Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Prize for Economics

Congratulations!

Wow, that's awesome.

I have two interesting Paul Krugman stories, both of the brush with greatness variety.

The first was from back in 2004. I had just recorded a segment for Wall Street Week at a remote studio in midtown, when I literally run into him -- collide -- sending my papers flying everywhere.

The second story is even less significant. I have the unique privilege of being the first link in his first blog post.

>

Nobel winning paper:

The Role of Geography in Development
Paul Krugman
April 1998
http://www.worldbank.org/html/rad/abcde/krugman.pdf

>

Previously:
So Paul Krugman and I are chatting . . .    (March 10, 2004)
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/03/so_paul_krugman.html

Look Who's Blogging: Paul Krugman (September 21, 2007)   
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/09/krugmans-bloggi.html

Monday, October 13, 2008 | 07:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (64) | TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | digg this! | add to technorati | email this post

Comments

Excellent! I love Krugman although I think he is sometimes way too wimpy on TV. Now that he has won the Nobel, then maybe he can more forcefully put his right wing adversaries in their place, because as anyone who has done business on an international level knows, pure laissez faire sucks.

Then again, we all thought Scholes and Merton were the sh*t right before LTCM blew up.

Posted by: CNBC Sucks | Oct 13, 2008 8:04:01 AM

Stickin it to the Bushies! But, we all know all Europeans are socialists.

Posted by: Mike in NOLa | Oct 13, 2008 8:13:04 AM

nobel prize is overated poppycock. jimmy carter won it.....myron scholes. didn't they even give it to arafat

Posted by: harold hecuba | Oct 13, 2008 8:14:38 AM

"development of industrial clusters" is that where you begin to:
1> create a new important factory in a region
2> trade against the old and expiring important factory region
3> shutter that old and expiring factory
4> buy up depreciated land and property
5> tear down depreciated buildings with desperate labor
6> time frame 23 years; TIF runs out; goto 1

Posted by: Greg0658 | Oct 13, 2008 8:25:52 AM

Expect the usual "the Nobel Prize is just left-wing poppycock." This is the prize in Economics, not the Peace Prize.

Posted by: georgia pig | Oct 13, 2008 8:31:31 AM

Thank God he didn't win it for his "work" in his NY Times columns.

Posted by: Mace | Oct 13, 2008 8:33:18 AM

Yayyy! This is almost as exciting as Kanye West and Britney getting awards on MTV! This will definitely make the financial meltdown just a little more sweeter, don't ya think???

Posted by: Brian | Oct 13, 2008 8:43:03 AM

As an academic Krugman is unoriginal and hardly outstanding, both in methodology and subject matters.

As a political and "economic" columnist he is, at best, a party hack. Praising and denouncing the same policy depending on its proponent.

And yes, the Nobel prize is for socialists. Friedman only got it for helping develop witholding taxes, Hayek for being "pragmatic" enough to praise the Welfare State in his more widely circulated books (not his research, but hey! noone reads that...)

Posted by: andy | Oct 13, 2008 8:43:58 AM

Krugman was awarded in 2004 with the prize Príncipe de Asturias of Social Sciences in Spain. An important award.

Posted by: Joaquím Ricarte | Oct 13, 2008 8:44:17 AM

Disheartening. Krugman ceased to be a legitimate economist long ago, and is now just another socialist sounding-board.

Posted by: Speedmaster | Oct 13, 2008 8:47:12 AM

Awesome! First time I've heard of a Nobel Prize recipient (you don't actually "win" a Nobel Prize) before they receive it.

Congrats from Stockholm! Looking forward to having ya.

Posted by: Upandaway | Oct 13, 2008 8:49:23 AM

Re: Nobelprize is for socialists

Haven't you heard? We're all Socialists now. Next year they'll give it to Paulson and Bernanke.

When things get tough everyone's screaming for "poppy!" anyway. Or "China!", in your case.

Posted by: Upandaway | Oct 13, 2008 8:53:44 AM

"Expect the usual "the Nobel Prize is just left-wing poppycock." "
The Nobel Prize for economics isn't a real Nobel Prize. It was invented in the 50's by the Swedish Federal bank (Riksbanken) in memory of Nobel. Of all the Nobel Prizes awarding Sciences, this is clearly the weakest. When Scholes and Merton tried to make theory meet reality they created Long-Term Capital Management!

