Get Krugman
Brad DeLong rounds up the most hilarious blogospheric commentary on the Paul Krugman Nobel Prize. My favorite is this one:
Jonah Goldberg teamed with an Anonymous Coward: Krugman couldn’t be more different. He routinely fudges facts and, when called on it, refuses to admit error. He never presents both sides of an argument dispassionately and then uses reason and observed experience to discern the truth. He consistently demonizes anyone who doesn’t agree with him. His shrill, hysterical voice trivializes honest differences and invites counter-attack rather than reasoned rebuttal. Plus he’s not even well-informed on many issues that fall outside his academic specializations. I know the Nobel committee doesn’t judge entirely on the basis of someone’s career, but Krugman’s Nobel should make them rethink this. He continues to use his NYTimes column in a way that diminishes the intellectual standards of his field. This does significant, long-run harm to what the Nobel Committee calls “Economic Sciences,” perhaps entirely offsetting the value of Krugman’s academic contributions.
I love the idea of a man whose last book accuses mainstream American liberalism of being a form of fascism complaining about someone else’s “shrill, hysterical voice.”
Meanwhile if you, like me, have read a lot of Paul Krugman’s popular writing but don’t know much about New Trade Theory or New Economic Geography, check out Ed Glaeser’s accounts which I found very enlightening.
29 Responses to “Get Krugman”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 14th, 2008 at 8:36 am
That book ought to hang like an Albatross of Mockery around Jonah’s neck for the rest of his career.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I love how they make baseless accusations with no examples. I’d like to know what Krugman has written that “fudges the facts”. But Jonah will never tell us.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Mmmm, fudge.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Yes, but never before with such care and blah blah…
October 14th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Or until he blesses the liberals, unaware.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I don’t agree with Jonah Goldberg at all.
OTOH, the first thing that flashed across my mind when I heard that Krugman won was that being a strong critic of the Bush Administration was probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for receiving the Nobel Prize. (Given the recent comments about American Literature).
Is this not true?
October 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I love the idea of a man whose last book accuses mainstream American liberalism of being a form of fascism complaining about someone else’s “shrill, hysterical voice.”
A book which, one can’t help but reiterate, compares Hillary Clinton to both Mussolini and Hitler on its cover.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Doesn’t DeLong know how to insert links?
October 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Timmeh: More than 30 times has the Prize in Economics been given to Americans.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
OK I’m confused… Goldberg just wrote this.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Jonah Golberg’s “Revenge of the stupid.”
October 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am
My favorite is Paul Mirengoff:
And this Power Line commenter:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Freddie
that’s the wingnut style. once in a while say something that sounds rational and evenhanded to establish credibility. soon they come back to form. michael savage and oreilly are the masters of this genre.
that post that you refer to has been superseded by a few more anti-krugman ones. look it up.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
There’s an informative piece at Reason about why Krugman deserves it: http://www.reason.com/news/show/129435.html
October 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I’m back to rail against the intellectual bankruptness of the American right.
Add to that worry about what’s happening to our meritocracy that has now elevated the likes of Mr. Goldberg to claim the title “intellectual”. He’s not very clever, extremely disingenous and too often alarmingly unable to see the limits of his cooked up arguments.
I know this is all ad hominem, but Goldberg brings this on himself when he talks about shrill unobjective voices.
His liberal fascist books has to be one of the most stupid books since the last Ann Coulter.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
being a strong critic of the Bush Administration was probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for receiving the Nobel Prize. (Given the recent comments about American Literature).
Is this not true?
It is not true. The last few winners in economics haven’t been notably critical of Bush.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I love the idea of a man whose last book accuses mainstream American liberalism of being a form of fascism complaining about someone else’s “shrill, hysterical voice
It boggles my mind that someone who has a job solely because of who his parents are should have the right to complain about anyone or anything. In a just world, Doughy Pantload would be flipping burgers.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
(Given the recent comments about American Literature).
The comments about American literature had nothing to do with Bush or even about American politics.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I think Professor Krugman made the point when he said (in reference to stalker Luskin) “Nobel Prizes are given to intellectuals,” he said, “and a lot of intellectuals are anti-Bush.”
http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-14/122395784216660.xml&coll=1&thispage=2
October 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“..his last book…”? His only book. Or “book.”
October 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am
He continues to use his NYTimes column in a way that diminishes the intellectual standards of his field… perhaps entirely offsetting the value of Krugman’s academic contributions.
So Jonah’s a economist now?
October 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
In a just world, Doughy Pantload would be flipping burgers.
Let’s not forget: D. Pantload, legacy admission at a women’s college.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am
No. Not directly. Being knowledgeable, intelligent, analytical, and caring are necessary conditions for receiving
a Nobel Prize. And it just so happens that you can’t be those things and at the same time *NOT* be critical of Bush or Republican policies.
I wish we could somehow turn around the right wing media’s framing of criticism of bush as a partisan liberal biased based phenomenon to one phenomenon rooted in intelligence and knowledge of the facts.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:07 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Thanks for the review!
viagra