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?
#61 – Jimmie
>>Just as I suspected: No one was able to
>>answer my simple question, proving that
>>liberals are unintelligent, dishonest and
>>uneducated.
So much anger, James. So much bitterness.
I answered your “question” (if you can call that keyboard flatus a “question”).
You should probably join that other fellow; put on your velour smoking jacket and fire up a doobie.
James, you’re not only logic-impaired, you’re an ass. Your birth was a waste of carbon and I win. See how easy that was?
jeez
#62 – Brenda Lee
>>Secondly, when all of you can stand up and
>>say, “Yes, I was educated in economics by a
>>professor who was an adviser to the U.N,”
Wooo. Are you saying you are a pseudo-scientist?
How about if told you I was educated in chemistry by a Nobel Prize winner (Herbert C. Brown) and in physiology by two (count ’em, TWO) Nobel prize winners in Physiology or Medicine (David Baltimore and Eric Kandel).
Pffft. STFU with yer “advisor to the U.N” posturing, poseur.
60
Milton wasn’t directly involved in any coups. But, his theories and his students were the economic policy makers in Chile and Argentina. In fact, in Chile, they sent students to Miltons class in Chicago to continue the policies that he implemented DIRECTLY through the Chilean government coup.
Conspiracy is one of those loaded words… if Conspiracy is one of those fringe elements, why is it a fundamental part of business education, and conspiracy a huge part of the legal system? Anyhoo, for a crash course in Friedman (james hill, if you’re reading this pay attention) pick up The Shock Doctrine.
#67 – Named
>>Anyhoo, for a crash course in Friedman
>>(james hill, if you’re reading this pay
>>attention) pick up The Shock Doctrine.
And at the same time, read the short piece by conservative think tank Cato’s Johan Norberg, who finds “[Naomi] Klein’s analysis is hopelessly flawed at virtually every level.“.
http://tinyurl.com/4af8s4
Unlike the book, this one is free.
I have no dog in this fight, and am neither a fan nor detractor of Friedman’s. However, Friedman’s involvement in all of this mischief seems to be a bone of contention, at best.
68,
Well, I read your link, which I thank you for. And it was a good read with some salient points. But, there was one distinct flavour which kept coming out… that was the Naomi blames Milton DIRECTLY for the crimes against humanity. She does no such thing.
What Naomi DOES do is co-relate the “free-market” ideology and how its uptake in the most chaotic regions of the world go hand-in-hand, with simaptico outcomes. Milton may not have clicked the “oppress and kill” button, but it was directly his teaches that enabled the “oppress and kill” directive that was SUPPORTED by the US government in all instances.
Its disingenious to claim that your teachings have no impact on the implementation of the theories when your theoretic implementation is what is used to further the goals of a foreign nations interest.
Anyhoo, go to your public library and sign the book out. It’s just as free as an online article, but you can also use it on the can, public transport, or, I guess if necessary, in the unemployment line. Hopefully you don’t need it in the latter.
I must agree that McCain is not the best money man around but if this dude isn’t scared to death by Obama’s ideas about how to handle the nations money he is at best nincompoop.
Okay he should fit right in with the Washington crowd.
70 posts and still no one has attempted to disprove a single assertion put forth in the paper for which this man won the nobel prize.
just a ton of bloviation about the merits of economics in general, the merits of the nobel prize, and a lot of confusion between “free trade” and “free markets” which are not interchangeable phrases.
just goes to show you that conservatives have no need to understand anything. nope, they only need to be prepared to assail the character of anyone who disagrees with their ideological overlords or simpleton talking points.
truly the party of the dumb.
i am disappointed.
He postulated that consumers like variety in what they consume. For the same expenditure, their satisfaction is greater if they have a larger variety of products available. This creates the incentive for firms to produce a large variety of products. But the production of a new variety has setup costs. This leads to declining per-unit costs as a larger quantity of the variety is produced and places a limit on the number of varieties the market can profitably supply. A firm produces a new variety only if it can capture a large enough market to allow profitable sales.
dangerous liberal stuff, or common sense?
gee i dunnno
weird shit happens when you actually read about the man’s work
dumbasses.
Grog, why do you feel it is necessary to point out errors in his Nobel work? The only reason he should be disqualified for a Nobel is not because of his politics but because the way he lets his politics affect his writing, to the point where it discredits the entire field.
It is when he is trying to talk about economics in the Times where he goes astray. He is extremely lazy with numbers, sometimes just copies them out of e-mail chain letters or something like that.