Posted by: AN | Oct 13, 2008 8:56:57 AM

It's amazing how all these rather mean spirited conservatives emerge from the woodwork to trash Krugmann because basically they don't like his columns in the NYT. I'll bet they have zero knowledge of his work on economic theory notably in the monetary area but as ever with the not very knowledgeable they rely on their prejudices. It's a sad commentary on the the state of the conservative mind in 2008 which is also on full display in the presidential election. Ideology basically trumps all.

Posted by: John(2) | Oct 13, 2008 8:59:12 AM

Mommy, what's a socialist?

Well Johnny, for many people, it's just another word for someone you don't agree with.

Posted by: Mr. Yablinka | Oct 13, 2008 9:00:12 AM

Well that's awesome I really like Krugman. His writing style is fresh, even in his academic papers. They are much more accessible to me as an undergraduate than most other authors.

Posted by: Greg | Oct 13, 2008 9:01:16 AM

I cant beleive they are giving a nobel price for economics this year??? WTF? How can they dare ?

Posted by: pidhi | Oct 13, 2008 9:06:13 AM

Screw Krugman.

Conservatives should show no respect to any scientific achievement whatsoever. Long live the Stupid Party!

Posted by: Ben Stein | Oct 13, 2008 9:10:00 AM

I know this has been used quite a bit recently, but this isn't an Onion article, is it? Seriously, I just got back from taking the Hound for a stroll, it really was my first reaction..

past that, see:
Posted by: AN | Oct 13, 2008 8:56:57 AM

Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 13, 2008 9:16:17 AM

Congratulations to professor Krugman.

I agree w/John2. It's quite remarkable how disagreeable and unpleasant conservatives really are. Thankfully, their reign of error is coming to an end.

Posted by: weinerdog43 | Oct 13, 2008 9:16:31 AM

Hope to see his sig on my dollar bills in a year or two.

Posted by: lampwick | Oct 13, 2008 9:21:13 AM

I'm thinkin' it's gonna be a while before a supply sider gets it.

Posted by: MarkD | Oct 13, 2008 9:24:33 AM

"didn't they even give it to arafat"

Indeed...along with Menahem Begin.

Makes you wonder, no?

Posted by: Francois | Oct 13, 2008 9:27:45 AM

Hey, at least they didn't give it to Fama.

Posted by: John from Concord | Oct 13, 2008 9:34:04 AM

Isn't it unbelievable, yet to be expected?
Just on this blog, the wingnuttery apostles just can't help themselves.

They MUST find a way, any way possible and impossible to denigrate Prof. Krugman lifetime work, just because his politics goes against their most cherished beliefs.

Moreover, the sickening parochialism oozes the smelly pus of narrow and limited intellect. By reducing the academic contributions to accusations that, since the Europeans can't be anything but (goddamned) "socialists" (whatever the hell it means) said Europeans ought to be "against us" (thank you for speaking for ALL of us...morons!) by granting a Nobel Prize to "unoriginal and hardly outstanding" work.

You guys (you know who you are) truly suck big time for not having the minimal honesty and decency to separate the man from his work.

Speaks volumes about why politics has become so dysfunctional and poisonous in this country. One wonders by which miracle the average American right-wing voter can think.

P.S. Don't get me started on the left-wing voter either. Only the extreme centrists (read:reality-based) ought to rule in these very challenging times.

Posted by: Francois | Oct 13, 2008 9:42:05 AM

Note the there is no nobel prize in economics

What you are referring is that he won The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize

Posted by: Anthony | Oct 13, 2008 9:43:13 AM

Conservatives unpleasant? Where have you been the last 8 years? Pot, meet Kettle.

Posted by: Usually Named | Oct 13, 2008 9:45:44 AM

Princeton's Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Economics Prize

Princeton University professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on trade theory.

Krugman, 55, received the prize ``for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity,''said the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the winners.

"It's a total surprise,'' Krugman said in a telephone interview.

