Krugman wins Nobel Prize
The American economist Paul R. Krugman won the Nobel economics prize on Monday for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.
Mr. Krugman, 55, a professor at Princeton University in New Jersey and a columnist for The New York Times, formulated a new theory to answer questions about free trade, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.
“What are the effects of free trade and globalization? What are the driving forces behind worldwide urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new theory to answer these questions,” the academy said in its citation.
Financial news is good this morning for the first time in weeks. Read Krugman’s column for some insights into why.
IN OTHER NEWS: CNet reports that if you bought shares in most tech companies in October 1999 and sold them today, you would have lost money:
Our review of the share prices of large tech companies show that, for the most part, they’ve plummeted back to where they were nine or ten years ago. This means that, in general, anyone who bought shares of Microsoft or Intel during that time has lost money.
Once high-flying companies like Amazon.com, Dell, Yahoo, and Sun Microsystems have plummeted back to earth. Ones that noticeably appreciated compared to this time in 1999 include Apple, Research In Motion, and Hewlett Packard; SAP and IBM ended up sideways.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Krugman wins Nobel Prize”
If only he'd practice economics 100% of the time rather than taint his work with offensive politics and function as a Dem Party hack the way he has done for the past several years.
Maybe he can be Obama's new Treasury Secretary if Robert Rubin doesn't want the job.
DLS are you saying he has no right to take a political stand? I really don't see that he's any different than Thomas Friedman or Robert Rubin. If he was taking conservative positions would you be complaining?
I remember last year at this time many righties on this site and elswhere were begrudging the awarding of the Nobel to Gore because he's a liberal.
DLS represents exactly the reaction I expected from the right wing. It isn't possible that he criticizes Republican policy because he honestly feels they're just plain wrong on so many things.
Question for Paul Krugman
Mr. Krugman, would you have advocated during the collapses of the South Sea Island, the Tulip, the Mississippi Land, et al. speculative bubbles that governments should have simply printed up more such promissory notes to give the speculators proper government backing? What does this do but promote a more vicious hypothecation of the self same bubble? By the way, it is wrong to characterize this crisis as resulting from merely the latest incarnation of monetarist speculation, i.e. the housing bubble. The credit default swap derivatives the are undergoing de-leveraging are but a small proportion of the cancerous multi hundred trillion derivatives “markets.” Until this insane gambling casino mentality is extirpated and replaced any attempt to prop it up is foredoomed. You can bet on that.
RIM is essentially a government owned company- when RIM's Blackberry servers went balls up who panicked the most? When RIM was getting threatened with C&D over patents-Washington.
“Until this insane gambling casino mentality is extirpated and replaced any attempt to prop it up is foredoomed.”
QFT
and which candidate has strongest ties to the Casino industry…
“DLS are you saying he has no right to take a political stand? I really don't see that he's any different than Thomas Friedman or Robert Rubin. If he was taking conservative positions would you be complaining?”
Krugman is different than Friedman or Rubin. He's more notorious than Thurow (in earlier years) or the late Eisner (who at least was honest _once_ when he said so much opposition in academia and elsewhere to a balanced budget for the federal government actually was, on the Left, an obvious policy stance regarding the size and scope of the federal government). He (Krugman) is more notorious for his party hack blatant behavior.
“I remember last year at this time many righties on this site and elswhere were begrudging the awarding of the Nobel to Gore because he's a liberal.”
The Peace Prize is blatantly political and leftist, and in addition, Gore's environmental activism has nothing to do whatsoever with achieving peace (ending a war or successfully achieving conflict resolution).
* * *
I won't hope that J-Sat actually reads and understands what I have written, any time soon, now or in the past, such as when I've written that we didn't have loan-related problems promptly after the passage of the CRA but instead, that they happened after two rounds of de-regulation. A few on here, sadly, engage in pre-conclusions. [sigh]
* * *
Actually, industry ties are involved _currently_, and aren't limited to Paulson:
“The speech were Mr. Kashkari's first remarks since he was tapped by Mr. Paulson to head the $700 program. A 35-year-old former Goldman Sachs investment banker, he was chosen only last week to head the new so-called Office of Financial Stability.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122390023840728…
* * *
“gambling casino mentality”
Yes. More than that, a free lunch, so to speak. I was rushed last week but quoted briefly from a book I have (I have two written by the same author; this book was the second he wrote on related issues) about the stock and housing bubbles and how people were under the bubble-related “wealth illusion” and believed they were getting money for nothing. (The excessive optimism and illusion is a euphoric drug — it goes beyond gambling, though obviously that metaphor is an accurate and very good one.)
DLS
The peace prize usually goes to peace activists who ARE invariably lefties– who would you give it to?
And I think Krugman's views are his own– if he agrees with the Democrats on most issues- so what?