19
   

Paul Krugman wins Nobel price in Economics

 
 
Thomas
 
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 05:42 am
The Associated Press wrote:

October 14, 2008
Krugman Wins Nobel Prize for Economics
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

STOCKHOLM, Sweden " The American economist Paul R. Krugman won the Nobel economics prize on Monday for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.

Mr. Krugman, 55, a professor at Princeton University in New Jersey and a columnist for The New York Times, formulated a new theory to answer questions about free trade, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.

“What are the effects of free trade and globalization? What are the driving forces behind worldwide urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new theory to answer these questions,” the academy said in its citation.

“He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography,” it said.

Mr. Krugman was the lone of winner of the 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) award, the latest in a string of American researchers to be honored.

The award, known as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is the last of the six Nobel prizes announced this year and is not one of the original Nobels. It was created in 1968 by the Swedish central bank in Nobel’s memory.

Source[/quote]

YES !!!
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 05:47 am
maybe now he will get some respect.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 05:55 am
@farmerman,
THIS was in yesterdays AP newslines, Krugman wasnt even mentioned in this little rant. (Although I think the "meltdown" had some input in Krugmans selection


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvgJXYzXRBOttYAflCSJumnfVXxQD93P1E5O0
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:01 am
@farmerman,
Have you learned nothing in the last 8 years? For the other half of the political spectrum, this only goes to show what a bunch of biased, anti-American hacks the Nobel Prize committee has become. I could write the RNC's press release in my sleep!

Meanwhile, straight from the Nobel Prize website --

Here is the Academy's press release

A 4-page explanation of Krugman's work (pdf)

... and an essay on the scientific background of the prize (20 pages, wonky, and also pdf).
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:06 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman wrote:
Krugman wasnt even mentioned in this little rant.

More than that -- they quite explicitly ruled him out:

AP wrote:
The past also indicates that Monday's winner will probably be an American male who will have done the bulk of his work several decades ago, not someone who has analyzed issues related to the financial meltdown that is now throwing capitalism into turmoil worldwide.

Meltdowns are one of Krugman's specialties! (But apparently not the one he got the Nobel prize for.)
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 06:38 am
Excellent! Good for him!

He's the only economist I read because he's also the only one I understand.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 07:15 am
Well good for Krugman! Always glad to see an American winning Nobel Prizes.

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 07:26 am
@McGentrix,
Hi McGentrix -- thanks for contradicting what I said about "the other half of the political spectrum"!
0 Replies
 
Cliff Hanger
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 07:46 am
@McGentrix,
According to what I know about you-- Krugman is not a Good American.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 07:59 am
@Thomas,
You're Thomas-all-happy-with-himself today!

This is probably worth a mile or two on the treadmill to celebrate, doncha think?

Wink
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 08:03 am
@Cliff Hanger,
Cliff Hanger wrote:

According to what I know about you-- Krugman is not a Good American.


Well, you would appear to not know much about me then.

While I disagree with his politics, that doesn't mean he is not an expert in the field of economics.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 09:11 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

While I disagree with his politics, that doesn't mean he is not an expert in the field of economics.

What the Nobel Prize committee secretary said: "Not only is he a stellar researcher ... but also he is an excellent expositor and that is clear both from textbooks but also, as many of you know, from his columns."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 09:45 am
A Talk with Nobel Winner Krugman When He Was E&P's Columnist of the Year
By Dave Astor - E & P
Published: October 13, 2008 10:53 AM ET

Columnist/professor Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel Prize for economics, was E&P's "Columnist of the Year" in 2002. Here's most of that story from six years ago:
----------------------------------------------

The intersection of politics and economics was big news in a year of rising joblessness, corporate scandals, and soaring deficits. "So much of the political landscape is dominated by economic questions," says Paul Krugman, who was smack in the middle of that intersection as a New York Times Op-Ed writer and prize-winning economist. Now the Princeton University professor is also E&P's columnist of the year.

With a clear, nonacademic writing style, Krugman appeals to many people who normally avoid economics like the plague -- even if they disagree with his political views. This year, Krugman used his high-profile Times forum and economic knowledge to skewer Bush-administration policies in columns with such titles as "The Bully's Pulpit" and "Crony Capitalism, USA." That made him a lightning rod read closely by both liberals and conservatives.

"I get a huge volume of mail," says Krugman, with the correspondence numbering in the hundreds some days. "It's more positive than negative, but very strong and very intense on both sides. And there's hate mail."

LA Weekly's John Powers wrote last week that Krugman is "the president's most effective establishment critic.... Because he's a renowned Princeton economist who actually understands markets and finance, nobody has more forcefully exposed Bush's lies about his tax plan, Social Security, and corporate reform. Naturally, this has made him a bete noire of the right, subject to frequent intellectual and personal attacks."

While Krugman's economic commentary probably didn't change many Bush-administration minds, it did help educate the opposition and the public -- a process that can sometimes pay dividends down the road. But why didn't he have more impact on this month's election results?

