Suck On This

Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Relax, rightwingers, there’s also a prize for guys like you.

43 replies
  1. 1
    ScottF says:

    Oh, I expected that to be a link to the Darwin Awards.

  2. 2
    Xenos says:

    Don’t diss the Ignobles! The research might sound silly, but it is real science.

    The Cornerites deserve some sort of ideological Darwin Award. Oh look! They may already have won!

    (editing… ScottF beat me. There should be a Juan Valdez Award, for failing to drink enough coffee before posting)

  3. 3
    Ted says:

    Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize in Economics.

    Well, of course the Nobel Committee is biased in favor of liberals. No one will even sell dynamite to known conservative construction workers.

  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    This should be fun.

  5. 5
    Napoleon says:

    Great news. Now when Cookie says something stupid on This Week, like she did yesterday when she was on with Krugman, he can just slug her with the bag full of 10 million Swedish crowns instead of trying to reason with her.

  6. 6
    pharniel says:

    doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom!!!

  7. 7
    Comrade Peter J says:

    Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize in Economics.

    While I’m happy for Krugman, there’s no Nobel Prize in Economics.

  8. 8
    El Cid says:

    More proof of how all economists are just dope-smoking hippie extreme liberal fringe leftist Marxist pro-terrorist Muslim America-haters.

  9. 9
    boonagain says:

    Why does Sweden hate America?

  10. 10
    El Caballo de Sangre says:

    The sad thing is that this will somehow work against Krugman – that his anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush, and pro-Obama stances, not to mention his forewarnings of the current financial crisis AND prescient recommendations of policies that would have forestalled or avoided it, will invalidate for the dead-enders AND the both-sides MSM the real accomplishment here.

    His Nobel has NOTHING to do with his politics. It is in recognition of truly groundbreaking, and purely academic, work on global economics that will help us better understand the world we live in AND formulate the proper courses of action to deal with that world. IF those in power can be persuaded to listen to him among others.

    In short (too late, I know) the guy’s a friggin’ GENIUS and is an invaluable intellectual asset to American (and global) Civilization.

    Whose TV shows does he choose to be on? Olbermann’s and Maddow’s. Who does he want to be President? Obama.

    It’s time for all non-complete idiots, non-race haters, and non-crazy Christians to be made to see the error of their ways.

    If I were a Malkinite – or Malkin herself – I’d advocate regional camps/zones for those who won’t come along…WV (minus Morgantown of course!), Oklahoma and Idaho would make good regional facilities.

    But since I’m not, I guess we’re limited to trying to persuade our friends, families, and neighbors to be on the right side of the most important choice in a long, long time.

  11. 11
    Comrade Peter J says:

    Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize in Economics.

    While I’m happy for Krugman, there’s no Nobel Prize in Economics.

    I edit a comment and it gets marked as spam? While useful for some things, it’s a bit weird.

  12. 12
    Ereshkigal says:

    Right-wing "science" is numerical ideology, dry-labbed numbers hedged to resemble statistical importance.

    Ignobels are awarded to odd stuff, but odd stuff with actual scientific methodology to support it.

    Think of the two as the difference between dry-humping and actual sex.

    Very different stuff indeed.

  13. 13
    John D says:

    @Comrade Peter J: Given that the second sentence of your link reads

    It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics

    I think that saying Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics is perfectly fine.

  14. 14
    El Cid says:

    The only important scholarship that was ever done in economics was fantasy stuff in Ayn Rand novels. You can tell because the crazy man who ran our economy for many years, Alan Greenspan, believed all that stuff.

    And maybe some of the stuff produced by Milton Berle at a Chicago pizza shop. He came up with the schlock doctrine.

  15. 15
    Stuart Eugene Thiel says:

    The ever-classy Jonah Goldberg, at the Corner:

    I may as well get this over with — congratulations to Paul Krugman.

  16. 16
    Jvstin says:

    Krugman is even cooler since, as many of you know, he’s been outing himself as a science fiction fan for quite some time.

    Anyway, congratulations to him are definitely are in order.

  17. 17
    dr. bloor says:

    It’s only a matter of time before Easterbrook turns his attention away from debunking global warming to tell us how Krugman has it all wrong.

  18. 18
    Greg D says:

    Given that many of you were supporters of the "conservative right-wing economics" that led to this mess and will inevitably resurface when things cool down and cause another mess in the future, I wouldn’t be quite as smug as to declare your anti-Bush-ian sentiments!!!

  19. 19
    Greg D says:

    Sorry, but for those of you who are dumb enough to think that the market will take care of everything and that Obama will be able to solve anything…sorry…"GONG"!!!!

  20. 20

    This is great news! For McPalin!

  21. 21
    El Caballo de Sangre says:

    Fucking Easterbrook. Orson Swindle @ Every Day Should Be Saturday (if you’re a college football fan and you don’t read that blog, you should) used to blurb Matt Hinton who runs Dr. Saturday (if you’re a college football fan and you don’t read that blog, you should) as "the Easterbrook of the college game." That’s an insult.

  22. 22
    dr. bloor says:

    Given that many of you were supporters of the "conservative right-wing economics" that led to this mess and will inevitably resurface when things cool down and cause another mess in the future, I wouldn’t be quite as smug as to declare your anti-Bush-ian sentiments

    This would be stupid and collosally ill-informed had it been posted in the correct thread. Here, it is merely a non sequitur, which means you’ve improved your grade from "Epic Fail" to "Fuck the Heck?"

  23. 23
    Mr Furious says:

    I actually thought Krugman had already won in the past…

    And yeah, the Reuters headline "Bush critic Krugman wins 2008 Nobel for economics" is not inflammatory at all. His criricis of Bush and politics had fuck-all to do with what actually won him the award.

