The Name of This Band is Exploding Heads

by Henry Farrell on October 13, 2008

As Kieran notes in comments below, the comments thread to Tyler Cowen’s (perfectly reasonable) “Krugman post”: is pretty hilarious. But given Krugman’s place of pride in the wingnut demonology, I’m sure that this is only a mere scraping of what’s out there on the Internets today. It furthermore occurs to me that someone (i.e. Me) should do a comments thread to collate and conserve the _very bestest_ blogposts and comments on the Vast Nobel Prize Conspiracy. My “opening bid”:, from ‘derut’ at The Volokh Conspiracy.

Excellent. He was a pseudo Nobel prize. That he deserves. As his politics is pseudoscientific. Great. Now I can applaude. I am sure many of you have watched him on cable networks. Has anyone else noticed he seems a little off. He speaks like a mouse and his beady eyes have a strange stare. He looks like if someone droped a glass he would scream.

It’s the spellings of ‘applaude’ and ‘droped’ that give it that special something. Anyone able to top that?

Update: “Kathy G.”: had this idea before I did.



cosma 10.13.08 at 6:59 pm

Kathy G. is ahead of you on this, and there are some good contenders in the comments to her post. But naturally I like this title better.


rick 10.13.08 at 7:04 pm

From Volokh commenter EricPWJohnson:

“if you were a true student of his work, the last decade has been purely marxist political economic studies criticizing capitalism from A to Z as causing all the misery in the world.”


rick 10.13.08 at 7:14 pm

Its from the same commenter at Volokh, but I just couldn’t resist:

“Milton Friedmans work completely and totally debunks all of Krugmans – the committee noted Friedmans achievements in advising world leaders and seeing the positive results his theories had when actually used – Krugman was awarded a prize for calling someone stupid since late 2000.

Friedman may also win a real Nobel prize in the future in Mathematics – something that Krugman is lacking sorely in his 1911 model T 10 pager with static labor, demand and other – almost impossible to forecast in the real world -variables.”


Dylan Matthews 10.13.08 at 7:25 pm

From Donald Luskin (oh yes, him):

“The Nobel Prize is never posthumous — it is only awarded to living persons. So some great minds such as John Maynard Keynes and Fischer Black never received the prize in Economics. All that has changed. With today’s award to Paul Krugman, the Nobel as gone to an economist who died a decade ago. The person alive to receive the award is merely a public intellectual, a person operating in the same domain as Oprah Winfrey. And even as a public intellectual, the prize is inappropriate, because never before has a scientist operating in the capacity of a public intellectual so abused and debased the science he purports to represent. Krugman’s New York Times column drawing on economics is the equivalent of 2006’s Nobelists in Physics, astromers Mather and Smoot, doing a column on astrology — and then, in that column, telling lies about astronomy.

But what’s done is done. The only question now is whether Krugman will pay taxes on the prize at the low rates enabled by the Bush tax cuts he has done so much to discredit, or if he will volunteer to pay taxes at higher rates he considers more fair.”


rick 10.13.08 at 7:26 pm

This is addicting!

From some Freepers:

“Did Stalin or Hitler ever get a Nobel Prize, or am I thinking merely of Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” award?”

“The economics community has barely heard of this guy. He’s a lefty journalist!”

“They missed giving the prize to Karl Marx, so they’re making it up with Krugman.”

” ‘I’m reminded of what Tom Lehrer said about Henry Kissinger and the Peace Prize.’
For those of us who aren’t old farts, who’s Tom Lehrer? And Henry Kissinger? “


Rich Puchalsky 10.13.08 at 7:54 pm

Maybe the guy is trying to write like Chaucer.

Ich when hys glasse yt droped,
Ywis, thee crowd yt did applaude…


Dave Maier 10.13.08 at 7:56 pm

As I posted at the G Spot, here’s Roger Kimball:

[preliminary anti-Stockholm snark elided]

“[T]oday we have yet another illustration of Marx’s revision of Hegel’s version of the progress of history: things happen as it were twice: first as tragedy (Arafat) then as farce–witness this year’s Nobel Laureate for economics: Paul Krugman.

