Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

by Aaron Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:50 am

Krugman joins Gore as a VERY liberal American to win the prize. So is one's political affiliation now a requisite to win what some consider a very distinguished prize?

Columnist Paul Krugman wins Nobel economics prize By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers
2 hours, 28 minutes ago

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Paul Krugman, the Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, won the Nobel prize in economics Monday for his analysis of how economies of scale can affect trade patterns and the location of economic activity.

Krugman has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in The New York Times, where he writes a regular column and has a blog called "Conscience of a Liberal."

He has come out forcefully against John McCain during the economic meltdown, saying the Republican candidate is "more frightening now than he was a few weeks ago" and earlier that the GOP has become "the party of stupid."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_sweden_nobel_economics

by bmd Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:48 pm

Those dirty, rotten, socialist Swedes!!

First, they deny W the Nobel Peace Prize for the past seven years, and NOW they give away HIS Economics Nobel to Krugman!!!

I say we start calling Swedish meatballs "Liberty Balls". That'll show them!

by **ohio county** Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:51 pm

Krugman might actually have been a decent practicing economist at one time. He's just another political hack now. Naming him demeans the prize almost as much as naming Boosh.

by bmd Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:17 pm

ohio county wrote:Krugman might actually have been a decent practicing economist at one time. He's just another political hack now. Naming him demeans the prize almost as much as naming Boosh.

RIGHT! As long as he stayed in "The Ivory Tower" is was "a decent practicing economist", but as soon as he started writing columns in the popular press he became a hack---off with his head! How dare he let the average person have access to his theories. If we let this stand, next thing you know, scientists won't feel obligated to publish solely in Latin. Off with their heads!!

Are Nobel prizes politically motivated? 248524

Are Nobel prizes politically motivated? 248524

by bmd Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:22 pm

BTW, ain't it obvious how this year's Chemistry Nobel was just blatant pandering to the Scyphozoan lobby?

Off with their heads!!!

Are Nobel prizes politically motivated? 248524

by **ohio county** Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:23 pm

Well, what's your point? You accused Aaron of wanting to give the prize to W. All I'm advocating is giving it to an actual economist, for pete's sake. Who did you want to see win it, Howard Dean?

by **ohio county** Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:25 pm

What's your beef with Green Fluorescent Protein? Not liberal enough for you?

by bmd Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:35 pm

ohio county wrote:All I'm advocating is giving it to an actual economist, for pete's sake.

RIGHT!!!

Look at Krugman's pathetic c.v. (I left off the publications list, and the whole reason for this thread has yet to be added to his list of honors).

I mean really, wouldn't you think that an "actual economist" would be able to cite at least on "atta-boy" from Phil Graham? or Rush Limbaugh? or Bill O'Reilly?

Not Krugman, he just has actual economics degrees and faculty positions at Yale, Stanford, Princeton, and M.I.T.---how pathetic!!!

CURRICULUM VITAE
Paul R. Krugman

BORN: February 28, 1953

EDUCATION: B.A., Yale University 1974
Ph.D., MIT 1977

EMPLOYMENT

Yale University - Assistant Professor, September 1977 - June 1980
Visiting Assistant Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 1979 - June 1980
Associate Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 1980 - June 1984
Council of Economic Advisers - International Policy Economist, September 1982 - August 1983
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 1984 - June 1994
Professor, Stanford University, July 1994- July 1996
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 1996-June 2000.
Professor, Princeton University, July 2000-

OTHER AFFILIATIONS

National Bureau of Economic Research, Research Associate, 1979 -
Institute of International Economics, Board of Advisors, 1986 -
Econometric Society, Fellow, 1987 -
Group of Thirty, Member, 1988 -
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow, 1992 -
Columnist, Slate, 1996-1999.
Columnist, Fortune, 1997-1999
Columnist, The New York Times, 2000-

HONORS

Eccles Prize for Excellence in Economic Writing, 1991
John Bates Clark Medal, 1991
Adam Smith Award, 1995
Nikkei Prize (with M. Fujita and A. Venables), 2001
Alonso Prize (Regional Science Association), 2002

by **ohio county** Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:50 pm

Phil Graham? You mean the guy who owned the Fillmore?

by bmd Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:08 pm

ohio county wrote:Phil Graham? You mean the guy who owned the Fillmore?

oops!! My bad.

Make that Phil Gramm. Bill Graham was the music empresario; not to be confused with Billy Graham, the preacher/crusader.

geek

by Aaron Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:24 pm

bmd wrote:
ohio county wrote:Krugman might actually have been a decent practicing economist at one time. He's just another political hack now. Naming him demeans the prize almost as much as naming Boosh.

RIGHT! As long as he stayed in "The Ivory Tower" is was "a decent practicing economist", but as soon as he started writing columns in the popular press he became a hack---off with his head! How dare he let the average person have access to his theories. If we let this stand, next thing you know, scientists won't feel obligated to publish solely in Latin. Off with their heads!!

