Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, won the Nobel economic prize Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity.
The 55-year-old American economist was the lone winner of the 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) award and the latest in a string of American researchers to be honored. It was only the second time since 2000 that a single laureate won the prize, which is typically shared by two or three researchers…
Besides his work as an economist at Princeton University in New Jersey, where he has been since 2000, Krugman also writes about politics and inequality in the U.S. and other topics for The New York Times. He has also written for Foreign Affairs, the Harvard Business Review and Scientific American.
He has come out forcefully against John McCain during the economic meltdown, saying the Republican candidate is “more frightening now than he was a few weeks ago” and earlier that the GOP has become “the party of stupid.”
I wonder if he means “stupid” as an individual like McCain or Bush? Or does he mean an agglomeration, say, of the eedjit vote?
or D.U.?
His paper described the mechanism for an economy of scale – how big production runs of simply described objects are more efficiently manufactured, and how economies that engage in this system ultimately command it. Sweden’s motor industry was sited as an example, of how an otherwise unremarkable economic power was able to influence the global automotive industry. A clever guy.
Umm…. Call me crazy, but ya know what the difference is between McCain and Obama and thier actual “Policies” One guy is a war vet and old and the other is younger and slick. That’s the difference in their policies. none zip nada your just buying into the sales pitch of snake oil salesman named Obama.
There is no difference between that parties other than their lies.
yeah, the GOP has definitely become the party of the landed estate owners and joe six pack.
the landed estate owners makes sure that joe six pack hates all those supposedly smart people with college degrees and such.
they let joe six pack know that they can’t trust anybody who uses big words.
that way, joe six pack thinks he’s getting a good deal.
I believe this is an example of bias reporting, when the FIRST three paragraphs are devoted to his obvious opinion of Republicans and then later describes his theory’s applications. Why did his political opinion even have to appear in the article?
“Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, won the Nobel economic prize Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity.
Paul Krugman Nobel economic prize
Krugman has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in The New York Times, where he writes a regular column and has a blog called “Conscience of a Liberal.”
He has come out forcefully against John McCain during the economic meltdown, saying the Republican candidate is “more frightening now than he was a few weeks ago” and earlier that the GOP has become “the party of stupid.””
Nice.
#3 – Breetai – Call me crazy
Sure, plus ignorant asshole. Nope, I don’t charge you extra for that one.
#5 – I wondered the exact same thing. WTF do his politics have to do with ANYTHING when it comes to receiving the Nobel Prize for Economics?
Someone slap CNN. Again. Harder.
Angry liberal editors fail at making meaningful threads.
The story about Ringo Starr no longer wanting letters or autograph requests from fans is more interesting than this.
Looooooooooooove these professors who throw rocks from their ivory towers. Nice. Who’s the real idiot?
BTW, does his paper cover Sweden’s AVG?? That’s only about 20 years old.
Like I said…idiot.
James, you just explained how we ended up with GWB. Thanks, dude.
#5, #8
>>waah waaah waaah, they spoke about his
>>politics. WAAAH!
Even that old conservative stalwart, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall St. Journal, began their story thus:
“The Nobel prize in economics was awarded to Paul Krugman, a Princeton University scholar whose groundbreaking study on trade is less known to the public than his withering assessment of the Bush administration.“.
#10
loooooove those people who call nobel prize winners idiots.
please explain to me your competing theory of economics. please also provide mathematical analysis and raw data.
we’d all love to see it.
#10 – Brenda Lee
>>Looooooooooooove these professors who throw
>>rocks from their ivory towers. Nice. Who’s
>>the real idiot?
Yeah, it really sucks that all the smart people are libs, doesn’t it? Maybe they know something you don’t know. Naw….you know it ALL. Right?
HAW!!
Just like an intellectual to say “all” the smart people are libs…no, they’re not…duh.
Also, guess who owns Saab?
GM.
HELLO???!!
#13…if you knew anything about economics at all, you’d already understand there is no such thing as “competing” theories…just “theories”…off to The Economist web site…where the water’s a little deeper…no…a LOT deeper than here in the kiddie pool.
#15 – Brenda Lee
>>Also, guess who owns Saab?
>>
>>GM.
>>
>>HELLO???!!
And your point is?
>>Just like an intellectual to say “all” the
>>smart people are libs…no, they’re not…duh.
William F. Buckley Jr. was smart, but he’s dead.
