Slashdot Mirror
Paul Krugman Awarded Nobel Prize For Economics
zogger writes in his journal, "The guy who put together the concept of geographical location combined with cheap transportation leading to 'like trades with like' and the rise of superindustrial trading blocs has won the Nobel economics science prize. He's a bigtime critic of a lot of this administration's policies, and is unabashedly an FDR-economy styled fella. Here is his blog at the NYTimes." Reader yoyoq adds that Krugman's career choice was inspired by reading Asimov's Foundation series at a young age.
The author of the article was joking.
Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com.
...with the only speed bump being the Slashdot editing process. Seriously, this was in every newspaper PRINT edition before it showed up on Slashdot.
It's "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel."
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is a prize given by the Bank of Sweden, not by the Nobel Foundation. It is not one of the prizes established by Alfred Nobel. It's named after him and inspired by Nobel Prizes, but it's not a Nobel Prize.
Here is a good synopsis and collection of his recent work compiled by an Economics professor at George Mason University.
Marginal Revolution: Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize
If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
You might want to read a little more of Krugman's positions if you believe that. He was adamantly opposed to the original Paulson bailout plan, which was a banker's wet dream. He was much more in favor of the Dodd plan and eventually came down in favor of the final plan that passed here, but he was far from enthusiastic about it. "Better than nothing, but just barely" sums up his take, I think.
The British plan, OTOH, is one he supports much more wholeheartedly. But the banking community is far from haapy with that plan.
Good job confusing the Nobel Peace Prize, the Prize in Economics, and the scientific Nobel Prizes, which are selected by different groups and with different criteria.
Of course others differ in their opinion of Krugman....
I have to point out that the "other" side does not have a nobel prize or a college diploma, and appears on Fox news and National review.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Luskin)
The Economics prize is actually selected by a committee of members of the The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The prize was established by the Sveriges Riksbank, but it is not awarded by it.
How many more politicians and faux-news talking heads will continue to push the pseudo-scientific religion that is reaganomics?
Humans are capable of believing untrue things for a very long time, even after reality begins to seriously challenge those beliefs. The Left has long-cherished beliefs (Example: Unions are good for workers, My Counter-Example: The number of Unions up until the 60s that prohibited blacks from working at a union shop). The Right has its long-cherished beliefs.
There are a lot of possible explanations why people are like that, but the more important thing is to engage those people by asking questions about the basis of their belief and learning yourself. If someone says something, and you don't know if it's true or not, take some effort to find out if it is. Most of the time, you can Google the issue and find a lot of people have done the hard work for you. You just have to verify if their logic is sound and inferences are valid.
Krugman, via his blog and columns, does try his best to do this. In fact, he often posts links to early versions of his papers and mathematics on his NY Times blog and lets his readers pick it apart. He and Tyler Cowan (a libertarian leaning economist) have very civil debates via their blogs.
Most *-wing sites simply tune out contrary voices with more chanting and weak arguments that bolster that community's feelings on right and wrong. In short: people judge arguments by its truthiness, not its validity.
And for the record, we cannot judge if Reagnomics worked because Reagonomics is:
To be honest, I don't believe he achieved those four goals during his presidency, so I'm not sure one can say Reagonomics worked or not:
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
The guy isn't only anti-Bush, he's an arrogant douchenozzle to anyone that disagrees with him on anything. In Krugman's world, if you don't agree with him... be it economics, politics, whatever... you're not just wrong, you're an idiot. He's a very, very bright man, but he also holds too high an opinion of himself in every regard. He also takes the status of his field far too seriously, often indicating that economics is the most important field of study in the world. Medical doctors, physicists, and engineers would probably beg to differ.
All that said, even though he hasn't done any real research in decades, even his enemies admit that he deserves the prize for his groundbreaking work in the late 70's. When standard Keynesian economists were saying that Stagflation couldn't possibly really exist, Krugman was one of a handful of guys that said "Yes it can, and here's how". He's a pioneer in many theories that are the bedrock of free trade work. You wouldn't know it from his rambling against Bush and Co. today, but he was on the outs with the Clinton crowd because he was too free-trade for them.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I had a real respect for him when he mentioned he was inspired by Asimov.
For more geek cred: while at Princeton in 1978, Krugman wrote a tongue-in-cheek paper titled The Theory of Interstellar Trade (PDF) (see Slashdot article on it).
There is no Nobel prize in Economics. It's an associated prize, "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", was instituted by Sweden's central bank in 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sveriges_Riksbank_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences_in_Memory_of_Alfred_Nobel
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
All emotion and feelings, i.e. left. We think, you guys feel.
Oh please, there is plenty of stupidity to go around. There are people on the Right who think Obama is an Arab, Muslim, and/or terrorist and scream "kill him!" at rallies. There are people on the Right that think the earth is 6,000 years old. There are people on the Right that want to force teaching "intelligent design" and want to outlaw teaching evolution. And there are people on the Right that think that a total lack of regulation is a good thing. There are people on the Right that put all of their faith in the "invisible hand."
"We think", no. "You believe," there's a difference.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
A true economic conservative is someone who believes in traditional economic liberalism. (Liberalism used to mean 'freedomism'.)
