliberately to overlook Krugman’s political extremism, just as it chose to overlook John Nash’s schizophrenia in 1994. That’s not to say Krugman is crazy, though he has stated: “my economic theories have no doubt been influenced by my relationship with my cats.”

Whatever the committee was thinking, the only remaining question is what the living Paul Krugman will do with his $1.4 million prize. Will he pay taxes on it at the low rates established in 2003 by George W. Bush, a president and a policy that Krugman has worked so assiduously to discredit? Or will he voluntarily pay at the higher rates he advocates?

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by rinthea

the nobel prize is a political tool, moreso this year then ever

yup

[Dumar]

why do you care who his political cocktail buddies are or the crap people spew forth about him or for him.

read his texts then research yourself. he is sadly more than right about TOO many things regarding this country.

and i'm a conservative.

[rinthea]

Originally Posted by Dumar

why do you care who his political cocktail buddies are or the crap people spew forth about him or for him.

read his texts then research yourself. he is sadly more than right about TOO many things regarding this country.

and i'm a conservative.

because hes wrong, and his politics is why he writes

[Dumar]

where is he wrong? he's completely fucking right, and i'm ashamed of both my country and my ideals to say as such.

[Sabyn]

Originally Posted by Dumar

where is he wrong? he's completely fucking right, and i'm ashamed of both my country and my ideals to say as such.

Here is a start: Booms, Busts, and "Krugpot" Economics - William L. Anderson - Mises Institute

[Dumar]

i've read that before. it doesn't address what i was really talking about. again, i could care less if krugman is a clinton loving socialite or who he blames problems on (bush). his reasoning for america being the way it is now is spot on. namely, his explanations for ceo salary increases and corporate culture being the way it is currently.

[Sabyn]

Originally Posted by Dumar

i've read that before. it doesn't address what i was really talking about. again, i could care less if krugman is a clinton loving socialite or who he blames problems on (bush). his reasoning for america being the way it is now is spot on. namely, his explanations for ceo salary increases and corporate culture being the way it is currently.

I am I saying that that has little to do with our current problems. The fed messing with interest rates and fiat money (wow I must sound like a broken record here) is what is ruining us.

Now don't think I like (or dislike) corporations, but what makes them bad is their influence on the only corporation that has a monopoly on government: the state. If there wasn't rampant favoritism (such as certain stocks being exempted from short selling to keep them overvalued) and huge bailouts (see banks, airlines, et cetera, et cetera) it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

[prescient63]

Originally Posted by Sabyn

I am I saying that that has little to do with our current problems. The fed messing with interest rates and fiat money (wow I must sound like a broken record here) is what is ruining us.

Now don't think I like (or dislike) corporations, but what makes them bad is their influence on the only corporation that has a monopoly on government: the state. If there wasn't rampant favoritism (such as certain stocks being exempted from short selling to keep them overvalued) and huge bailouts (see banks, airlines, et cetera, et cetera) it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

You don't save banks because of favoritism, you save them because they have positive externalities which they are not fully compensated for. To live in a capitalist country you need banks no matter what you think, and for banks to compete internationally they need a certain scale to compete with other large multinational and state owned banks.

[Awanka]

Originally Posted by rinthea

KRUGMAN'S POSTHUMOUS NOBEL

...

Krugman wasn’t happy about the pressure coming from the Krugman Truth Squad. After I met him in person at a lecture he gave in connection with one of his books, he smeared me on national television by saying, “that’s a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.”

Wow, you are a kook. I always thought you were just a garden variety moron, but it turns out you are genuinely nuts. It does sound like you are internet-stalking Paul Krugman. I mean, jesus, you sound like Jester Rodo from "Star Wars Galaxies about John Smedley.

Originally Posted by rinthea

That didn’t stop me from writing many more Krugman Truth Squad columns for NRO. But this one is the first in quite a while. I stopped not because I was afraid of Krugman’s defamations, but because I became aware that Krugman’s influence was waning.

Eh, Paul Krugman's influence is definitely not waning since he got the nobel prize, especially since a lot of his claims against Bush/Gramm/Greenspan's policies have been validated recently. He's been a talking head on a lot of shows.

Originally Posted by rinthea

Whatever the committee was thinking, the only remaining question is what the living Paul Krugman will do with his $1.4 million prize. Will he pay taxes on it at the low rates established in 2003 by George W. Bush, a president and a policy that Krugman has worked so assiduously to discredit? Or will he voluntarily pay at the higher rates he advocates?

This paragraph in particular is stupid squared. Grats on stringing together a bunch of crap Rush-Limbaugh style which sounds vaguely incriminatory but doesn't actually say anything substantive. Paul Krugman was right on the money to oppose the tax breaks for the rich. Why do you think the national debt has sky-rocketed retard? Krugman was one of the first to point out that Bush's claims about where the money for the tax break would come from, and the numbers that his administration were giving for the federal budget didn't add up; That they were using phony accounting tricks to sell the tax break.

Whenever the Bush administration was proven wrong, they would change their story and come up with another reason to back the tax cut, lies upon lies. Sound familiar? It's the same modus operandi that Bush and his friends used to sell the war in Iraq. Paul Krugman was unpopular for pointing these things out back when Bush was still a popular president. Various tools such as yourself have been talking trash ever since.

Let's acknowledge something right now Rinthea, Paul Krugman is about 100x to 200x smarter than you, you do realize this right? I mean, that should be pretty obvious. He teaches at Princeton. You teach ignorant slobs over the internet who aren't capable of their own research. You should really refocus all that energy you're putting into economic analyses into something that you are more capable of mastering, maybe tiddlywinks?

Not to say I back everything about Krugman. His views on national health-care and social security in particular I find fiscally unsound, but his heart is in the right place.