Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Paul Krugman Awarded Nobel Prize For Economics

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the too-smart-fr-government dept.

Sci-Fi 425

zogger writes in his journal, "The guy who put together the concept of geographical location combined with cheap transportation leading to 'like trades with like' and the rise of superindustrial trading blocs has won the Nobel economics science prize. He's a bigtime critic of a lot of this administration's policies, and is unabashedly an FDR-economy styled fella. Here is his blog at the NYTimes." Reader yoyoq adds that Krugman's career choice was inspired by reading Asimov's Foundation series at a young age.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Seems like a very cool guy (2, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | about 6 years ago | (#25374941)

He was on the newshour with Jim Lehrer last night and spoke intelligently and seemed very down to earth. I had a real respect for him when he mentioned he was inspired by Asimov.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=13102008&seg=5 [pbs.org]

Re:Seems like a very cool guy (5, Informative)

wrecked (681366) | about 6 years ago | (#25375919)

I had a real respect for him when he mentioned he was inspired by Asimov.

For more geek cred: while at Princeton in 1978, Krugman wrote a tongue-in-cheek paper titled The Theory of Interstellar Trade [princeton.edu] (PDF) (see Slashdot article [slashdot.org] on it).

Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (0, Troll)

Gat0r30y (957941) | about 6 years ago | (#25374959)

The Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] seems most concerned with Krugman's potential to be an ass about it:

said one of Mr. Krugman's Princeton associates, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But now he's walking around like he's Jay-Z or something."

So... when is Hova gonna get the Nobel?

Re:Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (-1, Flamebait)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | about 6 years ago | (#25375025)

potential

It appears as if that ship has sailed. Krugman did some incredibly important work when it comes to trade, but his opinions over the last decade have certainly had a hint of douchebaggery. I haven't really followed him (I'm afraid I'm not really into hero worship when it comes to economics), but it certainly seems as if this choice was largely political [realclearmarkets.com] .

Re:Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375283)

So you haven't really followed him, but you know his work has "a hint of douchebaggery". You, sir, are an idiot, of the kind that does not recognize he is an idiot.

Re:Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375429)

You admit you haven't read up on him but conclude he's a "douchebag" anyway, and to knock this left-leaning economist you link to an article from a right-wing publication that declares without evidence that if somebody wins an honor who just so happens to be critical of the Bush administration, the honor is due to politics. You sure it isn't instead that reality's well-known liberal bias is grabbing the Republicans by the ear and taking them out to the woodshed for a much deserved whipping?

Re:Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (1, Insightful)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | about 6 years ago | (#25375627)

I don't think you read the article. It did highlight a few of the nonsensical remarks he's made over the past decade, and those were what I was referring to. No, I haven't followed him, but that doesn't mean I haven't read a few of his remarks. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I concluded that "he's a douchebag." I believe the words I used were "hint of douchebaggery," which could be interpreted as "indication," not "definite proof." Lastly, you can say what you want about some alleged bias that reality has towards "liberals", but given the virulent nature of Krugman's recent political opinions, it's very hard to ignore the political aspect of his being chosen.

Re:Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (3, Informative)

StevenMaurer (115071) | about 6 years ago | (#25375045)

The author of the article was joking.

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com.

Re:Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | about 6 years ago | (#25375067)

Indeed he was - though I have always subscribed to the philosophy that something isn't funny if you have to point out that its a joke (I just thought the Jay-Z comment was too funny not to share).

Re:Huff post concerned primarily with douchbaggery (3, Funny)

retchdog (1319261) | about 6 years ago | (#25375843)

retchdog's corollary to Gat0r30y's law: Nothing is funny on slashdot.

inspiration (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25374963)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

Re:inspiration (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375197)

I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush.

Barack Obama is leading the way in saving the environment by not flushing. John McCain requires 3 or 4 flushes. Because he's full of shit.

Re:inspiration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375537)

Just wait jackass. In 6 months, President Obama will have your fucking ass deported to gitmo.

Deserved (5, Insightful)

RJBeery (956252) | about 6 years ago | (#25374967)

I'm not saying that Paul Krugman does not deserve a Nobel Prize, but I would like to point out that the judging and awarding process of said prize is subject to the political agenda of those involved, just like the wording of this submission.

Agenda: It's everywhere! (3, Insightful)

orthancstone (665890) | about 6 years ago | (#25375081)

Honestly, as long as you voice an opinion in some editorial form that serves more than a handful of national papers, you are inevitably tied to an agenda by someone else even if you don't claim one (that's not to say Krugman hides his agenda).

My point, of course, is that whining about agenda is a symptom of feeling the need crying bias about other people's ideas/opinions. Apparently we, intelligent beings, have come so far that we'd rather just bitch about bias than have a worthwhile discourse.