Krugman gained his reputation in economics by contributing to strategic trade theory, contending that countries could steal a march on other nations by subsidizing strategic industries. He has found broader fame with his newspaper columns which regularly criticize President George W. Bush's policies.

He has argued the benefits of subsidies are generally marginal. He has also been praised for his work on the development of industrial clusters and his equations on the impact of economic shocks on the current account, exchange rates and capital flows.

In 1991, he was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal by the American Economic Association, which is awarded to the best economist under the age of 40.

Posted by: Benedikt Kammel | Oct 13, 2008 9:46:35 AM

I read a column by Krugman from 10 years ago bashing Austrian economics. How silly he said, that booms have to be followed by busts. It wasn't very readable, he seemed to be more in a mocking mood since apparently he didn't have any facts at his disposal.

Here's his drivel:
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/hangover.html

Clearly an ironic prize winner in light of what's going on right now.

Posted by: Spud | Oct 13, 2008 9:46:53 AM

"I'll bet they have zero knowledge of his work on economic theory"

Actually I use a couple of his articles in my class. It's just that he sounds like a lunatic in many of his NYT columns.

Posted by: Mace | Oct 13, 2008 9:52:24 AM

Paul Krugman Wins the Nobel Economics Prize

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

An undated handout photo shows top economist Paul Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel Economics Prize Monday.

Mr. Krugman was the lone winner of the 10 million kronor ($1.4 million) award and the latest in a string of American researchers to be honored. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences praised Mr. Krugman for formulating a new theory to answer questions about free trade.

"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. "He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography," it said.

The award, known as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is the last of the six Nobel prizes announced this year and is not one of the original Nobels. It was created in 1968 by the Swedish central bank in Nobel's memory.

In addition to his work as an economist at Princeton University in New Jersey, where he has been since 2000, Mr. Krugman also writes about politics and inequality in the U.S. and other topics for The New York Times.

Commenting on the global economic meltdown, he told a news conference in Stockholm by telephone from the U.S. that some of his research was linked to currency crises and related issues.

"This is terrifying," he said, comparing it to the financial crisis that gripped Asia in the 1990s. He said winning the Nobel award won't change his approach to research and writing. "The prize will enhance visibility," he said, "but I hope it does not lead me into going to a lot of purely celebratory events, aside from the Nobel presentation itself."

The citation said Mr. Krugman's approach is based on the premise that many goods and services can be produced at less cost in long series, a concept known as economies of scale. His research showed the effects of that on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity.

Posted by: Associated Press | Oct 13, 2008 9:53:29 AM

Contrats to Paul Krugman! He is one of the few talking heads that is worth listening on economics. Glad to see his work recognized.

Of course, since it has something to do with science, I'm sure the Bush administration will censor and ignore it.

Posted by: gnomc | Oct 13, 2008 9:55:07 AM

"mean spirited conservatives"
Smelly pus"
"Stupid Party"
"Disagreeable and unpleasant"

Essentially your saying no one is allowed to ever criticize a liberal...ever. I get it.

In case you haven't noticed, Bush is neither a free market capitalist or a fiscal conservative, but he play a nice straw man for liberals.

Posted by: Tom K | Oct 13, 2008 10:05:20 AM

"How silly he said, that booms have to be followed by busts."

LOL!

You dyslexic or what? Here's what he wrote:
[emphasis in bold are mine]

"...overinvestment theory of recessions, or "liquidationism," or just call it the "hangover theory."... is the idea that slumps are the price we pay for booms, that the suffering the economy experiences during a recession is a necessary punishment for the excesses of the previous expansion.
The hangover theory is perversely seductive--not because it offers an easy way out, but because it doesn't. It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love."

This is a total refutation of the Austrian School of Economics?

Give me a freaking break!

Posted by: Francois | Oct 13, 2008 10:09:28 AM

Well our European betters have spoken, who are we to question their wisdom, to do so just shows how small and narrow minded we all are.

I have seen Krugman in an academic setting, a more pompous ass you will never find. I have read his academic work, its mediocre. His NYTimes hackery speaks for itself. His forecasting record is a joke.

