9 replies »

1. Paul received the award for his work in international trade, and had nothing to do with his blog or his views on health care. His research was important in establishing mathematical models to predict outcomes of various trade regimes. This work was completed nearly a decade ago, after which Paul seems to have moved into pop-Economics. His views on health care, while interesting, are no more informed than other Economists, like fellow Nobel Laureate Gary Becker (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/) or Greg Mankiw(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?_r=2&scp=9&sq=greg%20mankiw&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin).

2. tcoyote wrote: “Many of his academic colleagues, even on the left, believe he has depreciated his professional credentials by his shrill and vituperative OpEditorializing.”
   That is an interesting statement. References needed please.

3. The award is for his academic work, which is distinguished, not his editorials. However, he certainly helped his case with his outspoken criticism of Bush’s economic and political record. Many of his academic colleagues, even on the left, believe he has depreciated his professional credentials by his shrill and vituperative OpEditorializing.
   In other words, Krugman went “native”. The Nobel Foundation has used its recent awards to send America a message, most notably El Baradei’s Peace prize and the bitterly anti-American Harold Pinter in Literature. Noam Chomsky, you’re next!

4. I wonder myself how much the editorials/Bush criticism played a role.
   However, I was aware of Krugman’s academic credentials as pointed out by Gilles (so I don’t think at all that Frank’s complaints are of merit). What I find particularly unsettling is the fact that even a macroeconomist with highest credentials admitted that he – like his colleagues – had a good idea on how to settle the credit crisis (he improvises like we all do -or something similar – is what he wrote about Paulsson.

5. This is the fundamental failing of the present administration…If it comes from a reliable or university source, it must be “too liberal” and not worthy of consideration.

6. Congrats to Paul Krugman, great choice. Seems Paul’s view is coming true – although you’ll never get a Republican to admit that.

7. Frank’s remark is typical of the Republican war on science. It’s brutal, based on fallacies and innuendos and is of course non-factual.
   Paul Krugman is a Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the distinguished Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs of Princeton University. He is concurrently Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics. Before Princeton he taught at MIT as Ford International Professor of Economics. He also taught at Yale and Stanford Universities, and prior to that he was the senior international economist for the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, under Ronald Reagan (Frank, do your credentials come close to THAT?). We know him more for his Opinions at the NY Times but his academic work is very different and is the reason he got the Nobel prize. You can check a current a small idea paper on the causes of the current crisis.
   He is nonetheless able to write easy pieces including this one on healthcare.

8. Perhaps. But he was more right than a lot of people on foreseeing the economic mess in which we find ourselves. Maybe not Nobel-caliber right. But there are a lot of very talented people who ought to get a Nobel and don’t, so I’m not sure I would call this a travesty absent more info about the competition.

9. It’s a travesty. They have discredited and trivialzed their institution by citing such partisan editorializing and calling it economics.