Krugman EnNobeled
For his theory of trade patterns and location of economic activity. via NYT:
“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.
I’m afraid I have zip to offer on that, except to say if the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences likes it and it isn’t about DNA, it must either support terrorism, hate America or be completely absurd. Extra credit for Bush-bashing …
And if you don’t, and you aren’t, and you haven’t, why would you want it? I’m mean, aside from the 10 million kronor and the global fawning …
I wouldn’t want to suggest Krugman excuses terrorism or hates America. It is likely, however, that his extensive Bush-bashing, Saddam-dismissing, GWOT-mocking absurdism was a heavy thumb on the Nobel scale. Curious that an economist whose work on patterns and locations is Nobel-worthy couldn’t do the math to figure out that a sociopathic mass-murdering megalomaniac with a pattern of supporting terrorism, seeking WMD and invading neighbors, located on some of the most strategically important real estate on Earth, with whom much of Europe was eager to trade again, is someone who could no longer be tolerated.
A quick Krugman Bush-bashing, Saddam-dismissing, GWOT-mocking reader:
Bush’s Scare Tactics Are No Longer Working
Krugman with Howard Kurtz at CNN:
“We are not Walter Cronkite’s country anymore. We are a much more polarized nation. There is no political center. People get their news from opposing sources.
“You look at the polls, people who voted for Bush in the last election just live in a different reality from people who voted for Kerry. And, you know, we’ve seen repeatedly not so much media figures, but policy figures. If you turn against Bush on the war, it doesn’t matter who you are, it doesn’t matter what were your record is. All of a sudden you’re just another Michael Moore.”
Memo to Bushitler regime: Is there a reason Krugman is not yet locked up in the hated Crusader gulag of al-Guantanomiyah with the traitors Moore and Cronkite?
Rajanr in comments, Reynolds inform that Krugman’s economics are superior to his commentary. He’s nowhere to be seen, however, at this intersection of economics and politics, an Obama-trashing that TaxProf notes includes five Nobel laureates. (Reynolds link above includes an important poll: How much more insufferable will a Nobel make Krugman?)
Prior at this site re Krugman absurdism, ironically enough Nobel-related. Gore Derangement Syndrome:
Paul Krugman at NYT wants to know what it is about Al Gore that drives right-wingers crazy. Here’s Krugman’s theory:
The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.”
That’s true if you (A) believe the Nobel Prize committee is the last word on anything and (B) if you think Saddam at the end of a rope is more dangerous to the United States than Saddam at large, without sanctions, with nukes. The maddening thing about Gore is, he keeps being hailed as a prophet despite repeated evidence that at best, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and at worst, he’s making things up.
Krugman, however, is unquestioning in his faith:
Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.
Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial …
Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.
Correct re taxes. About those foreigners …. definitely, the ones you can’t negotiate with. I think he’s starting to get it.
So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed.
Actually, it’s the prevaricating pols that must be slimed. When it comes to science, the people who get slimed, and deprived of research funds, are those who question global warming orthodoxy.
What Krugman needs to understand about Gore Derangement Syndrome is this. It’s simple. You could put it on a bumpersticker: Gore Lied, No One Will Die.
But in the end, Gore is really not that maddening. The institutions that have anointed him … the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, neither academy nor deeply engaged in pursuit of either art or science … and the Nobel Prize committee, a handful of Scandinavians whose worldview is exalted primarily by the large amounts of dynamite profits they have to dole out … are not actually involved in making decisions that govern this world.
In the contest that matters most, Gore still lost. Unelect him again in ‘08!
Prior re the enNobeling of America-hating, terrorism-excusing fools:
And the long shameful history of the Nobel “Peace” Prize:
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:53 am Comments (14) on Monday, October 13, 2008
14 Responses to “Krugman EnNobeled”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Unfortunately, the perpetually perplexed confuse Nobel with noble.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:05 am
The Nobel Committee does not continue its slide into complete irrelevancy with this latest award. It hit rock bottom a few couple years ago.
No, with Krugman’s award, that august group has collectively anf firmly grasped a shovel, and begun to dig furiously.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:47 am
*Sigh*, as much as I hate NY Times columnist Krugman, economist Krugman is actually quite deserving of the prize (and tends to contradict columnist Krugman in certain ways). And while the Nobel Peace Prize (awarded by the Norwegians) and the Literature Prize (selected by the Swedish Academy) tends to be extremely political, the Nobel prizes in the sciences tend to be more apolitical.