In summary, stop crying about political agenda; the longer we waste on it, the faster we continue to ignore the real problems that need serious critical thinking.

Re:Agenda: It's everywhere! (3, Insightful)

RJBeery (956252) | about 6 years ago | (#25375227)

When the TRUE agenda differs from the STATED agenda, I have a problem. Conservative talk radio, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, and the DailyKos have their agendas but it doesn't bother me because they seem consistent. What bothers me is when proclaimed non-political entities seem to have significant political bias driving their actions.

Re:Agenda: It's everywhere! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375619)

The NRA? Planned Parenthood? Conservative Talk radio?

Jesus man - Consistent?

I want whatever you are smoking... seriously...

Re:Agenda: It's everywhere! (4, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 6 years ago | (#25375629)

Conservative talk radio is consistent? Actually let's put this in context. [fill in the blank] talk radio is consistent?

One thing that people have to remember is that conservatives more likely than not are not going to win awards. And that liberals will...

Think hard about this. What is a conservative? Somebody who believes in their ideals and fundamentals. Thus they are not thinking about the future, but the past.

On the other hand a liberal challenges the notion of today and looks at what could be.

A conservative today is yesterday's liberal.

Go back in history and look at conservative stances, and liberal stances.

Women rights: Conservative of 2000 would say hey yes why not. Liberal of 1800 would say "hey yes why not." Conservative of 1800 would say, "blasphemy"

So you see, a conservative will always be two or three, or four steps behind the real action...

Re:Agenda: It's everywhere! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375423)

When does stating the truth become whining? People may not be able to see the bias because of their own personal bias. It has to be pointed out to them. Your post adds nothing to worthwhile discourse.

The Slashdot Agenda by kdawson (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375503)

Not only is this story days old, it has very little relevance to slashdot, unless you happen to be Paul Krugman fan (which I'm sure kdawson is, that's he posted this).

I mean slashdot doesn't really cover economics, and a story about a liberal economist winning a prize gets posted to the front page? The connection to sci-fi is really thin cover for promoting a rabid anti-Bush columnist.

It's sickening how kdawson gets to use slashdot as his own personal blog sometimes, especially in regards to politics.

Re:The Slashdot Agenda by kdawson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375825)

time to call the whaaaaaambulance!

Re:Agenda: It's everywhere! (3, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 6 years ago | (#25375505)

Says the obvious democrat. But seriously, I think you're wrong.

My point, of course, is that whining about agenda is a symptom of feeling the need crying bias about other people's ideas/opinions

Right, just like Einstein's theory of relativity is a symptom of his hatred of Newton. The other option is that the nobel committee has a clear bias towards what Americans view as the left, and people who point that out are doing so in an attempt to find the truth. Or, in other words, you're showing your own bias by your attack. If he's wrong, point it out, but the fact that he's crying "bias" just implies that he's of the opinion that they're biased, not that he feels insecure.

Hayek and Friedman got one too (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375327)

Does that mean the Nobel people endorse all their political viewpoints? Even though I might agree they were more deserving.

Krugman, is getting a nod for specific contributions to economic theory, not full approval of a progressive worldview. And in many specific areas of global free trade, Krugman is closer to Friedman than the duds who will be inheriting the current mess. (And likely to make it worse, I might add)

But Krugman's worthiness in economic theory should not be diminished just because he is a stinking liberal from a stinking party whose 8 years of invertebrate opposition to the dumbest president ever is getting rewarded with a mandate to control all branches of government. And the rise not of Clintonian Blue Dogs, but the reddest of greens. Yuk and woe unto the currency.

Re:Hayek and Friedman got one too (3, Insightful)

Shatrat (855151) | about 6 years ago | (#25375447)

Does that mean the Nobel people endorse all their political viewpoints?

Since Al Gore and Yasir Arafat, it seems like political viewpoint is the most important thing for consideration for a Nobel prize.

Re:Hayek and Friedman got one too (4, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | about 6 years ago | (#25375473)

Good job confusing the Nobel Peace Prize, the Prize in Economics, and the scientific Nobel Prizes, which are selected by different groups and with different criteria.

Re:Hayek and Friedman got one too (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about 6 years ago | (#25375739)

Are you saying that they are not all under the control of the Nobel Foundation, or that the actions of one committee should not reflect at all on the rest of the foundation?