"I'd like to make a big difference, but I'm not sure I have much of a chance of doing that," says Krugman. "The New York Times may be the world's premier newspaper, but it's still read by less than 1% of the U.S. population. TV and Rush Limbaugh have much more of an audience." Then again, he adds, the Times has "one hundred times the audience an academic can expect to reach."

And Krugman's column does get wider circulation as part of the package sent to many of the 650 papers that subscribe to the New York Times News Service.

Krugman adds that his impact was blunted also because Republicans "were extremely successful at camouflage." He notes that polls suggest many Americans favor paying more attention to corporate reform and are against tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. But Republicans were perceived as similar to Democrats on some key economic issues, says Krugman, while they diverted voters' attention with preparations for a possible war with Iraq.

The 49-year-old Krugman -- who joined the Times in 1999 -- has written for both academic and general-interest publications, authored and edited more than 20 books, and received the American Economic Association's prestigious John Bates Clark Medal in 1991 for his work rethinking international-trade theory. He taught at Yale University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University before becoming a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton in 2000.

Krugman says continuing as a professor not only helps give him the knowledge that goes into his column but also makes it easier for him psychologically to take strong Op-Ed stands. "In a sense, I'm moonlighting as a columnist," Krugman says. "I'm probably willing to say unpopular things more than people for whom journalism is their solo career."

Houston Chronicle "Outlook" Editor David Langworthy agrees, saying that Krugman may sometimes beat up too much on Bush but at least doesn't beat around the bush. "He has a strong point of view, which is a good thing for a columnist," observes Langworthy, adding: "With the economy very much in the news these days, it's perfect for us to run his column occasionally."

What does the White House think of Krugman? A Bush-administration spokesman returning an E&P call said: "He's not someone I would really comment on, but good luck with your story."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 11:13 am
@Thomas,
Although I agreed with Krugman's many opinions, even I disagreed with him once upon a blue moon. LOL
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 01:58 pm
@Thomas,
When are you changing your gravatar, Thomas?

Quote:
KRUGMAN WINS THE NOBEL PRIZE

The Nobel Prize is never posthumous -- it is only awarded to living persons. So some great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the prize in Economics. All that has changed. With today's award to Paul Krugman, the Nobel has gone to an economist who died a decade ago. The person alive to receive the award is merely a public intellectual, a person operating in the same domain as Oprah Winfrey. And even as a public intellectual, the prize is inappropriate, because never before has a scientist operating in the capacity of a public intellectual so abused and debased the science he purports to represent. Krugman's New York Times column drawing on economics is the equivalent of 2006's Nobelists in Physics, astromers Mather and Smoot, doing a column on astrology -- and then, in that column, telling lies about astronomy.

But what's done is done. The only question now is whether Krugman will pay taxes on the prize at the low rates enabled by the Bush tax cuts he has done so much to discredit, or if he will volunteer to pay taxes at higher rates he considers more fair.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:05 pm
@Ticomaya,
Krugman is not as bad as your source suggests, Tico, but he is generally so negative that he cannot be depended on to even recognize anything positive, much less embrace it. And he has frequently been out of step with the opinions of other economists who eventually proved to be right.

The fact that he was the recipient of the prize testifies to his far left leaning temperament and mindset. It seems that stellar credentials are not a consideration, and that nobody in the middle or who tilts the least bit right is seriously considered for a Nobel prize these days.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:08 pm
@Foxfyre,
Fox wrote:
Quote:
And he has frequently been out of step with the opinions of other economists who eventually proved to be right.


Your statement proves you have no idea about economist's opinions.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:14 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Krugman is not as bad as your source suggests, Tico, but he is generally so negative that he cannot be depended on to even recognize anything positive, much less embrace it. And he has frequently been out of step with the opinions of other economists who eventually proved to be right.

The fact that he was the recipient of the prize testifies to his far left leaning temperament and mindset. It seems that stellar credentials are not a consideration, and that nobody in the middle or who tilts the least bit right is seriously considered for a Nobel prize these days.


So his "analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" is out of step and has been proven wrong Shocked
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:20 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
... And he has frequently been out of step with the opinions of other economists who eventually proved to be right.


So his "analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" is out of step and has been proven wrong Shocked

You usually do better with your reading comprehension, Walter.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2008 02:35 pm
@Ticomaya,
Okay. So the Nobel Prize was awarded for one those few moments where he was within the steps. (He should share it with those, isn't it?)
 

Related Topics

Who or What is Responsible? - Discussion by Merry Andrew
Debt ceiling? - Question by Buffalo
More Proof that HPQ SUCKS! - Discussion by hawkeye10
The Legacy of the Reagan Revolution - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Let it crash - Discussion by FreeDuck
The Bush/Obunga Dark Age - Discussion by gungasnake
No real limits to growth - Discussion by gungasnake
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
Wage discrimination - Question by zewittykitty
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Paul Krugman wins Nobel price in Economics
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2019 at 05:27:50