Yes, that Paul Krugman, laughing stock (well, one of them) of The New York Times’s editorial: the anti-capitalist, anti-American town crier whose hysterical maunderings about the economy and American society were embarrassing before they went entirely off the reservation and became merely part of the ambient left-wing static emanating from The New York Times. Krugman is not just a left-wing academic economist. He is a hard-left activist whose only claim on our attention is as a bellwether of a certain species of anti-American demagoguery.

Well, one must laugh to keep from crying. Meanwhile, Krugman will be $1.4 million richer–unless, of course, Barack Obama should be elected and start nosing around that “windfall” profit. That is not–not by a long shot–enough to make me wish for an Obama presidency, but it would be a pleasing consolation prize.

[UPDATE: It occurs to me on reflection that it would have been much more appropriate had the Nobel Prize Committee, since they were determined to honor a fantasist like Krugman, awarded him the Nobel Prize for Literature. I mean, he work is not more unreadable than many recent Nobel Laureates in literature, and it is just as untruthful.]”

See also here.


Righteous Bubba 10.13.08 at 8:01 pm

In the NY Times:

“Much of his popular work is disgraceful,” said Daniel Klein, a professor of economics at George Mason University who earlier this year wrote a comprehensive review of Mr. Krugman’s body of Times columns. “He totally omits all these major issues where the economics conclusion goes against the feel-good Democratic Party ethos, which I think he’s really tended to pander to especially since writing for The New York Times.”


par4 10.13.08 at 8:02 pm

LOL Rich


Chris Bertram 10.13.08 at 8:13 pm

Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media has a post lamenting that “this is a world” where someone is “proposing to create a public high school for gay, lesbian and transgender students” and where Krugman gets a Nobel. One of his commenters:

“It seems like the ‘Peace Prize’, the Nobel committee is more concerned about awarding the prize to the most left-leaning recipient they can find. Klugman’s pontifications in the NYT seem to be the actual criteria by which he was awarded this Nobel.”


sg 10.13.08 at 8:49 pm

Oprah Winfrey is a public intellectual???!!!!


Naadir Jeewa 10.13.08 at 8:51 pm

How about this:

How shocking. An American hating Soros toady endorsed by The Communist Party U.S.A. wins the Nobel Prize. It’s almost as if the committee has a political agenda…

Our government’s plan to nationalize the economies is supported by a man who claims Republicans are fascists. Ironic considering how Fascism works.


Naadir Jeewa 10.13.08 at 8:54 pm

Apparently, from MSNBC:

“SCARBOROUGH: I can’t even say it with a straight face. Let’s bring in Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money and author of Cramer’s “Stay Mad” book. Jim, is this a joke?

JIM CRAMER: Well look, Soros is now running the banking system, so why not let Krugman be the Nobel laureate? I mean, think about it —

SCARBOROUGH: Seriously: what a joke!

CRAMER: — the left has taken over your great country. You’re completely marginalized. We are now Eugene V. Debs, Part II.

SCARBOROUGH: We’re socialists now. We’re Marxists.

CRAMER: We just don’t want to teeter to Communism.”


Michael Drake 10.13.08 at 8:55 pm

“Much of his popular work is disgraceful.”

As opposed to Daniel Klein’s work, I guess.


Farren 10.13.08 at 9:08 pm

Rick, if you’re going to mock Freepers please don’t mangle words as badly as they do. Its embarrassing.

“This is addicting!”

Its [i]addictive[/i]. [i]Addictive[/i]. God I hate that error. Its almost as bad as people spelling “lose” “loose”.

Sorry to get so aggro about it. Pet peeve. God knows why.


Farren 10.13.08 at 9:09 pm

Imagine really emphatic italics where you see the annoying fucking bbCode above.

Now I hate myself.