Posted by: daisycolorado | Oct 13, 2008 10:12:29 AM

Thanks Spud,

to the reactionary(e.g. They MUST find a way, any way possible and impossible to denigrate Prof. Krugman lifetime work, just because his politics goes against their most cherished beliefs.), it's hardly about 'politics', it's about accuracy.

beloved 'Krug' is just another, of a too-long stream, Poli-Sci-Fi ink waster pretending to be an 'Economist'.

as an aside, it's no wonder Polaroid is BK/defunct, they should have, long ago, sponsored an award for these JMK( the true Polaroid School of Economics )-adherents. In so doing they would have engendered such a deep, and abiding, loyalty across the Hinterlands that, digiCam, or no, their chains of Demand would still be pulled..

http://www.amazon.com/Loyalty-Effect-Hidden-Profits-Lasting/dp/1578516870 that this cat, Reichheld, isn't even more widely known, should tell us, in the negative, much of what is up.

Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 13, 2008 10:12:34 AM

I bet Luskin is losing his shizzle right about now. Ha!

Posted by: Sanjay Bigglesworth | Oct 13, 2008 10:21:22 AM

"Essentially your saying no one is allowed to ever criticize a liberal...ever."

I never said or wrote that liberals were above criticism. Why do you feel necessary to accuse me of trying to silence anyone here?

I suggest to read the gist of my comment: Anyone is free to disagree with Krugman's politics; for the record, some of his positions irks me to no end.

But bashing his academic work BECAUSE one doesn't like his political bent? Sorry, this is just dishonest.

In my criticism of certain posts, I was harsh, no doubt about it: I'm just sick and tired of the constant dishonest spinning of everything that doesn't fit the American right-wing views of the world. It gets old and does not contribute anything to further the debate.

Feel free to criticize whomever and whatever you wish. I shall do the same thank you very much. A modicum of honesty would be much appreciated.

Posted by: Francois | Oct 13, 2008 10:21:25 AM

Krugman seems to be an exemplary economist even if I favor other approaches to the field.
I congratulate him on winningg the Nobel Prize in economics. That said, his political punditry for the NYTs is awful and he wasted his opportunity for communicating his economic views to a wider audience.It isn't that I just totally disagree with his political opinions, I admire some liberal/leftist pundits, but that he is so weak in his endeavors.
If this was the Nobel Prize for left wing hackery Krugman would have finished behind every other hack at the Old Gray Lady, even Bob Herbert who always phones it in.
Krugman coulsd have made a successful career writing about economics for laymen, too bad he blew it.

Posted by: Automated Robot | Oct 13, 2008 10:22:53 AM

When Scholes and Merton tried to make theory meet reality they created Long-Term Capital Management!

Scholes won for the Black-Scholes options pricing formula, not for his mad skills at picking up pennies in front of bulldozers.

His forecasting record is a joke.

Which, the forcast that Bush's budgets were going to increase the debt or the forcast that we were in an unsustainable situation of making money by selling each other houses using funds borrowed from China?

Posted by: daveNYC | Oct 13, 2008 10:34:35 AM

@ Spud:

Thanks for your post. Read the Krugman article from Slate. I imagine he wishes he hadn't written that...

Should be another interesting week.

Posted by: Bruce in Tennessee | Oct 13, 2008 10:52:22 AM

lemme see.... Swedish Central Bank gives Nobel prize to economist whose solution to busts is first and always: PRINT MORE MONEY

Big surprise!

Posted by: drew | Oct 13, 2008 11:02:40 AM

"The second story is even less significant. I have the unique privilege of being the first link in his first blog post."

Wow BR! That's some high-level recognition. Congrats!

Posted by: Chief Tomahawk | Oct 13, 2008 11:04:57 AM

People are so quick to tear down that which they themselves did not nor could not achieve. It seems to be human nature that at least some of us will do this, instead of the right thing - admiring and modeling ourselves after greatness.

Weak.

Posted by: pbriggsiam | Oct 13, 2008 11:07:21 AM

You might want to work on your reading comprehension, Francois, that article was pretty straight forward.

Krugmans words:
.."Austrian theory" of the business cycle--a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire.