Krugman’s work is still in economics textbooks. Any chemist or physicist equally noted in their fields would not have been denied the Nobel Prize on the basis of writing an column.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:54 am
And BTW, the same Royal Swedish Academy awarded the same prize to F.A. Hayek and two years later, to Milton Friedman. For the prior, it helped popularize classical economics in a field then saturated and dominated by Keynesians.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Well, rajanr, we could label Krugman as an idiot savant. I can live with that.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Jules, you write: “Is there a reason Krugman is not yet locked up in the hated Crusader gulag of al-Guantanomiyah with the traitors Moore and Cronkite?”
Jules, I don’t know how things work where you live, but here in the USA we have something called “The Constitution”. It says, in part, “No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law”, which means you must be charged and found guilty of a crime before you are “locked up”. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work here.
I hope this helps answer your question.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Where have you been? Silly bus driver. The Chimpy Bushitler regime suspended the Constitution in 2002 and has packed away critics by the thousands. Moore, Cronkite. All those Code Pink types. Cindy Sheehan. All gone.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Trackback: “Krugman, in his capacity as a New York Times columnist, is a superstar on the hardcore ideological left. Many of these nutty nihilists are now claiming political vindication in the Nobel committee’s decision, for example, Matthew Yglesias…”
October 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Hah. Bushhitler might be evil and all that, but he’s just the pawn and front man for the real villain, the power behind the throne – Darth Cheney.
“Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history.”
- Joe Biden
“You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges.”
- Hillary Clinton
Remember, this is the man who shot somebody RIGHT IN THE FACE just for crowding in on his duck – AND THE AUTHORITIES WERE TOO TERRIFIED TO DO A THING ABOUT IT.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The Chimpy Bushitler regime suspended the Constitution in 2002 and has packed away critics by the thousands.
Which is how I got my night job waterboarding politically suspect detainees in the North Dakota Gulag, on the personal recommendation of Lord Karl, PBUH.
Michael Moore, man, now that guy took a LOT of water!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
But seriously, folks… My guess is that Eugene Fama would have gotten it this year, except that the committee was afraid of awarding it him under current market conditions. (He is closely associated with the “random walk” market efficiency theory, and has made other great contributions to portfolio theory.)
I don’t think Krugman’s politics hurt him one bit, though. There aren’t many really good economists on the left (fancy that!) except him and Joseph Stiglitz, who has already won it.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Ideology trumps reason, once again. While I’ve done nothing to deserve a Nobel, I wouldn’t accept it if they offered me one. A once-prestigious award has become a joke.
Scratch that. I’d accept it, deposit the check, and chuck the medal into my toilet tank to reduce my gallons/flush.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Paul Krugman is naturally a polarizing figure, mostly because of his slanted NYT editorial opinions, and criticisms of the Bush administration. Thus he is admired by laymen ‘lefties’, but intensely detested by a large (many in the closet) conservative segment of laymen NYT readers – especially those of different economic and political persuasions.
Nevertheless, those who are more knowledgeable should recognize, despite Krugman’s left-leaning critiques, within the far more amicable né ‘respectful’ world of award-winning economists and academia, Krugman’s economic research and contributions seriously hold the highest respect of nearly all, and transcend most all political and economic disagreement.
We all should salute Paul Krugman, as we all did the late former Nobel winner, Milton Friedman.
[But unfortunately, some pettifogging petty bloggers will try to divert what should be our national pride for one who is so internationally acknowledged, into a cheap and petty blog post.]
Although I have long disagreed with the late Friedman’s economic positions (and politics), I thoroughly respect and admire his significant contributions to economic theory…. (wrong as they appear today.) Likewise, I submit all should respect Krugman’s equal contributions and Nobel award as well.
These guys – Friedman/Krugman (regardless of being on opposite ends of the political/economic spectrum) don’t get the Nobel Prize for naught. They all deserve respect on the international Nobel world stage for their extraordinary contributions. Belittling their achievement belittles the porcine belittler, as it also does diminish us all.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Like I said, fliterman, Krugman is an idiot savant.