You Cannot Be Serious! Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize

I will be writing a lot more about this, but the Swedes just made perhaps the worst decision in the history of the prize today in naming Paul Krugman the 2008 award winner.  It is not that Krugman's work is entirely without merit, but it always had major problems with it.  Right now I have to get over my shock and horror and write a commissioned piece on this.  But today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated.  Mises supposedly said during his dying days that he hoped for another Hayek, as I am picking up my jaw from the floor I am hoping for another Samuelson or Arrow to get the award rather the hackonomics that was just honored.

Addendum: My Forbes online column can be found here.

I already mentioned in the comments section Alex's first-rate summary of Krugman's contributions to New Trade Theory --- Alex does about as good a job as anyone could in explaining the contribution and its benefits to our understanding. It is a model of charitable interpretation of a theorist.  The consequences of Alex's interpretation focus on another side of the "appreciative theory" of how markets work.  But I think we have to remember that Krugman gets via monopolistic competition and the welfare implications for theory that implies.  This leads us down the road where the absence of public choice considerations produces a more optimistic view of how government can promote the desired ends than is warranted in theory let alone real practice.

Russ Roberts at Cafe Hayek has an assessment that is closer to mine, though Russ focuses on Krugman's popular statements and how they reflect an abandonment of the economic way of thinking.

Bob Higgs at the Independent Institute reacts to the Krugman prize.

Comments

[[email protected]]

What exactly is wrong with Krugman's models? I suppose you think Kirzner merited the prize.

Tyler Cowen seems to have a favorable view of PK's work.

[Nick]

Krugman criticizes Austrian trade cycle theory, which would obviously cause uproar here.

From my point of view, Krugman fits facts to suit his hypothesis - i.e. the poor are getting poorer. That said, he has done good work on economic geography.

[Ian Dunois]

I am just curious why we care about a prize awarded by a central bank?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics//

[mt]

So what is the silver lining here?

It seems that Krugman, by being a sole winner has been placed on par with Phelps, Mundell, Sen, Lucus, Becker, Coase, Allais, Solow, Buchanan, Modigliani, Debreu, Stigler, Tobin, Simon, Friedman, Leontief, Kuznets, and Samuelson.

Some of these winners have been advocates of limited markets. Krugman is an advocate of not only the democratic party but of intervention as an efficiency increasing tool. Here he is more like Friedrich List and Alexander Hamilton than any of these other thinkers.

Does Krugman become a visible scapegoat for what is wrong with protectionism, or does he give legitimacy to this?

Krugman's public economist role is enforced here. His penchant for appearing on CNN and telling people the true understanding of various economic events has now been give the highest stamp of approval in our profession. He is now the epitome of the economic expert. Combine this with a willingness to trade-off economic truth with political coherence and we have an interesting outcome.

Does the choice of Krugman undermine in any sense our notion of the economic expert? If so, what can we do to highlight the normative component of economic advice at this level? It seems possible to advance a case now that ideology and economics have a closer relationship than self-gratifying experts have claimed.

How our profession treats this award is a self-appraisal of "wertfreiheit" in real-time.

[Pierre Desrochers]

If it's any consolation, I can imagine that a number of economic geographers are feeling the same way this morning, but not for the same reasons (most of them agree with his politics). Funny how most economist like Tyler are "most fond of Krugman's pieces on economic geography, in particular on cities and the economic rationales for clustering" when in fact Krugman added very little to a body of knowledge that is more than a century old. But it was new to most economists...

[ZH]

What I am far more shocked at is that Krugman won it as a solo award when there at least four or five other trade people with equal or greater publications and impact. Bhagwati comes to mind first.

[Roger Koppl]

Pierre makes a good point about the originality of Krugman's work, at least if Rosser and Kindleberger are right.

In 1989 Kindleberger objected to the idea that "new" trade theory and "new" international economics were, in fact, new. "As I told Krugman at Helsinki, I find it a bizarre notion that increasing returns in international trade are new." He goes on to cite parts of his 1953 textbook "based on the 1929 article of John Williams reprinted in the AEA 'Readings in the Theory of International Trade.'" (From his chapter in Colander and Coat's "Spread of Economic Ideas," Cambridge U. Press, 1993.)