Posted by: Spud | Oct 13, 2008 11:16:08 AM

A 1997 beauty:
Krugman: In Praise of Cheap Labor
http://www.slate.com/id/1918

The "Nobel" Prize in Economics is a disgrace. It is just a device to prolong the life of an already dead piece of ideology.

In this crisis, Krugman & Co. (i.e. the economics corporation) are showing they have no clue how did we get here and how are we going to get out of this (just read what he wrote during the past 4 weeks). They should be accountable too.

As usual, the "mass of the population" will pay the bill.

Matt

Posted by: Matt | Oct 13, 2008 11:19:41 AM

Yeah, I agree he should get the same award a Arafat, Gore and Carter. I guess if you bash Bush a bit you get a prize. What a steaming pile of ****.

Posted by: Divot | Oct 13, 2008 11:28:48 AM

I'll let the reflexivity, found below, speak for itself:

People are so quick to tear down that which they themselves did not nor could not achieve. It seems to be human nature that at least some of us will do this, instead of the right thing - admiring and modeling ourselves after greatness.

Weak.

Posted by: pbriggsiam | Oct 13, 2008 11:07:21 AM

You might want to work on your reading comprehension, Francois, that article was pretty straight forward.

Krugmans words:
.."Austrian theory" of the business cycle--a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire.

Posted by: Spud | Oct 13, 2008 11:16:08 AM

Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 13, 2008 11:38:52 AM

Congrats to Paul Krugman and well deserved!!

It's funny how people come out of the woodwork to dis Krugman AND the Nobel. When I started reading seriously about economics, attempting to understand the mess that was to come in 2005, Krugman was one of the few who made sense to me. I've read quite a lot of his work and columns since then, and learned a lot from it.

Some of those commenting here ought to try it, instead of making their usual knee-jerk reactions to anything that doesn't fit their tiny mindset.

I come from an Austrian perspective, too, so don't give me that "liberal" label bullcrap. I'm a registered libertarian.

You can learn from all kinds of smart people if you keep an open mind instead of a closed mind and attitude, guys.

Posted by: donna | Oct 13, 2008 11:53:38 AM

Too true Mark.
Krugman was incapable of articulating the tenets of the theory he disparages. Or maybe just too lazy... or perhaps, most damningly, he knew and purposefully used a strawman.

Funny that phlogiston was once as mainstream as the keynesian/friedmanite paradigm is today regarding central banks.

Posted by: flix | Oct 13, 2008 11:58:13 AM

Donna.. how do you keep your mind from blowing up?

Krugman + Austrian = does not compute

The only thing K is good at is critizicing Bush.

Posted by: drew | Oct 13, 2008 12:01:19 PM

Yeah, I agree he should get the same award a Arafat, Gore and Carter. I guess if you bash Bush a bit you get a prize. What a steaming pile of ****.

Don't worry, once they expand the Nobel Prize to supporting apartheid, creationism, climate change denial, the healthy aspects of smoking, and starting wars under false pretenses, your idols will be well represented.

Cheers.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | Oct 13, 2008 12:06:03 PM

Congrats to Krugman on an absolutely well deserved, well earned recognition. It's funny in a way, to me at least; vindication. For years a pal of mine who has an MBA from Kellog and is pretty high up the corporate foodchain, has mocked my economic point of view with, "what? I suppose you think Krugman is right?" And as I was in the Krugman camp, I'd answer in the affirmative. Knowing my point of view, and my 10 year long of gold, seven month short S&P (via SDS) positions, among others, my pal called me and asked for advice on the day of the 777 decline. Is this it? Is this the economic apocalypse? was the gist of his query. My first words, "what? I suppose you think Krugman is right?" A priceless moment in alpha dogging!

Posted by: Scott in Chicago | Oct 13, 2008 12:45:00 PM

While I can appreciate a lot of Krugman's writing, my core problem with him is that he appears to be of the belief that the solution to every economic challenge is to throw money at it. Print it, borrow it, then throw it.

Booms don't need to bust, just print, borrow and throw!

Posted by: patient renter | Oct 13, 2008 12:59:53 PM

How low can they go? Some one who develops an economic theory but lies about politics is still a lier.