John Emerson 10.13.08 at 9:12 pm

Peter Englund, spokesman for the selection committee, wrote a fine book called “The Battle that Shook Europe” about the Battle of Poltava in 1709, which put an end to Sweden’s great-power hopes and put Russia on the map as a big player. He’s not a faceless apparatchik by any means.


Raghav 10.13.08 at 9:35 pm

Farren: The OED straightforwardly identifies addicting as the participle adjective of the verb addict. It cites the following examples of usage:1939 Harper’s Mag. Nov. 644 A chemico-pharmacological search for non-addicting drugs to replace morphine and the other addictive ones.1965 Listener 23 Sept. 465/1 Lysergic not addicting.1970 Nature 22 Aug. 773/2 The use of methadone, a synthetic drug that is on the increase in New York. 1984 A. HAILEY Strong Medicine IV. xvi. 397 It was not addicting. Incredibly, adverse reports about its effect were almost nil.

So what’s the problem?


Jonathan Mayhew 10.13.08 at 10:19 pm

What’s wrong with “addicting”? It seems to be in common usage. Sure, it’s a back formation, but so what? Plenty of words started out that way.


Grammar Nazi flying in 10.13.08 at 11:26 pm

What’s wrong with “addicting”? It seems to be in common usage. Sure, it’s a back formation, but so what? Plenty of words started out that way.

The word ‘addictive’ is an adjective.

The word ‘addicting’ is a participle.

Aside from the important fact that the word isn’t listed in the OED, even if you were trying to use a word that doesn’t formally exist, you used the incorrect version.

[This] Demonstrative Pronoun
[is] Verb
[additive] <adjective required.

You made the error of using a participle without giving it a noun / pronoun to modify in a correct manner.

‘to addict’ transitive verb – to create dependency

“Tobacco addicts those who smoke it”. Although ungainly, this is grammatically correct. More usually: “Tom was addicted to gambling”.


The moment an economist stated “The Earth is an infinite resource”, and was taken as a credible member of his profession, the most prudent action would have been to section the lot recommending excessive ECT treatments.

Add to that advice “rational actor”; another amazing statement that should be consigned to a damp dark place and shunned for good.


Colin Danby 10.13.08 at 11:31 pm

That’s the problem with pedantry, man: once you start it’s real hard to get off it.


Alex 10.13.08 at 11:36 pm

Really hard.

I can stop any time I want.


mollymooly 10.13.08 at 11:47 pm

“As Kieran notes in comments below” was quite confusing; I thought Kieran was commenting on this very post of Henry’s. Which would have caused the universe to annihilate itself in a time paradox.


Righteous Bubba 10.13.08 at 11:47 pm

Can we maybe focus on the fact that an outright socialist who advocates depression era public policy all the time just won the Nobel Prize? I don’t care what he thinks about the Iraq war, I do care that he advocates compulsory programs in a broad scale to “sustain a decent society”. Can’t we all agree that we are looking right now at the result of government attempts to control the ‘decency’ of our society through economic policy and then wonder how this guy win’s regardless of his international trade theory?


David Margolies 10.13.08 at 11:58 pm

From quoted comment in 3: “Friedman may also win a real Nobel prize in the future in Mathematics…” Of course, there is (infamously, at least to us mathematicians) no Nobel prize in mathematics.

Several quoted comments talk about the taxes Krugman might have to pay on his winnings. But unsolicited prize money is not taxable income.


Michael Drake 10.14.08 at 12:12 am

This thread is addictivating.


beamish 10.14.08 at 12:30 am

“Powerline – “The Nobel Prize is just another example of an institution whose veneration once crossed ideological lines, but that the left has long since captured. Other such institutions include the NAACP, the New York Times, Amnesty International, and (though it was never really venerated) the American Bar Association. The left’s “long march” through these institutions has deprived them of their credibility and their status as honest brokers.”

Cafe Hayek – “I’ve talked to a number of people who are depressed and angry at Krugman’s prize.
For me, it is just another reminder that those of us who believe in liberty are in for a long time in the intellectual wilderness.”