In 1999 Rosser makes a similar, but more severe, argument in a JEBO book review (31(3) pp. 450-454) regarding location theory. Rosser cites quite a few specific sources he thinks Krugman should have cited, sources that give, apparently, fully articulated mathematical models up the the level of technical sophistication Krugman reached. Rosser concludes, "If he is indeed the emperor of the new economic geography, then he is an emperor who has no clothes."

I don't know how far to push this line of reasoning, but it does look as though Krugman's contributions were less original than many have claimed.

[Sukrit]

Indeed, the great Hayek (who talked about money and liberty long before Friedman) was forced to share his prize, and Krugman gets a solo?

[Sukrit]

Krugman's work may have had major problems with it, but I don't think that Being wrong can still have utility - others can build on the work in the future, e.g. Albert Einstein built on the work of Isaac Newton.

The real problem with this whole charade of economics Nobel prizes is that it leads people to believe that economics is a precise science; it is not.

[Scott Jackson]

It seems clear to me, at least over the last several years, that the Nobel committee is at least in the social sciences and the Peace Prize, irrevocably politically entangled in a way that does not promote the notion of the prize as an objective measure of contribution, value or the high ideals of science. So, in my estimation Krugman's prize is more about partisan politics, and his willingness to lend his professional voice to the chorus of displeasure on the policies of the Bush Administration than on any real contribution to economics. This is clearly a better explanation for a sole prize than the value of his body of work cited in the prize notification. I just hope that at some point, the members of the committee will realize this penchant for using the prize to score political points does no service to the award and only diminishes its value and relevance.

[Brian Baugus]

This is just one more piece of evidence that the Nobel has come to be little more than a way to transfer wealth to the politically approved, especially in economics, literature and peace. This slow slide is sad but on Krugman did he not win the John Bates Clark Medal too. Given that the history of those who won the Clark medal and go on to win the Nobel is pretty strong, maybe we in our profession have only ourselves to blame for setting this embarassment up.

[Jonathan]

Even Krugman has said that his idea of increasing returns to scale in international trade wasn't an original idea, he acknowledges that it was quite old. He, however, was the first to show it with nice mathematical models. And, while his models may have a protectionist result, he his anti-protectionist.

Whether that makes him worthy of a Nobel prize is a different story, of course. It doesn't change who he is, and that Hayek had to share his prize doesn't change the greatness of Hayek (and, had Hayek not shared his prize, or declined his prize, his greatness would not have changed).

[Neel]

I agree with Roger and Pierre's remarks above. Another nice paper that challenges the originality of so-called 'new trade theories' is Andrea Maneschi's "What's 'new' in the new trade theory?".

Among the sources Krugman should have cited is Bertil Ohlin's "Interregional and International Trade", but he confessed in a paper ("Was it All in Ohlin?") delivered at a conference celebrating the centennial of Ohlin that he had never read Ohlin, the reason being that "modern economists, trained to think in terms of crisp formal models, typically have little patience with the sprawling verbal expositions of a more leisurely epoch" ! Interestingly, he had given the Ohlin Lectures a few years back (lectures which appear in his collection of essays "Development, Geography and Economic Theory"). Krugman's other essay "How to Be A Crazy Economist" is also interesting on this issue.

[Mario Rizzo]

If a group of "mainstream" economists would draft a letter of protest based on the academic merits I'd happily sign it. But protests by conservative and libertarian economists will look bad -- mean-spirited, politically motivated. Furthermore, this is really a distraction from more fundamental matters like the beginning of a decades-long attack on free markets generated by the financial crisis and the lack of good responses by most, though not all, free-market economists (so far).

[Vedran]

I don't understand everyone's surprise. The direction of the Nobel Prize committee was pretty evident to me when Al Gore won last year.

Also, I disagree with Dr. Rizzo. I believe his analysis is exactly correct, people will see that our attack is politically motivated. But that's what we want because it will show the other side is politically motivated as well! We're right and libertarian. They're left. That's the perspective we need people to think about.

