The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2008

Well, what do you know.... It's rare that I've even heard about the winner of the economics prize winner. And this time I'd read an article of the man just a couple of days ago!

It's Paul Krugman. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/e...aureates/2008/

The things I've read by him are things he's written as a columnist, I'm not familiar with his work as a researcher.

Any thoughts or reactions?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I'm not familiar with him or any of his work...

__________________

You can't really formulate yourself like that, can you?

Eh. Perhaps his earlier work was good, but I find it difficult to believe that his punditry didn't have something to do with this. When you look at some of the political figures who have added Nobel Prizes to their shelves over the last few years, it's hard to conclude that there isn't a distinct political bent to how they are awarded. Which is, by the by, completely in keeping with the origins of the award.

I'm well aware of that it's not because of his columns that he's receiving the prize. Apparently he gets it "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity" what ever that means. I believe he's dabbled around a bit with globalisation matters.

But what do you mean with "political bent"? In what direction? I don't know who all these guys are. But when we're talking about bending in some way or the other.... Since 1969, when the prize was founded, 36 americans have received the prize. That's 36 in 40 occasions.

I wasn't thinking of nationality, but more of political persuasion. In recent years Krugman, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter have won it. All have rabidly outspoken about the Bush administration.

We're dealing with an awfully small sample size of course, but it's certainly enough to make me wonder if the people voting for it are, knowingly or not, letting political beliefs influence some of the more subjective choices. This would apply less to most of the Prizes, obviously, given how technical many of them are.

Either that or a rather obvious conclusion that smart people naturally concur that Bush is a horrible, horrible President.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

The economy prize is awarded by the central bank of Sweden.

The literature prize is awarded by the Swedish Academy.

The medicine prize is awarded by the Karolinska Institute.

The physics and chemistry prizes are awarded by the Royal Science Academy.

The peace prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel committee.

These institutes have nothing to do with each other. So, saying that there's some political agenda behind which ones who receive the prizes doesn't work.

Milton Friedman is a nobel prize winner and so is Henry Kissinger and Winston Churchill.

It's actually interseting that you bring this up... Around here the news about Krugman receiving the prize was welcomed since many thought it was about time that not another one of the "Chicago Boys" got it. The Chicago Boys being the school of economics that Milton Friedman represented and that has been the school that leaders like Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan has followed. Not exactly radical leftism...

Oh and I believe that all the categories, except for the peace prize and the literature prize, are over represented by Americans. If we really wanted to pick exclusively radicals and anti-capitalists I think we would have looked elsewhere. The juries are actually quite apolitical - which of course is a good thing.

...which would have nothing to do with how the prizes are supposed to be awarded, or the rationales given. Which would be precisely my point, if you'd care to notice what's being discussed.

Holds, I like you just fine and admire your love of cinema, but when it comes to discussing more serious topics you invariably demonstrate just how unserious you are about them. Flippant comments that you clearly have no intention of defending, explaining, or even expressingly thoughtfully are of no use to anyone.

Cheap shots only belittle the person who takes them, and one-liners have little value when there's never a second or third line.

Yes, as I said, most of the Prizes could not conceivably have any sort of political agenda to them, as they are simply too technical. But some are a bit vaguer in their criteria (at least in practice, it would seem).

Tht said, I'm not sure I follow the claim, anyway. Why would these organizations have to have some sort of relationship with one another to have a political slant?

I haven't suggested that anything "radical" is happening, and I didn't come within a country mile of suggesting that they "really wanted to pick exclusively radicals and anti-capitalists." I'm simply noting that three of Bush's loudest, most prominent critics have won in recent years, and it makes me wonder if a number of voters have a leftward (or merely anti-Bush) political bent. If I wanted to take a more accusatory position than this, believe me, I wouldn't have hesitated to do so.

Al Gore's film is the reason he won it, not his criticism of Bush. I don't really know too much about Carter's criticism of Bush, so I can't respond to that. About Krugman, if he has figured out how global economy really works, or if he even managed to foresee the current crisis, then he's quite good. I believe that the kind of economy science that Krugman represents will be pretty central in the upcoming years. That's not just the jury who thinks that, if they think that. The so called neo liberalism has been dominant since the end of the 1970s - it's time for something different.

But if the juries are leaning in some direction that's opposite to the direction to where Bush is leaning, perhaps that says more about Bush's politics than about the juries. Do you say jurys or juries, btw?