Austrian Economists – “I have to get over my shock and horror and write a commissioned piece on this. But today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated.”

“Jules Crittenden – “I’m afraid I have zip to offer on that, except to say if the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences likes it and it isn’t about DNA, it must either support terrorism, hate America or be completely absurd.”

William Anderson at Forbes – “If Obama is elected and Krugman receives a high position in his administration, we shall see if Krugman becomes the first commissar who makes socialism work. I’ll be betting against him.”

[HF ed- HTML cleaned up at commneter’s request, and names of wingnuts added on my own initiative]


Jonathan Mayhew 10.14.08 at 1:01 am

Just about any present participle can be used as an adjective. You can use it as a predicate adjective. Why not? “This is amazing.” “This is addicting.” etc… The problem with grammar nazis is that they are often completely ignorant of grammar. Plus, they are nazis. Plus, I think it’s been established that “addicting” is in the OED. (See comment 18.)


PHB 10.14.08 at 1:02 am

Hmm, if the earlier poster was correct in saying that Krugman’s Nobel is really honoring Keynes, doesn’t that increase the standing of Krugman rather than diminish him?

The main reason that the Economics Nobel is considered second rate is that none of the recipients have had a popular reputation to rival Einstein or Currie or Rutherford or Churchill and the rest. The awards to Hayek and Friedman brought into question the credibility of the prize itself rather than enhanced it. Friedman was particularly laughable, a man who prated the virtues of freedom while working for a blood soaked dictatorship that had murdered the democratically elected leaders of the country.

At root, the bigger problem is that there really hasn’t been an economist of the stature of Einstein since Keynes and before him you would probably have to choose Adam Smith or maybe Riccardo.

And that is what I suspect really gets up the noses of the wingnuts. The award to Krugman can be interpreted in several ways but one in particular is to enhance the reputation of the prize itself. Krugman was probably the most famous living economist before he won the prize. In any given year there are probably ten or so strong contenders to choose from. Awarding the prize to the person most respected in the field would be safe but do little to enhance the reputation of the prize as a pseudo-prize originally invented to honor the Austrian school. Awarding it to Krugman while Bush is still in office is much more high profile.

And at this point, honoring Bush’s critics is surely a safe proposition. It is very hard to imagine any circumstance in which Bush’s reputation will be rehabilitated amongst the right, let alone amongst the population in general. Its not like Saddam Hussein is going to come back from the dead to prove Bush right. Even if Iran gets a nuke and destroys Tel Aviv the criticism is still going to be made that Bush invaded the wrong country.

This is the first draft of history’s verdict on the Bush Administration: Fail.


Walt 10.14.08 at 1:09 am

PHB, your point that this is one of the few people that they could give it to that would enhance the reputation of the prize itself is a good one.


engels 10.14.08 at 1:19 am

For a more rarified form of scholarly bitchiness, while Greg Mankiw doesn’t say a bad word about Krugman on his blog he does link to a nice little hatchet job on Krugman’s popular writing authored by the same GMU economist Klein quoted by Righteous Bubba above, which concludes with the following impressive piece of amateur evolutionary psychology:

Robert Nozick (1986) has suggested that “[t]he intellectual wants the
whole society to be a school writ large, to be like the environment where he did
so well and was so well appreciated.” Nozick suggested that “wordsmith” intellectuals
resent “capitalism” for not according them the high status they come to
feel entitled to from their experience in school. I am inclined to see such highstrata
statist intellectuals as indulging the mythology of society as organization
because that mythology gives structure and vision to the yearning to see oneself
as part of the governing set—a mentality betokened in phrases like “the best and
the brightest.” It is a mentality of those whose selfhood places them “near the
top,” and who from such high station gaze upward. That such a penchant would
be selected for in the environment of evolutionary adaptation is certainly plausible.
It’s good to be the alpha male or one of his close companions. To my mind,
Krugman typifies the profile. I find especially telling the enmity he holds toward Republicans in power. He seems to resent not being among or not being able to
identify with the people at the top. I suspect that Krugman’s ideological direction
has been determined more by a will to see oneself a part of what one perceives to
be society’s leadership than by infatuation with the people’s romance. That penchant
contributes to his dedication to a kind of politics that, given his setting and
personal history, serves him in pursuing such sense of self and that, by delineating
and inculcating a “society” that like an organization has and requires “leadership,”
accommodates the governing-set mentality itself.