The power of the Nobel is that it claims to be objective. Let's show it to be strictly left and disarm it. We need everyone from talk radio, academia, and journalism defining the Nobel Committee as a leftist organization. It's time to end the respect of this group once and for all.

[Vedran]

Even if it means the loss of esteem for some of our own past winners....

[Steve Horwitz]

Given how many past winners of Nobels have been pretty hard-core free market folks, any attack on this selection by free market types will look shallow and infantile. I'm not sure his scholarly work is Nobel-worthy, but so be it. We can complain around the water cooler and lunch table, but anything organized will look silly.

[Vedran]

Steve,

The Nobel Prize has been and always will be simply a generally acceptable logical fallacy from authority. Just because free market supporters have gotten some awards is not a good reason to keep persisting this prize.

I think our ideas are good enough to stand alone without Nobel Prizes. I don't think the left's are. In the long run, we would benefit from demeaning the prize even if it costs us some face.

We won in the past, but the whole argument is about the present. This isn't the same committee that chose Hayek and we shouldn't pretend that it is. If we do, we only lend more power to Krugpot's post prize winning works.

[Vedran]

If all we do is talk around the water cooler and the lunch table, sooner rather than later that will be the only places our voices are heard.

[Emily]

Is this just one more reason to fear that the Age of Milton Friedman is coming to an end? The worldwide growth experienced over the past decade began with ideas influencing politics. Thacher and Regan liberalized markets and trade, inspired by the likes of Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. Despite public choice problems of reform and implementing good economics (which Friedman and Hayek understood) - ideas matter.

Following the Great Depression, the idea that socialism was possible grew out of academic arguments for interventionism. The anti-market rhetoric and public opinion allowed for the interventionism that followed. I agree (in part) with Prof. Rizzo. The financial crisis will bring on decades of market attacks, but Krugman's Prize will only compound the influence of these ideas in ways that I don't think are well understood. What will be the result of "strategic trade theory" if protectionism is the mechanism for increasing returns?

[Steve Horwitz]

Vedran,

No one is saying we should "only" talk around the water cooler or lunch table. Lord knows I've been out in public on the current crisis. My point is that complaining about this Nobel makes us look juvenile and silly, the LAST thing we need right now when the forces of ideology and politics are lined up against us.

We need to pick our battles: bitching about a Nobel Prize is FAR less important than controlling the narrative about the crisis.

And, FWIW, I don't think this was as awful of a choice as Pete does. My complaint would be only that I think there are more deserving people out there. Is PK's scholarly work "Nobel-worthy"? Maybe, maybe not in my view. But it is in the eyes of many, which is how this thing works.

I'd rather someone else (several someone elses) had one it, but I'm not going to the barricades over this choice.

[Steve,]

Steve,

So you think Krugman is not going to write anything about the current crisis???? Yes controlling the narrative is important and guess who's going to be doing it from the opposition's side.

And if you really think Krugman is not such a bad choice. I mean what can I say

[Vedran]

oh sorry that was me directly above. I wrote "Steve" by accident addressing Dr. Horwitz.

[Steve Horwitz]

Sorry Vedran, I don't judge Nobel winners by their politics alone. There are left-leaning economists who have won deservingly and someone like Mankiw probably deserves one down the road.

[Vedran]

oh sorry that was me directly above. I wrote "Steve" by accident addressing Dr. Horwitz.

[Vedran]

Steve,

I don't either.

[Roger Koppl]

FWIW, I'm with Steve entirely on this one.

I don't like the choice this year quite apart from what he says on CNN and such. But I must admit that he did have a big role in shaping the discourse in economics, which is the central criterion for the Prize.

New trade theory was a big deal regardless of how new it might really have been and regardless of the fact that he more or less said it didn't really matter in his famous AER piece, published shortly after Clinton appointed Tyson head of the Council of Economic Advisors. Similarly, Krugman put location economics on the map (as it were!) pretty much single handedly. There seems to be serious question whether he gave adequate acknowledgment to prior work. The Rosser quote I gave earlier was quite harsh. But it was his work that put that sort of thing into the middle of economic discourse.