So he has to write for the New York Times before the 'average' person can access his theories? What, is the 'average' person not smart enough to access theories without him writing for a liberal paper and simplifying his comments. Or is "The party of stupid" standard economic lingo?

by Aaron Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:26 pm

And who said anything about W getting an economics prize? He's a politician, not an economist. Politicains speak in political lingo, like this...

Not about the financial crisis
The crisis isn’t the only scary thing going on. Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage. It’s not just a mob phenomenon — it’s visible in the right-wing media, and to some extent in the speeches of McCain and Palin.

Political speak???

Economist, unless they have political aspirations or an agenda, don't generally speak the political ligno, do they Billy?

by bmd Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:55 pm

Aaron wrote:And who said anything about W getting an economics prize? He's a politician, not an economist.

His administration's handling of the economy does lend some credence to that statement.

Aaron wrote:Or do you assume because I don't drink the liberal Pee-Aid that I'm automatically a Boosh backer? That ASSumption would make you a...

Funny, ain't it, that for that last couple of years hardly anyone will admit to having voted for W?

Aaron wrote: But then you knew that, didn't you Billy-boy.

Huh?

by Aaron Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:59 pm

bmd wrote:
Aaron wrote:And who said anything about W getting an economics prize? He's a politician, not an economist.
His administration's handling of the economy does lend some credence to that statement.

Really. Seems that if I recall correctly, in January, 2007, the market was over 12,000.

Now what was that event that took place in late January, 2007???

Oh, I know. That was when democrats took over Washington. Seems the price of gas was low and the stocks were high and then liberals came in and completely reversed that trend.

Gee, thanks.

by bmd Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:50 pm

Aaron wrote:
Really. Seems that if I recall correctly, in January, 2007, the market was over 12,000.

Yup Orville, she was a pretty sweet-lookin' plane until the wings fell off.

Aaron wrote:
Now what was that event that took place in late January, 2007???

Oh, I know. That was when democrats took over Washington. Seems the price of gas was low and the stocks were high and then liberals came in and completely reversed that trend.

And exactly WHAT legislation has Congress passed since Jan 2007 that contributed to the current situation? The Democratic party is marginally in charge of Congress. However, the GOP is running the Executive branch, remember? It has been W and his appointees who have been in charge of "administering" (and I use the term advisedly) the Treasury, the SEC, the FDIC, etc., etc., etc.

by sodbuster Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:13 pm

Well just like science has to be rejected by the right, I guess economics does too.

Both disciplines need to clear their work through the RNC I guess....

by **Stephanie** Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:12 pm

Congratulations. The looney libs have found a wingnut they can use to validate their utter disregard for the standard principles of economics.

by bmd Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:37 am

Stephanie wrote:Congratulations. The looney libs have found a wingnut they can use to validate their utter disregard for the standard principles of economics.

Which "standard principles" are those?

by **SheikBen** Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:02 am

sodbuster wrote:Well just like science has to be rejected by the right, I guess economics does too.

Both disciplines need to clear their work through the RNC I guess....

I should still like to see how science has been rejected. The fundamentalism of those who would suggest that no reasonable person doubts MAN CAUSED global warming is staggering. How can such a thing be proven? How exactly have non-man made sources for global warming been eliminated?

I suppose anyone who disagrees with anthroprogenic global warming and government spending is a member of the right wing fringe, Sherm? Do people qualify as members of the fringe when they have the gall to disagree with your leader, the great one?

It's telling that it is not enough to say that the right is wrong about global warming or supply side economics, but rather that you feel the need to call us "rejecters of science and economics." I suppose you will also tell me that politics has become too polarized? cheers

by **SheikBen** Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:04 am

Are you not familiar with Congressional oversight of spending?

Appropriations are made by the Congress (Article One).

by **SheikBen** Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:06 am

Congressional oversight includes Fannie and Freddie, by the way. Only Congress can appropriate funds. Bush doesn't get his money from the war by a printing press in his basement, and neither does the money for Fannie and Freddie come from the Executive.

by **ohio county** Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:10 am

I should still like to see how science has been rejected.

Good luck with that, Sheik. It's so much easier to shoot and run...and change the rules.

by sodbuster Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:28 am

Well how about stem cell research?

by **SheikBen** Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:30 am

No Republican objects to researching adult stem cells, whose promise has not yet been exhausted.

And embryonic stem cell research is legal; the question is whether it should be funded by taxpayer dollars.

by **SheikBen** Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:31 am

If creating embryoes to destroy them is so wonderful, let the private market spend the money and reap the rewards. Saying such a thing is not being anti-science, but rather anti-socialism. Private groups can have success without the government, ya know?

by Sponsored content

Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?

Re: Are Nobel prizes politically motivated?