notsneaky 10.14.08 at 1:48 am

“your point that this is one of the…”

yeah but the other points stink. Anyone who thinks that the Nobel Prize for economics lost credibility when they gave it to Friedman because he “worked for” Pinochet is just displaying their ignorance.


engels 10.14.08 at 2:00 am



gandhi 10.14.08 at 2:11 am

Tim Blair:

Like all wealthy lefties, Krugman is very worried about the gap between rich and poor… Krugman just picked up $1.4 million as the stockmarket tanked. The gap – the terrible, sinful gap – grows ever larger.


John Emerson 10.14.08 at 2:12 am

“Alleged economist wins Nobel Prize”: non-ironically collects a lot of the stuff you’re looking for.


Walt 10.14.08 at 2:12 am

Wow, Mankiw has really turned into a hack, hasn’t he?


jjs 10.14.08 at 2:17 am

I am inclined to see such highstrata
statist intellectuals[…]

Does anyone else just tune out completely at the sight of the word “statist?” Is there a word that more strongly correlates with boilerplate sub-Rand libertarian drivel?


Walt 10.14.08 at 2:17 am

I’m surprised Mankiw is so bitter. He has to think his own chances have gone up, since if maybe Krugman was not hurt by dabbling in politics, maybe Mankiw’s own foray into wallowing in it will be forgiven.


John Emerson 10.14.08 at 2:18 am

Those guys are so pathetic. On the one hand, they’re obsessed with the money. On the other, they assume that Krugman is a radical egalitarian, which he’s not at all. And on the third hand, they assume that he’s going to spend that money on hookers and blow the way they would if they got it themselves. Something that strikes me as unlikely — not that there would be anything wrong with that.


not feeling very nymous 10.14.08 at 2:52 am

they assume that he’s going to spend that money on hookers and blow

Right; it’s well-known that that’s how prize money goes in the natural sciences, but as an economist Krugman will follow the life-cycle hypothesis, which at current interest rates comes to a bottle of good scotch and a lap-dance once a year for the rest of his life.


not feeling very nymous 10.14.08 at 2:53 am

OK, it’s lame to follow up a post like that with a link, but here it is:

(Whatever happened to preview?)


Jon H 10.14.08 at 2:53 am

“But unsolicited prize money is not taxable income.”

Of course it is.


Johan 10.14.08 at 4:01 am

Emerson, you got the wrong Peter Englund.


snuh 10.14.08 at 4:20 am


Order of Magnitude 10.14.08 at 4:40 am

[aeiou]The choice was a blatant attempt to influence the US elections in favor of “The One.”

In this field, my favorite is the regular pre-US election Lancet feature on how 100 million Iraqis were killed and ten billion displaced by the invasion, etc (and don’t you, for a moment, believe these numbers are exaggerated!).

It should come out in the next issue, as they like to have about 2 weeks of incubation time in the MSM before Election Day.


Walt 10.14.08 at 4:44 am

Boo-hoo, OoM. Everyone’s picking on you. Go run and tell your mommy that the mean liberals in Sweden won’t pick you for their team. Being a liberal, I’ll feel a little bad with the knowledge that you’ll be crying yourself to sleep the night of November 4th; but only a little.


jjs 10.14.08 at 4:56 am

Who would even go and mention the Lancet around here? I’d sooner go look in a mirror and say “candyman” a bunch of times.


Order of Hackitude 10.14.08 at 4:57 am

[aeiou] No friend, I will not be crying. I am resigned that “The One” will win the election. Further, there will a wipe out in Congress, too. The Republicans are exhausted and a few years in the wilderness will do them good. This, too, shall pass, once a new generation experiences what a Carter-like presidency does to us all.