#23 because the nobel prize is awarded for a particular work, not for a particular person.
the nobel prize is not for work at the times.
please, stay on topic.
ooops #73
besides,
if you wanted to discredit the man, you might at least have pointed out that he was an economist at Enron.
i’m just so disappointed with the quality of conservative-based rhetoric of late. it’s only goal is to discredit the media, the awards, the this, the that. it’s as if the entire conservative movement no longer believes in itself. they only seem to find validation in tearing people down. it’s sad. i think that core conservative ideals are noble in their simplicity. when did the movement become so vacuous?
many great minds go nuts, turn evil, lose their edge. to wit, tesla was a loon, da vinci had a few screws loose, franklin was a womanizer, whatever, dali was a fascist, too.
george w. bush went to yale, and couldn’t be any more elite if he tried, for crissakes.
people change, but the works they produce outlive them.
let’s have a talk about krugman’s paper.
#73 – Lyin’ Mike
>>He is extremely lazy with numbers, sometimes
>>just copies them out of e-mail chain letters
>>or something like that.
Are you on crack?
Just take a look at what the ombudsman reported about Krugman. Getting a correction out of him was impossible.
You are right Grog. I think his economics work was Nobel worthy, and in most cases would leave it at that. It is the sheer intellectual laziness of his work at the Times that perhaps should be enough to outweigh what he did. I suspect it is that Times stuff that kept him from winning a Nobel for so long.
“This brings us to another point. Roach was one of the original deflation hawks beginning in early 2002 and Krugman jumped on the bandwagon last summer. In December, when Roach changed his mind about the outlook for deflation, Krugman followed suit two weeks later. Now Roach writes a detailed analysis of impact of oil shocks on the economy and a few days later Krugman makes similar points. We aren’t ready to accuse Krugman of pimping off of Roach yet, but the circumstantial evidence is growing.
”
Look up Krugman Truth Squad for more. Most of their complaints are about his politics, but you can see eviscerations of his economics articles as well. One particular example of his laziness is when he just forgets to divide by 10 when calculating how much money was spent on each job created.
As we pointed out in Squad report # 43, the current economic performance (3% growth and 5.7% unemployment) is right on the benchmarks he claimed (back in 1996) were the best that could be achieved and he castigated anyone who thought the economy could grow faster.
#59, Named,
When Milton Friedman died I was hoping for a total wash of his theories and implementations. Instead, we got lamentations about how great he was.
I cheered. One less idiot trying to influence people that the poor should starve because they can’t afford to feed themselves.
*
Economics is a Social Science. That branch includes Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science, and Psychology. The field is different from “hard” science such as Medicine, Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Astronomy, and other similar fields that require scientific principles.
#62, brenda,
#26…your lack of knowledge and education is showing…firstly, Edison’s best friend was Ford – a known fascist. Edison resorted to lying and tried to destroy Tesla.
The level some people stoop to win an argument.
Henry Ford was a Capitalist and a pacifist. To call him a fascist is simply wrong and out to lunch.
Secondly, when all of you can stand up and say, “Yes, I was educated in economics by a professor who was an adviser to the U.N,” then you can stay in the room and I’ll talk to you.
Eff you asswipe. I don’t understand how you can say something so stupid. I studied under an Economics Professor that had advised Gen. MacArthur AND worked for the UN and NATO. Plus he had been friends of Drs. Deming and Juran. But I didn’t enjoy Economics as a subject and don’t care what this guy’s credentials were. Maybe you should look those three guys up. You might learn something.
#81, Lyin’ Mike,
As we pointed out in Squad report # 43, the current economic performance (3% growth and 5.7% unemployment) is right on the benchmarks he claimed (back in 1996) were the best that could be achieved and he castigated anyone who thought the economy could grow faster.
If you insist on plagiarism you will look as foolish as what you write. In short, that looks ridiculous and totally unfathomable.
#83 – Señor Fusión
>>Eff you asswipe.
What Mr Fusion said.
…when you can stand up and say I was educated..
I guess the “education” didn’t stick. Such big words from such a little person. One thing you can take to the bank is that Brenda Lee will never be and advisor to the UN. She might qualify as an advisor to Sarah Palin, but whaddayagonna do. Sarah will be yesterday’s news in 3 weeks.
Little Miss Dynamite should stick to making music. I enjoyed her cover version of “Jamabalaya” and that “forgotten song” that Golden Earring sang about in “Radar Love”.
Grog,
Some very good posts and extremely pertinent question. Well done.
And my congratulations to Professor Krugman.