Krugman wins Nobel Prize - black day for economics

[Stranger]

@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.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I think Paul Krugman is a deserving candidate for the nobel prize.

He is deserving of an award from Sweden’s central bank.

-Jon

[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.

[duffmann808]

@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.

[Niccolo]

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.

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Niccolò

Most people here seem to be partisans.

Pot, Kettle: Black

[duffmann808]

@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.

[richie2044]

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”.

[Niccolo]

@Anonymous Coward

@Niccolò

Most people here seem to be partisans.

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.

[Niccolo]

@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?

[duffmann808]

@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.

[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.”

[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

[Niccolo]

@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.

[Niccolo]

@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?

[Niccolo]

@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.

[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

[Niccolo]

@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.

[Jon_Irenicus]

OK, so what would be exceptional about him then, as compared to other economists?

-Jon

[Niccolo]

@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.