4 ms·

I'm aware of the controversy, but it comes from a very vocal but small minority. That alternet article you linked to is a great example of the absurd bias and p

by rm999 13y ago

I'm aware of the controversy, but it comes from a very vocal but small minority. That alternet article you linked to is a great example of the absurd bias and political agenda the minority has. Their main gripe is political, not factual - the article is about how many of the prizes go to "theories that concentrated wealth among the top 1%". I called it a de facto prize, but it's also really a de jure prize: the winner is determined in the same way as the others, the prize is presented at the same ceremony as the others, and it's listed along the other nobel prizes on official lists. The prize carries at least as much prestige as the other prizes to both experts in the field and to the public. Also, I don't see how family members of Nobel have any authority on the matter (they don't), and I think the prize is far more meaningful and free of bias than something like the peace prize.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Well, yeah, the prize is political because all who get Nobel Prizes in Economics are keynsians of different sort. When you take guys like Krugman - who has Nobel Prize in Economics - and just look at their track record and what they are in favor of like this 2002 piece in which Krugman advocates the FED to create a housing bubble: http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs... You really start wondering why complete idiots and morons like this are worthy of the Nobel Prize. And then his response to this piece when asked about it in 2013 is even worse than the original piece. Krugman says in 2013 about his 2002 article: "What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened." Let me me repeat here for you this Nobel Prize Genius: "The ONLY way for the FED to get traction in 2002 was to INFLATE HOUSING BUBBLE" Really? Like really, really? That's the ONLY way? Go to a bubble, so it bursts and destroys the US economy for years? He really, like really, really repeats that nonsene in 2013? You must be kidding me! If he can't come up with better idea to finish a crisis but with creating a bubble? Wow! Just wow!!! And that's your Nobel Prize Winner in action. He's a moron. Yet, a professor and nobel prize winner. Economics has nothing to do with science, it is too rooted in ideologies. Left or right. But still, having prize for it is asking for trouble. And that's just one example of Krugman saying nonsense. I could go on and on.
- wisty 13y ago
  Today I learnt that Friedrich Hayek and Eugene Fama are Keynsians.
  - mikecb 13y ago
    Milton Friedman too! Not to mention the dozens of others which were not awarded to macroeconomists. Daniel Kahneman and Herbert Simon would especially be surprised to be called Keynsians, given that they are a psychologist and a political scientist, respectively.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      They're not keynsians, sure. However, my point was that Nobel Prize in Economics is as risky as Noble Prize in Political Science. Or Philosophy. Or Ethics. You don't do it. Period.
- lil_cain 13y ago
  Did you look at why Krugman got his nobel prize? Here's a clue. He's not a monetary economist. His opinions on monetary policy, are therefore of little influence on whether he should get the prize. He's a trade economist, and a rather brilliant one. And that's what he got the prize for, not his opinions on monetary economics, or the business cycle.
- huxley 13y ago
  Krugman's comment was a criticism and analysis of the Fed policy in 2002, not advice. The Fed helped inflate the Dotcom bubble to the extent that when it collapsed, the only path it left itself to get the economy back to levels approaching that bubble, would be to inflate a new housing bubble. He wasn't saying they should do it, he was saying that Greenspan and the Fed had backed itself into a policy corner and they only way they'd get the economy to the previous "irrationally exuberant" levels would be to repeat the bubble process. It's not a bad idea to read primary sources before passing judgment. Krugman makes mistakes but you shouldn't take whatever insta-opinion is published on a blog as definitive proof of the bankruptcy of economics.

by rm999 13y ago

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

Well, yeah, the prize is political because all who get Nobel Prizes in Economics are keynsians of different sort. When you take guys like Krugman - who has Nobel Prize in Economics - and just look at their track record and what they are in favor of like this 2002 piece in which Krugman advocates the FED to create a housing bubble: http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs-to-create-a-housing-bubble-2009-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/krugman-in-02-greenspan-needs... You really start wondering why complete idiots and morons like this are worthy of the Nobel Prize. And then his response to this piece when asked about it in 2013 is even worse than the original piece. Krugman says in 2013 about his 2002 article: "What I said was that the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble. And that’s just what happened." Let me me repeat here for you this Nobel Prize Genius: "The ONLY way for the FED to get traction in 2002 was to INFLATE HOUSING BUBBLE" Really? Like really, really? That's the ONLY way? Go to a bubble, so it bursts and destroys the US economy for years? He really, like really, really repeats that nonsene in 2013? You must be kidding me! If he can't come up with better idea to finish a crisis but with creating a bubble? Wow! Just wow!!! And that's your Nobel Prize Winner in action. He's a moron. Yet, a professor and nobel prize winner. Economics has nothing to do with science, it is too rooted in ideologies. Left or right. But still, having prize for it is asking for trouble. And that's just one example of Krugman saying nonsense. I could go on and on.

wisty 13y ago
Today I learnt that Friedrich Hayek and Eugene Fama are Keynsians.
- mikecb 13y ago
  Milton Friedman too! Not to mention the dozens of others which were not awarded to macroeconomists. Daniel Kahneman and Herbert Simon would especially be surprised to be called Keynsians, given that they are a psychologist and a political scientist, respectively.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    They're not keynsians, sure. However, my point was that Nobel Prize in Economics is as risky as Noble Prize in Political Science. Or Philosophy. Or Ethics. You don't do it. Period.
lil_cain 13y ago
Did you look at why Krugman got his nobel prize? Here's a clue. He's not a monetary economist. His opinions on monetary policy, are therefore of little influence on whether he should get the prize. He's a trade economist, and a rather brilliant one. And that's what he got the prize for, not his opinions on monetary economics, or the business cycle.
huxley 13y ago
Krugman's comment was a criticism and analysis of the Fed policy in 2002, not advice. The Fed helped inflate the Dotcom bubble to the extent that when it collapsed, the only path it left itself to get the economy back to levels approaching that bubble, would be to inflate a new housing bubble. He wasn't saying they should do it, he was saying that Greenspan and the Fed had backed itself into a policy corner and they only way they'd get the economy to the previous "irrationally exuberant" levels would be to repeat the bubble process. It's not a bad idea to read primary sources before passing judgment. Krugman makes mistakes but you shouldn't take whatever insta-opinion is published on a blog as definitive proof of the bankruptcy of economics.