Re:Deserved (0, Offtopic)

SirLanse (625210) | about 6 years ago | (#25375355)

He needs to read the forgotten man
http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0066211700/ref=tag_tdp_sv_edpp_pop_t
It details how FDR made a minor recession into the Great Depression.
Socialism has FAILED everywhere it has been tried.
Capitalism is not perfect, but then again humans are not perfect.
Stop giving MY MONEY to other people!
Taking less money is not the same as giving money.
Tax breaks are not welfare.

economics is a soft science (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#25375403)

the issues involved are to some degree subjective. its not like physics where you can make a hard true or a hard false out of an issue

therefore, it is absolutely impossible to talk about economics without some sort of bias. of course there is blatant purposeful bias, and then there is an honest attempt at intellectual honesty, in spite of the bit of bias we all have

everyone serious realizes this. then there is sort of paranoid partisan type that sees agendas and bias everywhere they look. this kind of hysterical approach to the subject matter only cheapens you, so you need to lose your hypersensitivity to the issue of bias, you only make yourself look foolish

Re:economics is a soft science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375885)

the issues involved are to some degree subjective...

I would tend to disagree, some of the issues are subjective while a lot of issues have pretty good and very technical mathematical models to back up a lot of conclusions. Here is a recent paragraph from an article dealing with the bailout that describes the suits vs geeks relationship:

"Harvard finance professor Robert Merton, a Nobel laureate, notes that one of the problems at large financial institutions is the gap between the executives and the financial engineers, or what I call the "suits" and the "geeks." The geeks possess knowledge that is highly specialized and extremely technical. Many suits have never even taken a course in the fundamentals of valuing complex financial instruments, even though the health of their firms depends crucially on that very issue.

Today, the suits are saying that mortgage-backed securities are undervalued, and that if the government just holds them to maturity it will make a profit. But the geeks will tell you that we cannot be certain these securities are undervalued."

I haven't studied Krugman's work, but I believe it is pretty technical in nature, and if he didn't quite deserve a Nobel based solely on his work, from what I've read it is still top notch. By the way this was written by someone who generally disagrees with a lot of Krugman's NY times columns.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/main-street-vs-wall-street [american.com]

Re:Deserved (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 6 years ago | (#25375443)

This really requires mentioning that the prize in Economics is not one of the Nobel Prizes, though there is limited political influence on the selection. The more-often-criticized selection, the Peace Prize, has much heavier political influence, but is decided by a different committee and hosted by a different country.

The scientific Nobel Prizes are quite free of political agenda.

Re:Deserved (4, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 6 years ago | (#25375547)

Interesting...

Did you maybe happen to look at what he won his prize on?

It actually is a very interesting theory and idea...

Oh but wait he is a LIBERAL... and thus he can't have good ideas...

How wonderful (eye roll) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25374975)

More communists to squander the prestige of a once proud institution. I thought Gore was the last straw - but boy was I wrong! Next they're going to give the peace prize to Barak Hussein Obama for ending the war in defeat; give him the economics prize for taxing the most productive and successful in our country, and give him the literature prize for a book whose title quotes the America-hating racist Wright. Hell, why not give him the medicine prize for putting bureaucrats between me and my doctor. This is disgusting.

Re:How wonderful (eye roll) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375093)

'American' isn't a 'race', and 'pride' comes before a 'fall'.

Hari Seldon says... (3, Funny)

simaolation (1381125) | about 6 years ago | (#25374997)

...shit! Trantor is only worth as much as Compton now!

The other side..... (1, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 6 years ago | (#25375005)

Of course others differ in their opinion of Krugman....

Krugman's Posthumous Nobel [nationalreview.com]

And doesn't it make perfect sense that this assclown puts such stock in Asimov's Foundation books? A fictional story that makes zero sense unless one postulates a totally hypothetical science that allows sociologists to acually make valid predictions about human behaviour. That was what the books were about, an exploration of the consequences that would follow from such a discovery, i.e. it was typical of most hard SciFi then and now in that it postulates some new thing and explores the consequences.

Too bad a large portion of the left believes that it possesses the ability to do the sort of micro control today that would in reality only be possible after Hari Seldon created the tools.

Re:The other side..... (1)

the_skywise (189793) | about 6 years ago | (#25375175)

Are you insinuating that Krugman's The Mule?

Re:The other side..... (1)

jcr (53032) | about 6 years ago | (#25375271)

a totally hypothetical science that allows sociologists to acually make valid predictions about human behaviour.

That was always a bit of a disturbing aspect for me of Asimov's work. The foundation series, and the robot series as well, both have this nasty premise that people should be manipulated by the characters that Asimov considers superior.

-jcr

Re:The other side..... (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 6 years ago | (#25375509)

> The foundation series, and the robot series as well, both have this nasty premise
> that people should be manipulated by the characters that Asimov considers superior.