It's not the call I'd have made for sure. I think we can grouse amongst ourselves that the committee blew it this year. But that's about as far as you can go.

[Vedran]

I didn't think I'd see the day libertarians would be defending Paul Krugman. Pretty sad

[Steve Horwitz]

I thought you didn't judge your Nobel prize winners by their politics Vedran? If that's the case, of what relevance is it that "libertarians" are defending Krugman? If the prize is about something other than politics, our politics should be irrelevant.

[Matěj Šuster]

Vedran:
(Mildly) defending "Krugman the theorist" is not the same as defending "Krugman the Big - Government Ideologue".

In any case, the "Nobel" price in economics should be abolished.

[Vedran]

Steve,

Show me where I said that I was judging Nobel Prize winners by politics? I was simply saying considering the beliefs of most libertarians, it is strange that they would defend someone like Krugman. That is not a statement about Krugman, but a statement about "get along" libertarians.

My point is more so with Matej Suster which has been ignored. Whatever reason the prize is given, it has gotten out of hand as it is simply used as an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. It's like a nuclear weapon. It would be best for all if no one had them.

[Roger Koppl]

Vedran,

I'm having trouble following the discussion. Please name names. Who are the <<"get along" libertarians>> who would <>?

[Roger Koppl]

Oops. Something in my orthography messed up this blogs program. I asked who the get along libertarians are who would defend Krugman.

[Steve Horwitz]

The question of whether having a Nobel Prize in economics is a separate question. I could be convinced to scrap it.

But if politics is not the criterion by which to judge Nobel Prizes, why are you talking about "get along" libertarians and being surprised by what some are saying about Krugman?

If you believe Nobel Prizes are based on one's contribution to economics as a discipline, then you shouldn't be surprised that *libertarians* are defending Krugman. You might be surprised that some *economists* are because you think PK's contributions aren't worthy on scientific grounds. But why single out libertarians? Why should one political group be surprising in its defense unless you, in spite of your protestations, don't think PK deserves the prize because of his political views.

I'm not necessarily convinced his contributions are Nobel-worthy. I KNOW Walter Williams (as much as I love him) doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize either. Both of those are my judgments as an economist.

If you believe what you say you believe, you'd be really pissed off if Walter won it. I'm betting that you'd be partying in the streets. :)

[Roger Koppl]

Roger,

If you could first give me names of who are libertarians, then we can begin. You know so that we both know exactly who we are talking about.

[Vedran]

Steve,

No that's exactly what I'm saying. If we could take away both Hayek's and Krugman's Nobel Prize. I would do it!

It's really silly to give prizes for contributions in a field because if you really made contributions everyone knows it. No prize necessary, your name is on everyone's lips.

If Krugman's Nobel Prize credential only showed up underneath articles dealing with the specific topic for which he won it, I would be alright with that.

But unfortunately, they will appear under topics which most economists would not see as Nobel Prize worthy.

[Vedran]

"Roger,

If you could first give me names of who are libertarians, then we can begin. You know so that we both know exactly who we are talking about.

Posted by: Roger Koppl | October 13, 2008 at 02:14 PM"

Sorry that's me. I keep doing that for some reason. Gotta slow down.

[Roger Koppl]

Not sure I get that last post, but it was not posted by me. "You know that we both know exactly who we are talking about" I do have a guess. But if my guess is right, then the comments of Vedran are merely goobledygook. That is why I asked him to be more explicit, which is a fair question.

[Krugman! OMFG! No WAY!]

I've often thought that, in the interest or promoting his ideas as superior, pointing out the fact that Hayek got a Nobel prize in economics was treading on shaky ground, because of the unabashed statism of several of the other economomists who were also Nobel prize recipients.

But this clinches it: Paul Krugman has been awarded a Nobel prize in economics.

I know the Swedes have had their challenges with socialism, but how far left can they go before they've completely stripped a Nobel prize award of all legitimacy? What's next, a posthumous Nobel for Marx? Hey, that guy did a lot in the field of economics, right?

How much you want to bet Hayek would return his Nobel now if were alive? It's now officially a joke.