Now, clearly I don’t expect much agreement in a Euro Socialist conclave such as CT, and I learned from experience what your supposed ‘tolerance’ is worth.

Krugman was chosen for his rants against the Republicans and American exceptionalism, just like Carter and Gore before — they are the only Americans the Nobel Committee seems to like.

As I said, I am looking forward to the next issue of Lancet.

PS. Clearly I don’t expect much support in a Euro Socialist conclave such as CT, and I learned from experience what your supposed ‘tolerance’ is worth.


John Quiggin 10.14.08 at 5:03 am

I must say, there’s an impressive irony in the use of the ‘nym Order of Magnitude here. Perhaps you could adopt ‘Economic Reality’ as a sock puppet.


Colin Danby 10.14.08 at 5:04 am

The preferred term is “that one,” Oom. And Krugman was quite bitterly critical of Obama during the primaries.

But this line of analysis shows great promise! Milton Friedman in 1976, Gary Becker in 1992 … yep, transparent efforts to elect Democrats.

Anyone can play:


Order of Hackitude 10.14.08 at 5:10 am

John Q: I adopted Order of Magnitude after reading a howler by Henry when he was wrong by about an order of magnitude comparing the wars in Iraq and Vietnam.

[HF ed: as I have never written a post comparing the magnitude of the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, I am leaving this troll-comment undisemvowelled, the better that it may be cherished by Posterity.


Walt 10.14.08 at 5:13 am

The 2004 award went to Kydland and Prescott, whose theory of the business cycle is that workers are unemployed because it’s no longer worth their while to get jobs. Plus, Prescott endorsed Bush’s tax cuts on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. I’m thinking that the Nobel might have just have been that extra push Bush needed to win Ohio.


snuh 10.14.08 at 5:27 am

OoM, ok so i get the wingnut critique of the timing of the lancet piece, in that it did come out shortly before the election. but isn’t the nobel for economics always announced at this time of year? i’m not sure i get your point.

also, how many undecided voters will be all, since krugman won the nobel in economics, i must now vote obama? seems a tad unlikely. possibly they gave krugman the nobel simply because he deserved it.


Order of Hackitude 10.14.08 at 5:40 am

[aeiou] snuh:
1. With the Nobel, it’s the choice of recipient IMHO.
2. WRT the Lancet it’s the fact that such articles appeared TWICE (before the ’04 and ’06 elections) and that they received expedited reviews to allow them to appear just at the right time (expedited review in the medical literature is more properly used for a groundbreaking MEDICAL finding). There were problems with their sampling methodology etc, but you get the point.


David Margolies 10.14.08 at 5:51 am

To 42 and 44:

Wow, when I took tax law, Nobel prizes were not taxable, but they seem to have changed the law in 1986:


Colin Danby 10.14.08 at 5:58 am

Just to piss off James Buchanan.


John Quiggin 10.14.08 at 6:25 am

“here were problems with their sampling methodology etc”

After looking up “methodology” in a good dictionary, you might want to read a few threads here and realise what a fool you’re making of yourself (though that has been pretty much par for the course since you started).


AlanDownunder 10.14.08 at 6:39 am

I don’t want to sound reacting and I hope I haven’t been inattending (and don’t accuse me of being unresorting to a dictionary because none is existing nearby) but, in all levelingness, is addict a transiting or intransiting verb?


Dan 10.14.08 at 8:25 am

“[T]he terror attack could even do some economic good. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. … Rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending. (New York Times, September 14, 2001)”

Yeah, I think ‘alleged economist’ isn’t too far off the mark.


snuh 10.14.08 at 8:25 am

1. With the Nobel, it’s the choice of recipient IMHO.

and what, exactly, is the mechanism that converts a nobel for krugman into votes for a democratic candidate that krugman did not support in the primaries? it seems like a bit of a stretch.