Asimov was a socialist. Of course this was from a time when all right thinking people believed socialism was the future, but he never appears to have totally freed his mind from many of the basic assumptions that underlie the system of ideas we lump under the word. In his case the notions behind 'scientific socialism' seems to have been deeply engrained into him. The idea that scientists and assorted elite intellectuals were the rightful ruling class; that under their enlightened rule the lot of the masses would be improved was pervasive during his formative years and carried over into much of his work. It doesn't take much imagination to see how the idea of the new soviet man morphed into the all knowing benevolent rule of the robots in his later works. It became obvious to all thinking creatures that no human could know enough, be just enough, etc. to actually be entrusted with the sort of absolute power fascism/socialism/communism implied, thus his later works substituited robots.

Notice how his later books reveal the robots to have absolutely taken over all important aspects of human society, but that we are told that this isn't a totalitarian distopia, nay the future projected in the book is virtually a utopia. We are carefully lead to believe we are still in control because we have a need to believe we are free people who are in control of our destiny, but that it is a carefully maintained fiction,

More importantly, a careful reader can see that the whole system is already blowing itself to hell. The robots have already discarded the laws of robotics, substituiting for them a notion that they should generally follow the laws in terms of protecting humans as a group if not as individuals, but hey! ya gotta break a few eggs to mame an omelette. They allow humans to die, both by acts of omission and commission in the name of their new greater mission to serve humanity by ruling them. Where have we heard that crap before?

Re:The other side..... (1)

Nethead (1563) | about 6 years ago | (#25375767)

Damn insightful. And I just used up all my mods points a few minutes ago.

Re:The other side..... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 6 years ago | (#25375941)

What books are you exactly referring to? I've read pretty much all of them, and none of them qualify as an Utopia ruled by robots. The part where the robots have discarded the laws of robotics is indeed true - but that was there as a point to demonstrate that the laws were not perfect, and could not prevent the kind of stuff that they were designed to prevent.

Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Re:The other side..... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375331)

Huh. I wonder if you understand the difference between "inspired to go into the field" and "puts stock in". Just kidding, I already know the answer.

I mean seriously, what if he said he was inspired to go into aerospace engineering by the same books? Would you complain that he puts too much stock in books that require hypothetical FTL drives to be invented, and that his ambitions to eventually people a colony on mars requires science we don't have yet?

Re:The other side..... (1, Flamebait)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 6 years ago | (#25375339)

assclown? English has tens of thousands of potential insults-- and you come up with "assclown"?

Re:The other side..... (2, Insightful)

ThreeE (786934) | about 6 years ago | (#25375367)

I agree with you that that sort of micro control is BS, but you are the ass clown if you are condemning a Nobel Prize winner based only on the fact that he read a book once. He never said he put any stock in "Psychohistory."

Re:The other side..... (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | about 6 years ago | (#25375561)

Krugman explained there is more to trade than simple comparative advantage - Japan and Germany don't make and sell cars the world over because engines grow on tree in their soil. That's the work cited for prize.

Who's the assclown? You, citing intellectually decaying National Review (just hounded out a Buckley, didn't it, any sane one left there?), or Krugman for liking science fiction.

Re:The other side..... (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 6 years ago | (#25375781)

> You, citing intellectually decaying National Review (just hounded out a Buckley, didn't it,

Because on the Right we don't go much for pedigree. Bill Buckley was an intellectual giant but it is painfully obvious he failed to impart the importance of intellectual rigor to his son. Go read his endorsement of Obama if you don't believe me, there ain't a shred of rational argument in it. All emotion and feelings, i.e. left. We think, you guys feel. It's why NR is such a hotbed of reasoned but passionate debate over ideas and the huffington post is a bunch of vacuous twits pretending to be intellectuals. Which is why Christopher Buckley had to go be with his own kind. Perhaps age will bring him wisdom.

> or Krugman for liking science fiction.

No. I was criticizing his choice of science fiction. See the difference? Scoialists see the Foundation series very differently than people like me. I found them disturbing, socialists tend to see a positive vision of the future in them.

Re:The other side..... (4, Informative)

philspear (1142299) | about 6 years ago | (#25375633)

Of course others differ in their opinion of Krugman....

I have to point out that the "other" side does not have a nobel prize or a college diploma, and appears on Fox news and National review.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Luskin)

Would this be the same FDR-economy... (1, Interesting)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 6 years ago | (#25375023)

that prolonged the Great Depression by 7 years or so?

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409 [ucla.edu]

Brilliant stuff...

Re:Would this be the same FDR-economy... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375125)

Any economist can look at any data and come to any conclusion.

2 UCLA economists' opinion is not a consensus though it's certainly not "proven" that what FDR did helped either.

Re:Would this be the same FDR-economy... (2, Insightful)

Baba Ram Dass (1033456) | about 6 years ago | (#25375393)

It's funny because most historians paint the New Deal as having helped the Great Depression, when in fact no such consensus exists among economists.

Re:Would this be the same FDR-economy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375681)

And economists know what they are talking about? Yeah right... The economic system is way too complicated without computer aid to get a handle on, if they were so easy why do economists keep making big ass mistakes? Like Krugman didn't want to believe many companies were cooking their books while he worked for enron and then enron went down and he had to eat crow.