#15
still waiting for you to detail your competing theory of economics that disproves the nobel laureate and proves that he is an idiot…
*crickets*
#11 – By being smarter than the liberal political establishment… which isn’t that hard? Yes, you’re right. Thanks for playing.
Actually, I have a question for the liberals on this thread (since none of you have stated anything interesting, and I want to help Eideard roll up the hit count):
You guys do realize this is nothing more than one liberal institution giving a liberal from another liberal institution an award… right?
The only difference between this and a military kickback is the amount of money involved. And it should be no surprise that the “winners” have more of it.
(How about a thread on the Dow gain today. Or Ringo Starr?)
#15
tell you what, i’ll make it easy for you
read the paper he won the prize for, and just pick one of the points he makes in the paper, and show how his analysis of the data is incorrect, and show how you would do it instead, thereby illustrating that he is an idiot, and that you are not.
*crickets*
#20
please join in and show us how his paper is incorrect in his analysis.
and show us how you would analyze the same data to come up with a different solution.
please, please prove to me that you are not just dismissing an academic work because you don’t like a man’s politics.
please prove to me that you know of a better hypothesis.
again, just disprove a single assertion in this man’s paper.
just one.
So, I read up on this. Has this guys theory been put to practical and beneficial use?
#20 – Jimbo
>>You guys do realize this is nothing more
>>than one liberal institution giving a
>>liberal from another liberal institution an
>>award… right?
Well. There’s a nice self-fulfilling prophecy. All the smart people are libs, smart people chooze Nobel laureates, and only smart people win the Nobel Prize, therefor the Nobel Prize committe is liberal.
HAW!!
Face it, Jim. You’ve aligned yourself with The Party of the Stupid.
How dare you call Ms Palin stupid.
Who is this Paul Krugman anyhow?
We don’t know the REAL Paul Krugman.
Paul Krugman wants you to fear the economy.
Paul Krugman wants to raise your taxes!
#15 & #20
Edison was a pacifist. or as you would call hime: dirty liberal, free thinker, know-it-all, making the world a better place, from his ivory tower, what a jerk.
Einstein worked at that pantheon of East Coast Elitism, Princeton. dirty liberal, helping us win the second world war, what a jerk.
Mark Twain was a liberal, dirty small-town hick, oh wait, he probably never drank a six-pack.
#15 & #20
educated + liberal = idiot
educated + conservative = hm… what do we call them? never actually seen one…
But wait! G.W. Bush is a member of the Moneyed American Aristocratic Elite and was educated where? Yale and Harvard.
That’s gotta hurt, knowing that your party’s president is right out of the Liberal Ivory Tower.
Oh wait, where did Reagan come from? HOLLYWOOD! that bastion liberalism and moral decay.
ouch.
kinda gotta suck, hunh? realizing you’re being lied to.
So, has this guys “theory” resulted in any betterment of anything for anyone?
Liberal: A member of a political movement that insists on knowing something about a topic before they come to a judgement of it. Characterized by a wide range of opinions, points of view, investigations, scientific inquiry and insistence on questioning things more frequently than accepting hearsay. The name of the movement is historic, not literal since Liberals show the greatest political tendencies to conserve energy, the environment, money, lives and the essential tenor and letter of the U. S. Constitution.
Conservative: A member of a political movement that insists on punishing perceived wrongdoers into complying with the letter of the law. Or charging rape victims for their forensic rape kits. Whichever comes first. Characterized by slogans, word inversions, aphoristic encapsulations of complex ideas, beliefs in radical religious positions and the embrace of fear itself as a tool of argument and persuasion. The name of the movement is historic, having nothing to do with the environment, money, lives or the U. S. Constitution.
[A near infinity of supporting material will be published here as soon as this blog allows infinite posts.]
#28
um, you can use his equations and theories to help predict future economic conditions, and you know, make money.
no one on this forum has shown any interest in disproving his theories.
#29 “Liberal: A member of a political movement that insists on knowing something about a topic before they come to a judgement of it. Characterized by a wide range of opinions, points of view, investigations, scientific inquiry and insistence on questioning things more frequently than accepting hearsay.”
Good. So, has this guys theory resulted in any improvement of anything?
I hope he writes a book because I always want to hear everyone’s angle on complex topics. However, his comments about the Reps apply equally to the Dems, so I question his objectivity. BOTH are responsible for the current mess.