Lex 10.14.08 at 10:49 am

If y’ask me, the suggestion that some Swedish dudes picking Krugman is an attempt to swing the US electorate towards Obama is prima facie evidence of mental incapacity. I mean, on what tiptilted planet is that supposed to work?


John Emerson 10.14.08 at 11:07 am

I say it’s a last-ditch effort of Hillary PUMAs to sabotage Obama.

But everything is really about that fake Lancet article claiming that “innocent civilians” were being killed. Those motherfucking “civilians” were almost all guilty, guilty, guilty!


Alex 10.14.08 at 12:10 pm

Speaking of which, I feel we need to canvass David “Co” Kane’s opinion of Krugman’s Nobel. (Because I’ve got “Co” Kane, running around my brain…)


ajay 10.14.08 at 12:17 pm

in all levelingness, is addict a transiting or intransiting verb?

It’s a tricky one, because it’s almost never used in the active voice. We say someone is addicted to something, without really specifying who or what has done the addicting. But Merriam-Webster says it’s transitive. Like “attach”, I suppose.


Righteous Bubba 10.14.08 at 12:51 pm

Two from RedState (the first two!):

No Its Not Political
bobbymike October 14th, 2008 at 1:57 a.m. CDT (link)

Yasser Arafat PEACE PRISE. Ya the Nobel Committee is all about rigorous something and it is not intellectual honesty right Mr. Gore, Mr. Carter and a whole host of far left writers that even the NYT Book Review says was not deserving of winning and maybe there was a little left wing award leanings.

yeah right…
Jack October 14th, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. CDT (link)

The Nobel Prizes were set up for a lifetime of work not just a few months here and there.

Jimmy Carter? Al Gore? now Paul Krugman? I do not believe in conspiracies, but I believe in coincidences even less.



Ben Alpers 10.14.08 at 1:20 pm

I’m fascinated by the need that so many in the wingnutosphere apparently feel to label Krugman an anti-capitalist / socialist. Krugman is, of course, a Keynesian. Why isn’t that a sufficient term of abuse for wingnuts?

Do they absolutely need to see everything in the world divided into two–and only two–camps, one good, one evil?

Of course, this sort of thing is all over the place these days, what with so many on that side of the blogosphere apparently convinced that everything is evidence that Barack Obama is a Communist and a radical muslim and a Black Nationalist and a cat’s paw for Bill Ayers and…..

(OT: I miss preview!)


MarkUp 10.14.08 at 2:04 pm

” I do not believe in conspiracies, but …”

Volvo buys Ford?


Robin 10.14.08 at 2:04 pm

Krugman is, of course, a Keynesian. Why isn’t that a sufficient term of abuse for wingnuts?

Because, beginning a few months ago, we are all Keynesians now. Well, they’re crony capitalists, but Keynesian is a nicer term.


Righteous Bubba 10.14.08 at 2:18 pm

Megan McArdle’s post is just up, expect a payoff soon.


John Emerson 10.14.08 at 2:26 pm

Johan, I never considered that there might be two Peter Englund’s in a medium sized country like Sweden, especially since the one I mentioned is a member of the Swedish Academy. Father and son, maybe?

“Englund” just doesn’t seem like a common name. Not from “England”, I presume, but from “Eng” + “Lund”, I would guess (“little grove”?)


Farren 10.14.08 at 2:30 pm

I must admit to way to much schadenfreude about the reactions of cowboy apitalists about both current mess and Krugman’s prize. I’ve been trying to find the cell number of a libertarian programmer I used to work with who had a degree in economics and would patronize me terribly when I railed against Friedman and said Keynesian ideas would eventually be required to fix up the mess left by excessive deregulation and monetarism, just so I can tell her “I told you so”. Childish, I know.


ajay 10.14.08 at 2:40 pm

Respectively, Englund the History, and Englund the Economics, as they would be known in Wales. Apparently unrelated. (Born 1957 and 1950 respectively)

There are two M. Ridleys writing about evolution – Mark, who is an Oxford don, and Matt, who wrote “The Red Queen” and ran Northern Rock – and they were both biology undergraduates at Oxford at the same time, which got terribly confusing.