[Bob Murphy]

I agree with Professor Rizzo. I was stunned by the announcement, because (a) nobody had been predicting it and (b) Krugman is so obviously political. But be that as it may, I am biting my tongue because I have a feeling that the Committee will come to appreciate my work on the pure time preference theory any year now...

[Jose Melendez]

If you have to take your time to write about why Krugman does not deserve the nobel prize this year is because you have no idea what you are talking about. His contributions already shaked hard mainstream economics in several dimensions and branches of literature. Just because he pointed out the important of space in economic analysis (which is actually the main reason why he is recieving this prize) is, for me, more than enough. Traditionally economics has been ignoring space, that is actually something to be depressed when you dedicate your life to do economics... This is actually a great day for the profession.

[anarchomisesian]

Jose why don't you learn to read and write in english prior to blasting Dr Boettke. Peter Boettke is one of the greatest living economists in the world.

Get back under your left-keynesian krugman worshipping rock with the rest of your commie obama loving friends.

[Inquisitor]

We should care what Cowen thinks, because...?

[Peter Boettke]

Alex at Marginal Revolution has about the best and most sympathetic discussion of Krugman's contributions with the development of new trade theory. Alex's points are very good and everyone who is more or less appalled by the choice should look at Alex's more measured assessment.

My own more negative assessment will be available shortly at Forbes online.

BTW, my 1997 paper "Where Did Economics Go Wrong?" originally had an entire section on the New Trade Theory. The original draft of that paper consisted of 6 lectures I gave at the Central European University and CERGE in Prague in January 1993. My lectures focused on Joe Stiglitz, but also addressed the new models of market socialism, the new Keynesian models, and the new trade theory models. But the new trade discussion was dropped as we headed toward publication of that article. So my criticisms of Krugman's models are not inspired by the attention of the Nobel Prize but deep. I do hope that readers will look at Alex's rendering of Krugman, and then Krugman himself, and then the sort of questions I raise in my Forbes piece (admittedly op ed's do not substitute for real scholarship) and see the continuity and discontinuity in the different presentations.

I do admit that if Krugman accomplished what Alex says he did (which he did) he is a very worthy recipient of this prize. I just thing the way that Krugman developed his arguments and the implications he drew from them are slightly different points of emphasis than what Alex sees (though of course Alex's points are there).

Pete

Pete

[Michael]

Doctor Boettke,

In light of your comments on Prof Tabarok's post at MR, Do you stand by your remark that the prize for Krugman is the worst in the history of the prize?

[Peter Boettke]

To Michael --- YES I do for reasons I spell out in my Forbes column and also due to what I think in the hands of Alex is a very charitable interpretation.

I actually had this very discussion with Krugman at the AEA meetings at Disney Land in CA during the 1992 meetings, where he presented his Is Free Trade Passe? paper. We spoke for about 5 to 10 minutes. He would have no reason to remember me --- I was an assistant professor at NYU and visiting Stanford the year, and not a thinker of any measure compared to him, and he was famous. But I did ask him about the implications of his papers along lines similar to Alex and also raised doubts about his full acceptance of the public choice points. I don't think he was too impressed with me on either front. But my critique is not, honestly, due to Krugman dismissing me as not worthy of serious conversation over 15 years ago. It is because of a confusion in the New Trade Theory which I tried to lay out in my lectures in Prague --- which took place one month after the AEA meetings.

Pete

[SP Phil]

Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a pejorative term used in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to describe what is seen as a leveling social attitude. Someone is said to be a target of tall poppy syndrome when his or her assumption of a higher economic, social or political position is criticized as being presumptuous, attention seeking, or without merit. Alternatively, it is seen as a societal phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are criticised or resented because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers.

[SP Phil]

Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a pejorative term used in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to describe what is seen as a leveling social attitude. Someone is said to be a target of tall poppy syndrome when his or her assumption of a higher economic, social or political position is criticized as being presumptuous, attention seeking, or without merit. Alternatively, it is seen as a societal phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are criticised or resented because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers.

