Krugman wins Nobel Prize - black day for economics

[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.

[Stranger]

Grand comedy from the Swedish Central Bank as usual.

[nameless]

Hahahahah oh wow. Why not just drop the charade and award Marx a posthumous prize?

[richie2044]

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.

[freewheeler]

Really…unless he would say the government fixed the Depression nonetheless

[jtucker]

Here is Ritenour’s critique of Krugman’s business cycle writing. The Nobel committee mention only his trade writing in the prize.

[mookrit]

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.

[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.

[HiggsBoson]

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”?

[MatthewWilliam]

@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.

[Jon_Irenicus]

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

[Niccolo]

@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.

[Jon_Irenicus]

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.

-Jon

[richie2044]

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.

[Jon_Irenicus]

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.)

-Jon

[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.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

They should give the Nobel Prize in Biology to Kent Hovind.

[Niccolo]

@Jon Irenicus

I seem to recall you had a bitter hatred for Krugman on the old Austrian forum.

Yeah.

Then I learned a thing or two.

[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.

[nje5019]

@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.

very good point. I stand corrected.