Posted by: Dave | Oct 13, 2008 1:04:06 PM

@Dave-
As politics are essentially policy opinions of one sort or another, lying about politics is pretty hard to do unless one contradicts oneself and denies it, or lies about the policy choices or ideas of the other side or one's opponent. You may not like Krugman's ideas for solutions to what is ongoing right now, but it is hard to argue against the fact that he saw it coming, and was vocal about, before the likes of Paulson, Bernanke, and the lunatic supply siders that populate business talk.

Posted by: Scott in Chicago | Oct 13, 2008 1:39:03 PM

How is criticizing Bush still considered to have been 'wrong'? Are some of you still in that 22% who think he has done a good job? Hard to believe.

Posted by: debreuil | Oct 13, 2008 2:00:03 PM

Economics is not an exact science. Here is Hayek's Nobel Prize speech

link here to the speech

All nobel prize winners are shills for central banks, and hence shills for the corporate bail outs...The only exception was FA Hayek. But Hayek was a less militant Free marketer his Austrian school compatriots, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Hayek's "Constitution of liberty" hardly sounds libertarian, it can easily be mistaken for the work of somebody like Krugman, which is probably one of the reason why he got Nobel prize.

BTW, The award is given by Swedish Central bank, not by the Alfred Nobel foundation.

Posted by: Oil Shock | Oct 13, 2008 2:20:39 PM

and the Rupert Murdoch (aka WJS/Marketwatch)
take on it:

" Liberals in media cheer (First Take) "

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/liberal-media-rejoice-ny-timess/story.aspx?guid=%

Posted by: Bob A | Oct 13, 2008 2:23:58 PM

This is a very sad day for economics. Krugman is a purveyor of the most basic economic fallacies. Consider this patent instance of the broken window fallacy:

http://brokenwindowwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/broken-window-classic-911-was-good-for.html

Posted by: John | Oct 13, 2008 2:45:27 PM

Well Won.
Interview link:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/paul-krugman-wins-economics-nobel/?hp

Posted by: anon_ | Oct 13, 2008 3:33:39 PM

The "Nobel" in Economics is pathetic. The prizes in the sciences are for finding out new facts about nature and make a permanent contribution to knowledge. If there are comparable achievements in economics, they come along once a decade or so. Also, it's funded by a bank, which is like having the Prize in Physiology or Medicine funded by a drug company.

Which is no criticism of Krugman. He's a good guy, clear thinker and has written some worthile books.

At least they didn't give it to a member of the Chicago "School", whose ideas have contributed to the current state of the world economy. It would be unkind to call it a cargo cult, because cargo cults are harmless delusions.

Posted by: Roger Bigod | Oct 13, 2008 5:57:36 PM

This:

Economics is not an exact science. Here is Hayek's Nobel Prize speech

This brings me to the crucial issue. Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.
link here to the speech, link found above..

All nobel prize winners are shills for central banks, and hence shills for the corporate bail outs...The only exception was FA Hayek. But Hayek was a less militant Free marketer his Austrian school compatriots, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Hayek's "Constitution of liberty" hardly sounds libertarian, it can easily be mistaken for the work of somebody like Krugman, which is probably one of the reason why he got Nobel prize.

BTW, The award is given by Swedish Central bank, not by the Alfred Nobel foundation.

Posted by: Oil Shock | Oct 13, 2008 2:20:39 PM

even if not so well spaced, needs to be seen again, sometimes, the Truth of the matter isn't so obvious at first blush..

Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 14, 2008 9:37:35 AM

His prophecy has come true . World sufferinf fron crisis. "Meanwhile the United States Treasury is finalising its plan
to acquire stakes in the country's troubled banks, as part
of the multi-billion dollar rescue package."

No wonder wall street is rallying strongly! B^)

Officials at the US Treasury say they are working around
the clock on the financial rescue.

Reports say the Bush Administration is planning to buy stakes
in nine banks. They include the Wall Street giants Citigroup,
Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley, as well as
America's biggest bank, Wells Fargo."

Posted by: bhattathiri | Oct 14, 2008 9:46:50 PM