[Bogdan Enache]

Alex Tabarrok's points are of course correct, but he doesn't points out the drawbacks of Krugman's theory : his achievement is to conceptualize (international, if you want) trade with heterogeneous products and product differentiation, to bring - in a way - the demand side into a more detailed theory, but the only way ha could achieve this is by appealing to the monopolistic competition model, hence Krugman's occasional protectionist rhetoric.

By the way, Ricardo's "model" of comparative advantage has as determinants not only factor endowments, but also technology (the English were selling manufactured goods in exchange for Portueguese agricultural products, right ?) - whence the whole "infant industry" critique.

[Jimmy]

Well, all I can say is that if Peter B's attack on new trade theory is as weak and ill-informed as his critique of efficiency wage theory then Krugman and his followers have nothing much to worry about.

[david dom]

don't speak ill of the others if you are stupid

[liberty]

General Question:

Should the winners of the Nobel (assuming for the moment that it should exist) win for a single contribution in a small and specific area, even if their other contributions, which may influence their generalized conclusions, are based upon inaccurate models which have been proven false already and dismissed by the science?

Just curious what you all think.

[David]

As a participant in a Regional Science Association conference (an association of spatial, regional and urban economists as well as economic geographers) I noticed that Krugman seemed to be everyone's least favorite economist. I asked several people there why they disliked Krugman so much, and it seems that spatial economists and economic geographers consider him a popularizer of old ideas and a borderline plagiarist. This had nothing to do with politics (although even some left-wing liberals in the same meeting criticized his newspaper articles for being superficial and self-centered).

[Sukrit]

The real question that needs to be asked is - what is it about Krugman that lets him achieve a well-paid post at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, while Austrian economists languish in lesser known colleges and can't get published in the mainstream media?

This is not an insult. I really think some serious thought needs to be put into becoming more influential: how is it done? Perhaps it has to do with publishing in academic journals rather than in-house publications (e.g. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Independent Review). Perhaps it has to do with appealing to popular passions.

If more Austrian economists were in tenured positions at the Ivy league universities, it would be easy enough to have capitalised on the financial troubles plaguing America in the same manner that the Chicago School took advantage of the stagflation of the 1970s.

[Ludwig van den Hauwe, Ph.D.]

Well, I am not sure I agree with your assessment. Krugman got the Prize for "International Trade and Economic Geography". That´s OK. By very emphatically _not_ mentioning any other stuff - such as Krugman´s nonsense on cycle theory and financial crises - the Swedes have set the record straight. We now know what Krugman is really good at and, a contrario, also that he must be very bad about the rest.

[Ludwig van den Hauwe, Ph.D.]

But I agree that Samuelson and Arrow were much better...

[Jackey]

Yes, PK is a nice guy. He's not particularly self-loving and is generally nervous. Nervousness comes natural to him and makes him likable.

Do we need countless more refinements of existing models, or do we need better enforcement and regulation? Go austrian.

[Shane Sanders]

Krugman deserves two Nobel Prizes. This post represents fringe angst at its best (worst).

[Shane Sanders]

Krugman deserves two Nobel Prizes. This post represents fringe angst at its best (worst).

[Shane Sanders]

Krugman deserves two Nobel Prizes. This post represents fringe angst at its best (worst).

[Joseph]

A scientist – unlike Krugman - is someone who identifies the truth, whatever that is, without bias. Economics is the science of what is (or what works), not what one wants it to be. Krugman, on the other hand, is a flame throwing radical leftist with an extreme ideological bent, who is incapable of rational thought beyond his progressive psychosis. Marxist equality trumps scientific economics and reason.

Krugman’s Nobel Prize in Economics is similar to the Dixie Chicks, the Clintons and Obama garnering more Grammy Awards than the Beatles. These recording “artists” won because of the ideological leanings of the award givers, not because their recordings were superior to Abbey Road. Likewise, with Krugman’s Nobel win, economics has become a joke to those of us who once considered economics to be legitimate scientific endeavor. I’m nauseated, bemused and disgusted.

