Conversely, one could argue that the Nobel Committee, obviously aware of Krugman's political writings, could have been equally political in denying him the award out of a desire to avoid commentary such as yours here.
Everything is political. -Roy Cohn
Posted by snark at October 13, 2008 01:08 PMUse your Nobel bully pulpit, Dr. K! He's an excellent speaker as well as a clear writer.
Is there such a thing as an actual "conservative intellectual" left in America? Who is not at base an acknowleged hack and general goofball?
One certainly never meets such a mythical creature in daily life.
Posted by euzoius at October 13, 2008 01:09 PMi read krugman quite a bit and am very happy to see him get this award. well done! and also happy that the committee chose this auspicious time to do it. you are quite right about its significance turkana.
Posted by michael72 at October 13, 2008 02:25 PMnow we've been told that McPOW will give his Major Economic speech tomorrow, not today as planned earlier. I'm guessing he was just waiting to here Obama's plan, given today, so he could write the proper GOP version, telling us once again that very low taxes on millionaires is just what the middle class needs. McOld is behind the curve once again, following Obama's lead.
Posted by T2 at October 13, 2008 02:25 PMWell spotted! The Nobel committee has made similar decisions in the past, knowing full well (and capitalizing on the knowledge) that their prize is the one that EVERYONE pays attention to (or should if they know what's good for them!).
So, hat's off to Paul Krugman (and the Times for giving him a platform).
Not to mention, Turkana, that the committee humiliates the very same lefty blogs who spent several months sneering at Dr. Krugman's analysis of Obama's shallow healthcare policies, of his praising Republicans as the "party of ides," and of his use of the Harry and Louise ads to ridicule Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Krugman spent several months praising Hillary's healthcare plan, reducing Obama's to the empty talk it actually was, and showing the difference.
The boy blogs, and a few of the snarky girls , too, TRASHED Paul Krugman.
I think we all know today that Krugman's analysis was completely correct, and the so-called "well-educated" blogs who trashed him, didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
Wankers of the day, frankly.
As Jeralynn coulda said, "I don't know nuffin bout birtin no economies."
Which of course, she doesn't.
Gossip about pregnant teenage daughters is more her forte.
Congratulations, Dr. Krugman. You were right: Obama's claims were completely false and empty.
Posted by Mary at October 13, 2008 03:38 PMShorter Mary: "You can take my bitterness when you pry it outta my cold, dead hands."
Reliving the salad days, Mary? The world has moved on. Why can't you?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 13, 2008 05:02 PMyeah, I like to think of the prize as beyond political bickering and short term thinking. If a thing is one sided it loses its value over time. So just cuase ya like the choice doesnt mean it is biased in your favor.
Krugman is a reformed neoliberal globalist. That is probably part of it, too. He's also a rarity--an economics winner who's actually an economist. Many have been from other social science fields or have essentially been statisticians and modelers who work with economic theory. He is a relatively young choice. A few years ago, the prize went to Daniel Kahneman, who is rather elderly and whose work on non-utilitarian decision making has been taught widely for over 25 years.
Posted by at October 13, 2008 08:47 PMReliving the salad days, Mary? The world has moved on. Why can't you?
Well, if she truly believes the primary was stolen from Hillary then I can understand the frustration. I'm still pissed off about 2000.
Alas, the situations were totally different. In 2000 it was clear beyond any doubt that if everyone who went to the polls in Florida had their vote counted Gore would have won by at least 2%. OTOH, the Democratic primaries were a hodge-podge of various rules and state laws that together made it impossible to determine who the clear leader was in a close election. The superdelegates, stuck in a difficult situation, went with the candidate with the lead in delegates -- a lead that would have existed under anything but Soviet-style counting rules for Florida and Michigan.
In the end, either Hillary or Obama would have gotten the passionate support of Democrats, and either would have won this election by a sizable majority. We can argue forever about who would have been better as a campaigner or president, but only one could be chosen. The candidate who better understood the delegate rules going into the contest was the one who won.
For the few remaining Hillary supporters who are supporting McCain/Palin -- well, at this point we have to seriously question their motivations. Clearly they are not pro-woman's rights. Nor are they pro-Hillary -- she seems to have accepted that her future is Senate Majority Leader, and is reconciled to it. Nor are they for anything that Hillary is for. At this point, any Hillary supporter not supporting Obama is either just bitter, or they had a very bizarre reason for supporting Hillary in the first place.
Posted by Anonny at October 13, 2008 08:57 PMIs this the Mary *I* know?
Yeah, Obama's original health plan was inferior. Now it's indistinct from the Clinton/Edwards plans.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 13, 2008 09:05 PMI love to see winger heads exploding over this event.
congratulations to Professor Krugman.
Posted by Stranger at October 13, 2008 11:24 PMdj, no it is not the Mary you know. Someone is thoughtless enough to use the same name as our Mary, so we call her Shorter Mary.
Posted by Judith at October 14, 2008 02:04 AMgosh, I am so glad I chose my own "young" descriptor - goodness knows what I would have gotten if y'all chose it. :-)
Posted by the young Judith (tyj) at October 14, 2008 07:48 AMYeah, tyj, good thing, huh? We were all prepared to call you "dipshit" Judith! Close call!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 14, 2008 08:35 AM