Fixing Republican Depressions, yet again. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375173)

Even now unabashed Hayek/Friedman fanboi come out of the woodwork to passive aggressively promote the often failed free market scam.

Get a real economic clue, PLEASE, the planet can not afford more of the lies, fraud, and outright theft of failed ideologues. The Reagan clan has spawned devastating economic failure, again. How many more times must the ripoffs occur before y'all wake up? S&L, Enron, W/Cheney. Even Libertarians are FINALLY growing up and catching a ride on the Keynes cluetrain.

Re:Fixing Republican Depressions, yet again. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 6 years ago | (#25375369)

Get a real economic clue, PLEASE,

That's advice that you would do well to take. We had bubbles and depressions before FDR, but the government had very little power to interfere in the recovery process, and they were typically over in two years or less.

FDR, and the Keynsian idiots around him, believed that falling prices were the problem, and did everything they could think of, legal or not, to try to prop up prices, including such asinine measures as plowing crops under and slaughtering livestock just to waste them. It's no coincidence that a man who thought he was entitled to command every aspect of our economy is also the man who imprisoned Americans without trial or charges for nothing more than having Japanese ancestry.

FDR was a tyrant.

-jcr

Re:Fixing Republican Depressions, yet again. (1, Insightful)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about 6 years ago | (#25375751)

The reason why I don't like Keynesian economics are two facts:

1) It caused the Great Depression to last longer than it should have, especially with the confiscatory level of income taxes after FDR came into power in 1933, which did a lot to discourage economic expansion.

2) Britain tried Keynesian economics after World War II, and while it had early success in the end it nearly drove the British economy into ground. It took former PM Margaret Thatcher's privatization of many British companies for the British economy to finally grow again during the 1980's.

Re:Fixing Republican Depressions, yet again. (1)

Flavio (12072) | about 6 years ago | (#25375701)

Even now unabashed Hayek/Friedman fanboi come out of the woodwork to passive aggressively promote the often failed free market scam.

Hayek was from the Austrian school of economics. Friedman was from the Chicago school. Like every other Chicago school economist, Friedman defended government intervention through a central bank. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banking and the government manipulation of interest rates caused and aggravated recessions.

The fact that you've associated Hayek and Friedman as if they stood for the same concepts shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Would this be the same FDR-economy... (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | about 6 years ago | (#25375359)

Because Cooladge and Hoover were oh so brilliant? - just saying there is plenty of blame to go around.

Playing up his anti-Bush sentiment (4, Insightful)

mcg1969 (237263) | about 6 years ago | (#25375037)

only serves to diminish the value of this award. IF he starts to link it to his political views, then he'll bring derision upon himself and the Nobel committee. But he doesn't need to, because in his prior life as an full-time economist he did work that was genuinely worthy of recognition. I've spoken with several conservative economists who admire that work, even as they wondered "what happened to him?"

Not just anti-Bush (2, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | about 6 years ago | (#25375793)

The guy isn't only anti-Bush, he's an arrogant douchenozzle to anyone that disagrees with him on anything. In Krugman's world, if you don't agree with him... be it economics, politics, whatever... you're not just wrong, you're an idiot. He's a very, very bright man, but he also holds too high an opinion of himself in every regard. He also takes the status of his field far too seriously, often indicating that economics is the most important field of study in the world. Medical doctors, physicists, and engineers would probably beg to differ.

All that said, even though he hasn't done any real research in decades, even his enemies admit that he deserves the prize for his groundbreaking work in the late 70's. When standard Keynesian economists were saying that Stagflation couldn't possibly really exist, Krugman was one of a handful of guys that said "Yes it can, and here's how". He's a pioneer in many theories that are the bedrock of free trade work. You wouldn't know it from his rambling against Bush and Co. today, but he was on the outs with the Clinton crowd because he was too free-trade for them.

Flat earth... (3, Informative)

lelitsch (31136) | about 6 years ago | (#25375109)

...with the only speed bump being the Slashdot editing process. Seriously, this was in every newspaper PRINT edition before it showed up on Slashdot.

Re:Flat earth... (4, Funny)

77Punker (673758) | about 6 years ago | (#25375371)

Nobody comes here to stay current with the news; we come here for discussion that's better than most other places.

Re:Flat earth... (1, Flamebait)

MrHanky (141717) | about 6 years ago | (#25375517)

No, discussion is not better here than most other places. Sure, there are often a few informed people around, but far from always. Most science debates show that the average slashdotter doesn't have the slightest idea about what science is, for example. Most technology discussions show that there are loads of fanboys with mod points, and loads of people with nothing to say who know these fanboys have mod points, and go out to say whatever gives them their +5.

