In his blog, "Conscience of a Liberal," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman credits economist Shawn Kantor of the University of California at Merced, as well as two other authors, for their work on a paper called "Politics, Relief, and Reform: Roosevelt's Efforts to Control Corruption and Political Manipulation During the New Deal."
Krugman won the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics. A column of his will run in Tuesday's paper, discussing how actions that state governments take to solve their budget problems could actually run counter to any efforts the federal government makes to fight the economic crisis. And, Krugman says, state governors who slash spending in a time of recession do so "often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation's economic future."
"Conscience of a Liberal"...an oxymoron with the emphasis on "Moron".Paul Krugman is an example of the worthlessness(symbolism) of "The Nobel Prize".
I knew that blog title would bring a comment like that from the peanut gallery.
Regarding Dr. Kantor, it's nice to see a Valley scholar recognized for his good work.
Brian you think your comments have any value?
Everyone's comments have value, Rich. Whether you agree with them or not.
That's a bit of an oversimplification there, Tony.
We've all seen plenty of comments in this forum holding more hate and vitriol than substance.
As far as Brian's comment here, he certainly didn't do much more than call someone a moron and question the validity of the Nobel prize system, sorta.
In fact, I'd be surprised if Brian is calling this man into question for anything other than the label that he's a "liberal".
It appears Mr. Murray's mind completely closed down after reading the word "liberal". As usual it was successful, his mind is closed so tight nothing's going to get through. Too bad we can't turn his "gift" into computer software. With a firewall that impenetrable, nothing could get through. Now that would be useful. I'm with Rich on this one. Without stating how the Nobel Prize is worthless and what portions of Krugman's work don't qualify Krugman for it, then Murray's words hold nothing of value.
I can do it too. "I don't like math therefore it is worthless." Tony, how much value does that statement have... 'cause I think that statement is really going to be beneficial to the blog.
Tony you find value in Brian's comment? I guess I agree, "0" has a value after all.
I suppose Brian's comment has some value. It's all anyone is talking about since he posted it, with one exception from Mike who actually addressed the topic.
I'd like to add congratulations to the liberal with a conscience for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Based on the subsequent posts above, apparently I should have said that everyone's comments here have equal 'value.'
I do get more out of Brian's comments than I do out of many others' comments here. Paul Krugman is a major celebrity and Prof. Kantor is a rising star; UC Merced has attracted a very high quality of faculty and it was great that Prof. Kantor and his paper got such a high-profile mention, it's invaluable exposure. But anyone who's studied Paul Krugman's career knows that Krugman has long had a split public personality: the respected academic and the sputtering ideologue.
Krugman's Nobel prize was for technical work that had absolutely no relation whatsoever to the polemic diatribes that make up his NYT columns, and presumably his blog content too.
For Brian to imply that Paul Krugman is a 'moron' based on Krugman's NYT op-ed archive is perfectly understandable to anyone who's regularly read Krugman's writings. I don't personally fault the Nobel committee for Krugman's selection this year because as I mentioned before I see a big difference between the technical scientific work they cited for the award, and the transparent political agenda of Krugman's syndicated columns. But to see that other informed, critically-thinking people such as Brian very much perceive diminished worth in the Nobel Prizes generally as a result of the selection of people like Krugman, is very valuable.
I can't say as much for Brian's critics. Except perhaps that it's also 'valuable' to see the extent of intellectual intolerance among so-called 'progressive' opinion-posters on this site.
The paper Krugman acknowledges is an academic monstrosity, Brian can be forgiven for not reading it. My thumbnail sketch; after 30 years of 'conservativism' unleashed, our nation needs to build a better bread-line...
Tony: If Murray had answered with a comment such as yours, then it would have had value. You laid out your reasons for your criticism of Krugman. That has value. It shows you actually looked at the issue and not just the word liberal. I saw no "intellectual intolerance" here by anyone. I only saw intolerance for Murray's mudslinging with no support for his opinion. Were it his first time it would have not drawn such intolerance; it's just getting old.
Thanks Tony for the kind words and to the mindless liberals who lap up this "Government is the Answer" bilge...Happy New Year.
For Brian to imply that Paul Krugman is a 'moron' based on Krugman's NYT op-ed archive is perfectly understandable to anyone who's regularly read Krugman's writings.
Only if you're a right-wing ideologue who thinks this is a media-caused recession. Krugman has been on the mark more than almost any other economist for a long time now. Personally, I'll take the Nobel Prize winner over the opinions of some guy on the internet 99 times out of 100.
Frankly, I doubt that Brian even looked at Krugman's blog. The word "liberal" in the title was probably all it took to set him off. The fact that you think his posts, which generally consist of one-liners and sound bites, represent "critical thinking" (in constrast to his "critics," presumably including me) only further discloses your own bias.
The paper Krugman acknowledges is an academic monstrosity
It's actually not that bad for an academic paper. Though in fact I just read the intro and conclusion - I'll leave the middle part for the wonkish-types to dissect. It describes how came to be in the best interests of the ruling Democratic party in the 30's to curb the rampant corruption that used to be associated with relief efforts for the poor, at a time when the federal government was getting into the business of providing such relief for the first time, and in a big way.
There are lessons for us today, as the federal government is again about to embark on a major relief/reconstruction effort, as Krugman points out. It is important that the distribution of federal spending be as transparent, even-handed and "pork-free" as possible. The recent shoveling of billions of dollars into Wall Street by Hank Paulson is a good example of how not to do it.
If I understood my printer instructions correctly, it would have made a 30 page document. But the reading of the document was not requiring excessive concentration or knowledge of overly academic or bureaucratic English. The monstrosities of commentary showed up on the beehive. Happy New Year!
Mess with the "Bee Hive" you will get stung!
"Bring it" Conservatives
Happy New Year!
"celebrity", "moron","sputtering ideolouge"
"transparent political agenda" thank god for
Tony and Brian's "critical thinking"...well, after all,
they just fell and are catching their breath.BTW
That was a turnip truck fellas, and you were taken
for a ride.
Really orange, that truck built by Ayn Rand, Reagan,Ginrich, House of Rush et al,crashed and burned.
Hey Brian, I just finished reading The Black Swan by Wharton finance grad & PhD Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2007) and this was in the last chapter:
"After seeing these two [economists Markowitz & Sharpe, in 1990] win the Nobel Prize, I made a projection: Anything can happen -- Anyone can become President."
Thought you might get a kick out of that!