  24. 24
    crack says:

    Well, Slate is still happy he left.

  25. 25
  26. 26
    Shibby says:

    Dumb question..

    Are you talking about Gregg Easterbrook?
    Of ESPN?

    I know he’s written some stuff in support of global warming action.

  27. 27
    Elvis Elvisberg says:

    In all fairness, as Krugman himself has pointed out, a Nobel prize isn’t intended as a validation of everything a writer’s ever written.

    Still, expect that point to be lost on the wingnutosphere, as with the point that Krugman’s been right about everything in the last ten years, and expect to see lots of demonization of the socialist, America-and-freedom-hating Swedes.

  28. 28

    I love the igNobels, and while it’s easy to sneer at some of their research topics, anyone who teaches writing ought to love this winner from a couple of years ago: "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly." I use it every semester to try to convince my students not to use the thesaurus function for every third word. The official look of the study convinces them far more effectively than I can.

  29. 29
    gang green says:

    Why should the assholes get upset about Krugman’s win? They got mad as hell when Gore won one. To them, the Nobel has a definite liberal bias.

    Fuck ’em, with their faith-based economics, "science," and other feel-good hits of the year. This is just another Der Dolchstoß for them.

  30. 30
    oh really says:

    What a totally ideological pick.

    If there were any justice in the world, the prize would have gone to McCain/Palin for their work on economic ignorance among Republican candidates.

  31. 31
    Saul says:

    Easterbrook’s football column is solid, if pretty smug. His analysis of he game is very sound. If he would just drop the annoying alternate names he has for every team…

    As for debunking global warming, I thought he came around on that and now accepts that it is happening and man-made.

  32. 32
    SGEW says:

    I think I have a crush on Krugman. (blushes)

  33. 33
    dr. bloor says:

    Are you talking about Gregg Easterbrook?
    Of ESPN?

    The same. Gregg has felt obliged to make himself look like a pedantic ignoramus on a wide range of issues over the years. He’s a polymoron.

  34. 34
    Will Hunting says:

    Damn – my spoof Saul from last night is unmasked. I forgot to change back before that last post.

    With Obama so far ahead it was getting a bit boring around here last night, so I dusted off Saul from SN! and after a bottle of wine it was pretty fun. It is crazy how easy it is to write that "Heartland" drivel. I can’t believe that any of those trolls are real.

  35. 35
    oh really says:

    Oops! I meant the prize should have gone to McCain/Palin for their groundbreaking work on the Peter Principle.

  36. 36
    dr. bloor says:

    As for debunking global warming, I thought he came around on that and now accepts that it is happening and man-made.

    I guess. Of course, seeing the light prompted him to pen an article about "winners and losers" in the global warming catastrophe last year. If you own real estate in Buffalo or Siberia, you’re in great shape.

  37. 37
    Will Hunting says:

    I don’t hold that column against him. I happen to agree with the notion that even if we get a handle on emissions, a lot of damage has already been done. Understanding what that means from a practical standpoint will be important. We are definitely going to see a natural resource grab in the Arctic for example and poor coastal populations are going to suffer terribly. How the world handles these problems will define the next 200 years.

  38. 38
    Bill H says:

    One measure of Krugman’s brilliance is that when he speaks in a public interview, he uses language that a layman can understand. He doesn’t dazzle with jargon. Asked to explain to the audience what is happening, he explains to the audience what is happening. Those who are smart use jargon and display how intelligent they are. Those who are truely brilliant use everyday language and actually inform their listeners.

  39. 39
    jcricket says:

    As for debunking global warming, I thought he came around on that and now accepts that it is happening and man-made.

    Reminds me of articles from Ben Stein (although he did start as a Nixon speechwriter) and Pat Sajak (not kidding, he’s uber-conservative).

    Conservatives have given up the "judicious study of reality" when it comes to deciding what to believe and determined that "if liberals believe it, it’s false, unAmerican and I must reject it". Good luck with that.

    Republicans really are determined to be on the wrong side of history on everything, aren’t they? Global warming, evolution, proper way to regulate capitalism, healthcare, rights of gays, proper level of taxation, etc. Is there anything we can think of where liberals are on the wrong side of the facts?

    Drug war is the big one I can think of.

    Used to be gun control, but liberals have given that one up. I’m still not some big fan of guns, but even I realize most gun control does little to curb real problems (see drug war).

  40. 40
    dr. bloor says:

    I don’t hold that column against him. I happen to agree with the notion that even if we get a handle on emissions, a lot of damage has already been done. Understanding what that means from a practical standpoint will be important.

    No doubt. The problem is that his article contributes nothing in that regard; it’s far too grandiose in scope and facile in nature to be informative in any substantive way. For example, he tosses out the notion that Buffalo might become one of the nation’s most desirable addresses (and that Montreal might become "the new Poconos,") seemingly oblivious to the potential impact of GW on the Great Lakes region (significant).

  41. 41
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    The ever-classy Jonah Goldberg, at the Corner:
    I may as well get this over with—congratulations to Paul Krugman.

    Possibly he’s disappointed because his own pretend Pulitzer "nomination" didn’t go over so well.

  42. 42
    jbarntt says:

    Krugman deserves the prize for his work on international trade and finance. His work as a liberal columnist for the NYT’s is a different matter, but there is no Nobel Prize for that, at least not officially.

    Congrats to Prof. Krugman.

  43. 43
    Blogshop says:

    Conservatives have given up the "judicious study of reality

    :-)

Comments are closed.