I come here mostly to flame.

Re:Flat earth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375613)

I come here mostly to flame.

Indeed.

We really should have listened to him 3 years ago (5, Interesting)

StevenMaurer (115071) | about 6 years ago | (#25375111)

Safe as Houses [nytimes.com]

A snippet (only 3 paragraphs to fall within fair use):

I used to live next door to a Russian emigre. One day he asked me to explain something that puzzled him about his new country. "This place seems very rich," he said, "but I never see anyone making anything. How does the country earn its money?"

...

In other words, a fuller answer to my former neighbor would be that these days, Americans make a living selling each other houses, paid for with money borrowed from the Chinese. Somehow, that doesn't seem like a sustainable lifestyle.

How solid, then, is America's economic recovery? The British have a phrase that applies: "safe as houses." Our economy is as safe as houses. Unfortunately, given current prices and our dependence on foreign lenders, houses aren't safe at all.

Whine all you want about the Nobel Committee having a political agenda. Right is right. And Krugman was right.

Re:We really should have listened to him 3 years a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375435)

He sounds like Ron Paul there, though I'm sure that the two would draw opposite conclusions as to the New Deal.

Re:We really should have listened to him 3 years a (1, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | about 6 years ago | (#25375497)

People can agree on one thing while disagreeing on another.

Details at 11.

Re:We really should have listened to him 3 years a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375849)

These stock indices go to 0.

Re:We really should have listened to him 3 years a (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 6 years ago | (#25375571)

Hindsight is always 20/20 (I'm talking about the Nobel Price committee)

Krugman wasn't the only one (1, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | about 6 years ago | (#25375831)

"Whine all you want about the Nobel Committee having a political agenda. Right is right. And Krugman was right"

You act like Krugman was the only one warning us about the housing bubble, when he was one of many, a lot of them being the very people he despises. It's not like Krugman was the first one to go "Hey, this thing is gonna burst".

Re:We really should have listened to him 3 years a (0, Troll)

Jonnne (1385759) | about 6 years ago | (#25375863)

I would say that illustrates the problems with mr Krugman. A quick look at this Wikipedia article reveals that the industrial output of the US is about 2.2 times that of China, and output from services is roughly 10 times bigger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition [wikipedia.org]

no, the Austrians were right (0, Troll)

-=Moridin=- (131596) | about 6 years ago | (#25375875)

Whine all you want about the Nobel Committee having a political agenda.

As others have pointed out, Krugman did NOT win a Nobel prize; he won a different prize.

Right is right. And Krugman was right.

No, he wasn't. Krugman identified the symptom--a housing bubble--but not the cause.

The Austrians were right [mises.org] . And no matter how much Krugman calls them poopy-heads, they're still right: Keynesian economics is one giant fraud.

That's what's really at the core of the worldwide economic meltdown: the fraud is unravelling. And it's looking increasingly likely that world governments are going to nationalize their entire banking systems to prevent it, rather than doing the sane thing and returning to sound money.

(If any of you have any doubts as to what type of standard of living nationalization leads to, take a good, hard at current and former communist countries--say, North Korea.)

Our founding fathers are weeping in their graves, while Stalin is laughing in his.

It's not a Nobel Prize (5, Informative)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | about 6 years ago | (#25375171)

It's "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel."

Economics (0, Flamebait)

oldhack (1037484) | about 6 years ago | (#25375199)

Economics, a fine scholarly field, is not a science, as much as some economists would like to pretend with their crude algebra and stats.

Re:Economics (3, Insightful)

cailith1970 (1325195) | about 6 years ago | (#25375575)

Agreed. The stock market is a direct indicator of the current balance between fear and greed. And since both of these are human emotions, they are very difficult to predict with any accuracy.

However, if you use technical charting, some statistical markers such as price point values can provide support and resistance to the price going through them. But again, it's people that push the price up or down through these. Is there enough fear to push it down through support, or enough greed to push it up through resistance? You can only take an educated guess. It's not deterministic.

Re:Economics (1)

javelinco (652113) | about 6 years ago | (#25375717)

That's ridiculous. It may not be well developed, but they use scientific principles and methodology. It IS a science. Buy a clue.

True of all "social sciences" (2, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | about 6 years ago | (#25375913)

Economics, a fine scholarly field, is not a science, as much as some economists would like to pretend with their crude algebra and stats.

This is one of the things that makes Krugman in particular so insufferable about his profession. He places far too much importance on it in relation to it's actual value. Like all social sciences... sociology, psychology, political science... economics is not a hard science. It's a genuine field of study that uses some math and some science to reach conclusions, but also depends upon human behavior, which is not easily quantified, and cannot be quantified with any scientifc certainty or accuracy in many cases.