Righteous Bubba 10.14.08 at 3:06 pm

First of all, there is no “Nobel Prize in Economics” contained in the will of Alfred Nobel. The prize awarded was set up by the Swedish central bank and named in honor of Nobel. It’s called “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. To call it a “Nobel Prize” is to sully the name of the honored.

Secondly, while Krugman did good work in the seventies (trade theories otherwise known as mercantilism), which is mainly what won him this prize, he’s now a columnist and has become little more than a low-life, two-bit political hack.

To paraphrase Ghostbusters: “…[his] theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, [his] methods are sloppy and [his] conclusions are highly questionable…”

Unfortunate that he should win now because it may lend credence to his soc1alist arguments many of which are what got us into this mess in the first place.

Posted by Nick | October 14, 2008 10:56 AM


John Emerson 10.14.08 at 3:37 pm

The true Nobel Prizes, which have gone to very ordinary writers like Pearl S. Buck, Johannes V. Jensen, and Erik Axel Karlfeldt, are not exactly a gold standard.

But I have played the “Not A Real Nobel Prize” game myself many times, whenever some conservative jerk gets the prize. I contain multitudes.

Myrdal denounced the prize, and some anti-Krugmanistas cite Myrdal, whereas other denounce Myrdal for being a Communist.


Dave Maier 10.14.08 at 4:30 pm

In the small but (relatively) righteous Wittgenstein-scholarship community there are two David M. Finkelsteins, and I think they both went to the same school (one is older though).

Also, I think that if I were to inject you with heroin at regular intervals, eventually I would thereby addict you to heroin. But that would be mean.


pär 10.14.08 at 4:51 pm

every swedish citizen is a socialist (actually, were all named Peter Englund). our great leader Pol Nobel set up the the prize to help further the cause; they wouldnt dream of giving it to someone because of their scientific work, so its obvious that comrade krugmans columns in NYT earned him the prize; this will of course help Vladimir Obama win the election.


Colin Danby 10.14.08 at 6:45 pm

All your economist are belong to us.


pär 10.14.08 at 7:10 pm

were aware of all economic traditions


Righteous Bubba 10.14.08 at 7:19 pm

Some bozo at TownHall (more craziness at the link)

Krugman Receives the Ultimate Insult: The Swede’s Bozo Prize for Leftist Stooges.
Posted by rycK on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:03:34 PM

The New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers [1] has a 90+ year history of apologizing for Communism, propping up losers, dictators and despots in their opinion columns and scrounging for new ways to reinvent Marxism. The Times has praised a swarm of disgusting parasites who parade as ‘leaders’ in the world and issues ‘prizes’ in many fields for practicing far leftist politics. Today, Paul Krugman is disgraced, internationally, and anointed with the Mantle of Stooge as defined by the Swedish Academy.[2] This Academy is besotted with political choices for prizes. [3]


engels 10.14.08 at 11:42 pm

William Anderson (Forbes) again:

This is not as tragic a moment in western civilization as the sacking of Constantinople in 1453 or the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, but it suffices as one of those sad moments we will regret over time.


terence 10.15.08 at 7:39 am

I’m just surprised no one’s suggested invading Sweden yet. Surely, it’s the free world’s last hope!


Martin Wisse 10.15.08 at 10:13 am

Anyone who thinks that the Nobel Prize for economics lost credibility when they gave it to Friedman because he “worked for” Pinochet is just displaying their ignorance.

I think you mean “has a functioning brain”.



Martin Wisse 10.15.08 at 10:14 am

I’m fascinated by the need that so many in the wingnutosphere apparently feel to label Krugman an anti-capitalist / socialist. Krugman is, of course, a Keynesian. Why isn’t that a sufficient term of abuse for wingnuts?

Because they’re idiots, morons, incredibly clueless about everything and everyone, intellectually incurious, just not very bright.

Comments on this entry are closed.