The government can't save you.
Some supporting evidence making it hard to fit this prize into an ideological box...
In his popular writing, including his NY Times column, Krugman is a pretty outspoken liberal on most issues. But within his academic expertise -- which is what he won the prize for -- he is very willing to depart from liberal orthodoxy if that's where logic and evidence lead him.
Thank you. I am moderately conservative, in the old Goldwater sense. I, and many like me, want nothing to do with that hatemongering lying bastards that have taken over the label of 'conservative'. 'Conservative' used to mean wanting incremental, cautious change, keeping what works, and being cautious about expanding the mission of government.
The label conservative, these days, means 'radical religious nationalist'. It has nothing to do with the traditional ethos of small government and individual freedoms.
Changing the subject slightly, I will note that I agree with Krugman more often than I disagree, and I think that a lot of careful economic analysis shows that more governmental intervention may be in the best interests of most of society. I would like to see us cautiously move in this direction.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
You need to read a little bit more of Krugman's stuff before you spout off about it.
Hell, how about the wikipedia article: Paul Krugman: "He was critical of industrial policy (an approach Clinton later dropped under the influence of Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers) and argued in favor of free trade. (He writes on p. xxvi of his book The Great Unraveling that 'I still have the angry letter Ralph Nader sent me when I criticized his attacks on globalization.')"
If you look here and here you will notice that most European countries are not much more economically left than the US Democrat party. The Scandinavian countries are much less authoritarian than either major US party, but on the economical scale, they're not terribly far off for the most part. For some countries the Republican party doesn't appear to be too much further to the right either.
I think that the one major difference is the universal (or social if you prefer) healthcare that exists in most European countries. Beyond that, I don't think that there are any major differences that I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure some European slashdot readers could provide a few more examples.
For the most part, things probably aren't that different. I think that the whole thing is just some meme started by Europeans to mock Americans (as though there weren't already enough reasons.) some more. There's certainly a larger difference on the social scale, but that really doesn't have much to do with economically left or right. You could be a completely socialist country or a completely free market country and still legalize prostitution, marijuana, abortions, etc.
But the question is - is that portrayed as good? The short answer is that in both, it isn't. Ultimately, it all falls apart, with the message that humanity has to stand on its own.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Granted to the US is to the right of europe, buts funny you mention this because there really isnt a nobel peace prize in economics. This award established in 1968 by a bank with a lot of political pull. Its not a Nobel award. It just lifts the name. The name of this award is: The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
So in other words you're criticizing the US by holding up a questionable award which only exists because of authoritarian political clout by a financial institution in 1960s Sweden? Pot meet Kettle.
GP is dead wrong.
Krugman is (or at least was) a very strong proponent of free trade. It's only in the past decade or so (since he became more of an op-ed writer) that he has shut up about it. It appears to many that he did so (shut up), only to avoid disagreements with the liberal intelligentsia, many of whom fawn over him, not knowing that he long espoused the economics of the right, and that he has never disavowed his positions on the subject.
My. $.02
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=5&variable_ID=217&action=select_countries
As percentage of GDP, China: 33%, USA: 14%
Assuming you're refering to the WPA, read the page. It states, "Note that these figures do not include farm or WPA employment."
Of course, it's also a debatable proposition whether building national infrastructure is "unproductive".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
and there was bliss' adopted spacer child - an alien, fully mature and in a position to destroy galaxia. the foundation series did not end fully. we have no idea what the ending is.
If it details how FDR made a minor recession into the Great Depression, it should be dismissed outright.
GNP fell 31% between 1929 and 1932. Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. In 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937 GNP rose by 7.7%, 8.1%, 14.1% and 5%. In 1938 there was a slight recession and then in 1939 GNP went up by 7.9%.
Note that Calvin Coolidge was extremely Laissez-Faire and he was the man behind the wheel most of the time in the events leading up to the depression, followed by Hoover who was only slightly less Laissez-Faire... and GNP fell every year under his term.
In short, you fail at history!
It's funny, but ideology seems to be particularly adept at re-writing history.
For the nth time, Coolidge and Hoover were both laissez-faire capitalists (Coolidge more than Hoover) who precipitated the great depression. Under Hoover GNP fell by 31%. Under Roosevelt GNP rose and unemployment fell the majority of years before the war that he was in power, often in numbers unheard of in modern times.
Now, I'm not saying the New Deal was responsible for this, but to say FDR prolonged the depression when the economy recovered under him (slowly) but failed to do so under Hoover is intellectually dishonest at best and deliberate ideologically driven revisionism at worst. One might also offer the opinion that the bubble of the roaring twenties, where stock prices and investments did not seem to be tied to reality, was not something to be repeated so soon after the disaster it caused.
It took the massive motivation of the second world war which created a new set of real growth (as opposed to a roaring twenties bubble) to actually get things on par again. Oddly enough, most economic historians equate this with Keynes, saying that if FDR had been more willing to spend into deficit (and had adopted a more aggressively interventionist policy), the economy would've recovered even quicker... although, if you can show me a modern Western economy growing at better than 14.1% (as the US did in 1936 under FDR), I'll be surprised!