This doesn't mean the fields are of no importance... they certainly are... but they're not pure science, and I have a hard time with calling some a political "scientist" or a social "scientist".

There is no Nobel Prize in economics (4, Informative)

riker1384 (735780) | about 6 years ago | (#25375201)

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is a prize given by the Bank of Sweden, not by the Nobel Foundation. It is not one of the prizes established by Alfred Nobel. It's named after him and inspired by Nobel Prizes, but it's not a Nobel Prize.

Re:There is no Nobel Prize in economics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375439)

LA LA LA I can't hear you!

              Sincerely,

              Paul Krugman

Re:There is no Nobel Prize in economics (1)

timster (32400) | about 6 years ago | (#25375549)

The prize was established by the Bank of Sweden but it's important to note that the winner is determined by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, just like all the others except for the Peace Prize.

Re:There is no Nobel Prize in economics (5, Informative)

Marcika (1003625) | about 6 years ago | (#25375553)

It is endowed by the Bank of Sweden, but it is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, same as the science Nobel prizes.

Besides, it is on the Nobel website, equivalent to all the other prizes [nobelprize.org] . If it's good enough for them...

So you might be technically right, but only in the pedant's sense.

Re:There is no Nobel Prize in economics (1)

Trojan35 (910785) | about 6 years ago | (#25375809)

I have 5 moderator points, and no way to moderate the summary.

One more nobel winner anti-reaganmics (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 6 years ago | (#25375207)

Yet another nobel winner for a mixed economy which offers the general public a hedge against the risks taken for, say, entrepreneurial endeavors, trade policies which encourage the retention of jobs and the continuation of a healthy middle class, and regulations which will insure at least a basic check on corporate malfeasance and market consolidation.

How many more politicians and faux-news talking heads will continue to push the pseudo-scientific religion that is reaganomics?

Re:One more nobel winner anti-reaganmics (5, Informative)

MagikSlinger (259969) | about 6 years ago | (#25375779)

How many more politicians and faux-news talking heads will continue to push the pseudo-scientific religion that is reaganomics?

Humans are capable of believing untrue things for a very long time, even after reality begins to seriously challenge those beliefs. The Left has long-cherished beliefs (Example: Unions are good for workers, My Counter-Example: The number of Unions up until the 60s that prohibited blacks from working at a union shop). The Right has its long-cherished beliefs.

There are a lot of possible explanations why people are like that, but the more important thing is to engage those people by asking questions about the basis of their belief and learning yourself. If someone says something, and you don't know if it's true or not, take some effort to find out if it is. Most of the time, you can Google the issue and find a lot of people have done the hard work for you. You just have to verify if their logic is sound and inferences are valid.

Krugman, via his blog and columns, does try his best to do this. In fact, he often posts links to early versions of his papers and mathematics on his NY Times blog and lets his readers pick it apart. He and Tyler Cowan (a libertarian leaning economist) have very civil debates via their blogs.

Most *-wing sites simply tune out contrary voices with more chanting and weak arguments that bolster that community's feelings on right and wrong. In short: people judge arguments by its truthiness, not its validity.

And for the record, we cannot judge if Reagnomics worked because Reagonomics is:

  1. reduce the growth of government spending,
  2. reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital,
  3. reduce government regulation of the economy,
  4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

To be honest, I don't believe he achieved those four goals during his presidency, so I'm not sure one can say Reagonomics worked or not:

  1. Government spending as a percentage of GDP [cbo.gov]
  2. Tax receipts as percentage of GDP [project.org]
  3. Quantifying regulation [nytimes.com] : Notice the Clinton years come out looking pretty good too (i.e., congress is as much to blame/credit as the President)
  4. Inflation from 1913 to present [inflationdata.com]

Re:One more nobel winner anti-reaganmics (2, Interesting)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | about 6 years ago | (#25375835)

Like the regulations that prevented the current bubble? Or the dot-com bubble before that? Sure, sure, give us more of those enlightened commandments. ;-)

It's naive of you not to consider government regulations as part of corporations' 'malfeasance' plans. The tax exemption for companies manufacturing child toy arrows on the latest bailout bill, is a small example. While I do not agree with his views on monetary policy, Milton Friedman was right on the money when he said: "When you have big government, big business takes it over.".

The 'hedge' you speak of is currently being stuck up the taxpayer's behind. It's something that came out of a head not unlike this Nobel 'mixed economy' laureate. All for the general public's welfare, of course.

In a free market if you fail you bear the consequences, in Communist US there is the Fed. :-)

Re:One more nobel winner anti-reaganmics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375929)

While I do not agree with his views on monetary policy, Milton Friedman was right on the money when he said: "When you have big government, big business takes it over.".