[simmo]

The vast preponderance of nobel prizes in economics have been awarded to free marketeers - notably from the chicago school. They award the prize to Krugman and you all are up in arms! Yet no left economists whines that the committee awarded the prize to the obscure James Buchanan...

[simmo]

"If a group of "mainstream" economists would draft a letter of protest based on the academic merits I'd happily sign it. But protests by conservative and libertarian economists will look bad -- mean-spirited, politically motivated. Furthermore, this is really a distraction from more fundamental matters like the beginning of a decades-long attack on free markets generated by the financial crisis and the lack of good responses by most, though not all, free-market economists (so far)."

I don't think any mainstream economists would object. In fact ALL mainstream economists that I have read or heard have praised krugman's selection. The reason you guys object to his academic work is precisely because of his politics. Your objection to the his prize is therefore political not academic. Now non economists will see his prize as adding weight to his opinions and rightly so I might add. The vast majority of his opinion pieces are well thought out and very well argued. His predictions eventuate more often than not (recall his work on currency crises). And most importantly, he has provided considerable opposition to free marketeers who once dominated public discourse in economics. It used to be the case that lefties were associated with tree hugging hippies who knew nothing about economic realities - and it was up to neoclassical and austrian economists to provide the bad news to these well meaning, but naive pundits. They did this mostly by espousing counterintuitive ideas like universal health care would be bad for everyone (despite the fact that all other industrial countries have this). Then along came people like Krugman (and stiglitz and akerloff and others). These guys used economic data and theory to support their Keynesian ideas. And surprise, surprise... most people agree with them. That is at the heart of this vehement opposition by libertarians to Krugman's prize.

[Miako]

If you can't hack the crash, you don't get the prize.
Nyah Nyah Nyah.

[FreeDem]

With Milton Friedman economics crashing down around our ears, the biggest problem Krugman has is that the Nobel Prize has been so devalued buy such previous winners.

This is late to the comment party but is apparently still hawked about the Internet as a sensible point.

[Stephen]

Hey Vedran, What do you think about Krugman now that the whole structure has collapsed (as he so deftly predicted). Does the word "genius" come to mind? Or are you still working on that petition?

[Dissertation Introduction]

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!

[Buy Viagra]

Oh, this blog is really amazing!!! it catched my attention since the first time that i saw it and i must to say i spend a great time reading, because i usually like to discover new things. Really nice blog.

[simmmo]

lol, you should change your blog title to "sour grapes . com"

[John Clarke]

There is nobody so right wing as someone who claims to be "neutral".

Like idiots who confuse economics with science.

PK is the only economist publicly to nail the cronyism and corruption behind the so-called Irish bailout.

Presumably all the self-proclaimed heavy-hitters who ought to have won were too busy engaging in intellectual onanism and professional bitching to bother with the real world.

[John Clarke]

Maybe you should set up a “World Series Prize” for Economics. Confine entry to WASPS in the US (the rest of the world’s opinions don’t matter) who either support – or, at least avoid criticising – Republican economic theory.

China is a one-party dictatorship where censorship and state thuggery are common - that's Communism folks - even though US Republicans and assorted tea brains think that a moderate centre-right politician like Obama is a "Communist" - utterly laughable, to anyone in the real world outside the childish bitch-fest of US "politics".

The Chinese are furious about a Nobel prize being awarded to an anti-establishment dissident in China and are calling for a separate prize to be set up -to be awarded only to people that they agree with politically.

Take a look in the mirror guys.

You may also wish to ponder the latest science about liberal and right wing brains:
http://www.mlive.com/michigan-job-search/index.ssf/2011/01/study_brains_of_conservatives_have_large.html
The bigger tragedy is all this tedious spite in US politics is the slow death of the US as a world power. US influence is waning. The Chinese are in your rear view mirror. To compete, Americans need to get a passport, go abroad and look from afar at the silliness of two centre right parties squabbling about f*** all – and realise that the US needs to grow up internally before it can compete internally. Debate is healthy; but US politics has gone beyond healthy debate to tedious, knee-jerk disagreements and personal attacks on between adherents of the two main parties.

Wake up, before the Chinese leave you for dead.

[Cooling System]

I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin!