Comments on: Paul Krugman: ‘Nobel’ Laureate? http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/15/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate/ Citizen Economists is an online economics magazine written by citizen journalists. These ordinary citizens provide reports and commentary on the current events affecting the economics of the fields they work in. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:44:52 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: MannyfromNYC http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/15/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate/comment-page-1/#comment-2142 MannyfromNYC Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:16:29 +0000 http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=353#comment-2142 Initially, I was surprised that Krugman won, but after giving it a bit of thought, it made sense to some degree. He reportedly won because of research he conducted on the impact of globalization, although his views would put him to the left of free market proponents, and at odds with a colleague at the NY Times, the best-selling author Thomas Friedman, who describes himself as a "radical free marketeer." Anyway, I think being awarded the Nobel Prize for economics is simply an acknowledgement that one has done work that is respected and influencial, and probably ideologically compatible with the members of the Nobel committee. Personally, I am still awaiting Nobel Prizes for Jagdish Bhagwati or Douglas Irwin-both of whom I think are more deserving than Paul Krugman. Initially, I was surprised that Krugman won, but after giving it a bit of thought, it made sense to some degree. He reportedly won because of research he conducted on the impact of globalization, although his views would put him to the left of free market proponents, and at odds with a colleague at the NY Times, the best-selling author Thomas Friedman, who describes himself as a “radical free marketeer.”
Anyway, I think being awarded the Nobel Prize for economics is simply an acknowledgement that one has done work that is respected and influencial, and probably ideologically compatible with the members of the Nobel committee. Personally, I am still awaiting Nobel Prizes for Jagdish Bhagwati or Douglas Irwin-both of whom I think are more deserving than Paul Krugman.

]]> By: J.D. Seagraves http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/15/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate/comment-page-1/#comment-2132 J.D. Seagraves Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:26:43 +0000 http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=353#comment-2132 Anderson says: "Paul Krugman is not an economist. His colleagues in the economics profession and the editorial board of the Times may call him an economist, but that does not make him one. "This is harsh criticism, I realize, so I must explain my views in full. Yes, Krugman has a Ph.D. from MIT in economics, but his writings, both popular and academic, demonstrate that he does not believe in laws of economics. Instead, like most folks with socialist leanings, he believes that the state is both omniscient and omnipotent and simply by fiat can eliminate those pesky little problems caused by scarcity." Dr. Krugman does not "support" Smith and Ricardo, who are at extreme odds with Keynes. He does follow Keynes, whose theories are as discredited as the Greeks' "humours" theory of illness. And furthermore, Dr. Anderson isn't being "fashionable" -- he follows the always out-of-fashion (because it is anti-state) Austrian school. Anderson himself is a harsher critic of the Bush administration than Krugman (Krugman supported the bailout and bank nationalization), so you can't blame politics for Anderson's criticisms of Krugman either. Anderson says:

“Paul Krugman is not an economist. His colleagues in the economics profession and the editorial board of the Times may call him an economist, but that does not make him one.

“This is harsh criticism, I realize, so I must explain my views in full. Yes, Krugman has a Ph.D. from MIT in economics, but his writings, both popular and academic, demonstrate that he does not believe in laws of economics. Instead, like most folks with socialist leanings, he believes that the state is both omniscient and omnipotent and simply by fiat can eliminate those pesky little problems caused by scarcity.”

Dr. Krugman does not “support” Smith and Ricardo, who are at extreme odds with Keynes. He does follow Keynes, whose theories are as discredited as the Greeks’ “humours” theory of illness. And furthermore, Dr. Anderson isn’t being “fashionable” — he follows the always out-of-fashion (because it is anti-state) Austrian school. Anderson himself is a harsher critic of the Bush administration than Krugman (Krugman supported the bailout and bank nationalization), so you can’t blame politics for Anderson’s criticisms of Krugman either.

]]> By: Thierry Schlagdenhauffen http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/15/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate/comment-page-1/#comment-2131 Thierry Schlagdenhauffen Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:08:17 +0000 http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=353#comment-2131 What makes someone an economist? Apparently, Dr Anderson (whose name is totally unknown but from a few scholars), being a PhD in economist does not suffice, neither being published. Aha, wait a minute, he said it. To be an economist, you have to embrace the latests fashionable thoughts! Of course! you can't have your own opinion, if you're an economist! You just have to support what your colleagues are currently thinking. You can't be an economist and supporting Adam Smith, Keynes, or Ricardo! For sure, Krugman is controversial, because the Faculty is always suspecting people who are mixing academics and medias of having sold they soul to the devil. Jealoousy, jeasouly... What makes someone an economist? Apparently, Dr Anderson (whose name is totally unknown but from a few scholars), being a PhD in economist does not suffice, neither being published. Aha, wait a minute, he said it. To be an economist, you have to embrace the latests fashionable thoughts! Of course! you can’t have your own opinion, if you’re an economist! You just have to support what your colleagues are currently thinking. You can’t be an economist and supporting Adam Smith, Keynes, or Ricardo!

For sure, Krugman is controversial, because the Faculty is always suspecting people who are mixing academics and medias of having sold they soul to the devil.

Jealoousy, jeasouly…

]]> By: J.D. Seagraves http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/15/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate/comment-page-1/#comment-2063 J.D. Seagraves Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:47:53 +0000 http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=353#comment-2063 How many conservatives would have predicted that George W. Bush would make them pine for Clinton/Gore? We will have an Obama administration and here's something you can take to the bank, Evelyn: You will be VERY disappointed. How many conservatives would have predicted that George W. Bush would make them pine for Clinton/Gore?

We will have an Obama administration and here’s something you can take to the bank, Evelyn: You will be VERY disappointed.

]]> By: Evelyn Black http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/15/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate/comment-page-1/#comment-2062 Evelyn Black Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:09:08 +0000 http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=353#comment-2062 Really? I like Paul Krugman a lot. I guess it's good to have a variety of opinions here. It's hard to imagine anything making me pine for the days of Bush & Cheney though. I've never seen the U.S. as ideologically divided as I have since the Reagan years. That was a watershed moment, and the country has never recovered IMO, at least so far as unity goes. We're very divided, more than ever, and I think it does go all the way back to FDR. We're about to see Act Three of a very scary drama. Who will be right? Who knows. We may find out, or we may shift to 'D: None of the Above.' It's like that old curse: We live in 'interesting times'. Too bad! Thanks for the info on the Nobel prize. Maybe we could start our own here at the blog? I'll give it to you this year if you give it to me next year! Really? I like Paul Krugman a lot. I guess it’s good to have a variety of opinions here. It’s hard to imagine anything making me pine for the days of Bush & Cheney though.

I’ve never seen the U.S. as ideologically divided as I have since the Reagan years. That was a watershed moment, and the country has never recovered IMO, at least so far as unity goes. We’re very divided, more than ever, and I think it does go all the way back to FDR. We’re about to see Act Three of a very scary drama. Who will be right? Who knows. We may find out, or we may shift to ‘D: None of the Above.’

It’s like that old curse: We live in ‘interesting times’.

Too bad!

Thanks for the info on the Nobel prize. Maybe we could start our own here at the blog? I’ll give it to you this year if you give it to me next year!

]]> By: Abu Hatem أبو حاتم » More on the awful Paul Krugman http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/10/15/paul-krugman-nobel-laureate/comment-page-1/#comment-2038 Abu Hatem أبو حاتم » More on the awful Paul Krugman Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:20:49 +0000 http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/?p=353#comment-2038 [...] Citizen Economists discusses how critics of central banking rarely get the prize: Not surprisingly, critics of central banking - [...] [...] Citizen Economists discusses how critics of central banking rarely get the prize: Not surprisingly, critics of central banking – [...]

]]>