The 'hedge' you speak of is currently being stuck up the taxpayer's behind. It's something that came out of a head not unlike this Nobel 'mixed economy' laureate. All for the general public's welfare, of course.

In a free market if you fail you bear the consequences, in Communist US there is the Fed. :-)

Seems like we've got the worst of both worlds. The people largely responsible for the current insanity made off with the profits for years and the taxpayers are stuck paying for the eventual crash, or else.

So I'm fine with the free market thing as long as the government isn't going to help or hinder anyone. What I'm not fine with is the selective regulation and deregulation that just leaves legal loopholes for theft and fraud on a massive scale.

Interstellar trade (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375215)

Let us not forget his contributions to the field of interstellar trade:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf

Consider the source. (0)

jcr (53032) | about 6 years ago | (#25375247)

This award comes from a committee of bankers. It's not at all surprising that they decide to give it to someone who's all for bailing out banks that have been run into the ground by incompetent risk management.

-jcr

Re:Consider the source. (2, Informative)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | about 6 years ago | (#25375455)

You might want to read a little more of Krugman's positions if you believe that. He was adamantly opposed to the original Paulson bailout plan, which was a banker's wet dream. He was much more in favor of the Dodd plan and eventually came down in favor of the final plan that passed here, but he was far from enthusiastic about it. "Better than nothing, but just barely" sums up his take, I think.

The British plan, OTOH, is one he supports much more wholeheartedly. But the banking community is far from haapy with that plan.

Re:Consider the source. (2, Informative)

jmauro (32523) | about 6 years ago | (#25375643)

The Economics prize is actually selected by a committee of members of the The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The prize was established by the Sveriges Riksbank, but it is not awarded by it.

There is NO Nobel Prize for Economics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375289)

There is NO Nobel Prize for Economics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences

For those of you interested in learning more (2, Informative)

kipin (981566) | about 6 years ago | (#25375313)

Here is a good synopsis and collection of his recent work compiled by an Economics professor at George Mason University.

Marginal Revolution: Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize [marginalrevolution.com]

look, slashdot (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#25375329)

i know that there is some friction between the hard sciences and the soft sciences. and that physics, chemistry, and math types tend to look down in disdain on the economics, sociology, and psychology types

but there really is no need to blatantly use the "sci-fi" label for an economics story. really slashdot, come on now

Re:look, slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375523)

but there really is no need to blatantly use the "sci-fi" label for an economics story. really slashdot, come on now

The guy thinks he's Hari Seldon! (Of course, so does every other economist who spends their days "experimenting" on these so-called "rational actors" with the idea that they can determine the outcome of their behavior on anything beyond the scale of an individual transaction)

Silencing the Developed World's wants with Markets (1)

sethstorm (512897) | about 6 years ago | (#25375363)

As a result, small-scale production for a local market is replaced by large-scale production for the world market, where firms with similar products compete with one another.

That can explain why the wants of developed world have been largely become a special case of the developing world. That is quite a problem.

Now can there be someone who figures out how to allow the developed world to have their wants heard(quality without exorbitant price) and not as a special case of a developing one(such as just making it slightly better and/or shinier junk)?

Make it possible to not have things boil down to junk cheap or exorbitantly expensive(if at all).

Not a Nobel Prize! (0, Redundant)

I'll Provide The War (1045190) | about 6 years ago | (#25375405)

It should be noted that this prize is NOT awarded by the Nobel Foundation.

The actual title of this award is The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel and it is awarded by a bank.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/economics/nominators.html [nobelprize.org]

"The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize."

Re:Not a Nobel Prize! (1)

curious.corn (167387) | about 6 years ago | (#25375907)

Neither is the Fields Medal...

We get it kdawson - you don't like Bush (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25375533)

Funny, I don't remember seeing a post about the Nobel prize for economics in previous years. Sure, the prize for physics, but not economics. However, as soon as someone who's public career recently has been largely centered around being a Bush critic wins it, it gets posted by none other than kdawson.

I've heard that Krugman's pre-2001 work was meritous enough to win the Nobel prize, but obviously so were the previous winners. Why didn't we hear about them?

Re:We get it kdawson - you don't like Bush (1)

jmauro (32523) | about 6 years ago | (#25375695)

Really? They announced last years prize on Slashdot [slashdot.org] .

Waah, my world view is under liberal assault (2, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | about 6 years ago | (#25375577)

Reading the conservative slams on Krugman's Nobel is like reading the Timecube posts on every Slashdot physics story.

Except that the grammar is distinctly better on the Timecube comments.

Economics science? (1)

amdurak (994897) | about 6 years ago | (#25375959)

Is it not pleonastic to say 'economics science'? The word 'economics' alone includes the meaning of it being science since the suffix '-ics' denotes arts, sciences, branches of study or profession. I could not resist!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?