On what should be the crowning day of his professional career, one hopes for his sake that Paul Krugman wasn't watching Morning Joe. For news of his economics Nobel was met by the crew with ridicule that even Mika Brzezinski couldn't resist. Andrea Mitchell tried to uphold the Krugman honor, but—as seen in the screencap—even she couldn't suppress a smile at the award's arrant absurdity.
Joe Scarborough piqued Mika's curiosity with his teasing of the news, while guest Jim Cramer saw the award as confirmation that America is well on the way to socialism.
View video here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Andrea Mitchell gave us some news from her Blackberry. And I'm describing this, not Andrea, but it is the most horrific news I think I have heard in some time. Was that a joke email or is it the truth?ANDREA MITCHELL: I don't think so --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: What??
MITCHELL: -- it's the New York Times on my Blackberry. [And what better source in Andrea's book?]
BRZEZINSKI: What, what, what??
SCARBOROUGH: It's got to be a lie. This is serious?
MITCHELL: This is for the work he did, presumably, at Princeton as an economist, not as a --
SCARBOROUGH: Paul Krugman—this is just grimmest news I've heard in quite some time—has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics!
Joe fought through his laughter to make the announcement, as Mika and Mitchell couldn't help but join in the joviality.
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.
Andrea did her best on Krugman's behalf.
MITCHELL: Wait a second, let me just say, before Paul Krugman was a New York Times columnist, he was—still is—a Ph.D. economist at Princeton. So, I haven't read the full announcement from the Nobel committee, but that is presumably it.
Can Mitchell seriously believe this was other than a supremely political pick by the lefty Nobel Committee? Does Andrea honestly imagine Krugman was awarded the prize for his academic work and not for his Republican-bashing and promotion of the road to collectivism on the pages of the Gray Lady? Don't make us laugh!
Note: According to the official Nobel announcement, Krugman was awarded the prize for "his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity." Right.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I guess there's one bright
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 09:33 ET by Dave DI guess there's one bright side in all of this. Once Bush is out of office they won't be awarding any more prizes so the committee can prove they hate Bush. (Well ok, they'll probably give Barry the peace award next year as one final FU)
And that will be...
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 09:37 ET by Sergeant ROCK.. on the first day that he's in office!
Before lunch I'd bet.
PALIN/McCain 2008
Good Bye GW-Who do we blame now?
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 09:44 ET by JIMMY1660allow me to love America
once GW heads to the ranch, and this totally falls apart, who does Nancy, and Harry blame?
I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should face water boarding
and find out what were there roles.
Once in jail, take Nancy and Harry as cell mates.
these awards meaning nothing, another historical plum, rotten.
Blame Bush - Round II
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 09:51 ET by Sergeant ROCKBush ain't out of the woods yet. When Obama's plans fail and doom the country, he and his buddies in Congress will continue to blame Bush.
Nevermind the evidence to the contrary. As the example of Pelsoi blaming Bush for the financial crisis that has the democRATS fingerprints all over it. Of course, it's easy to forward such lies when you have willing accomplices in the media.
PALIN/McCain 2008
For the next 25 years...
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:37 ET by Red Jeep... every problem will be blamed on failed Bush policies.
And the problems of the last 25 years!
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:41 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well now
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 09:46 ET by Hanoverfistmaybe he can afford a realistic toupee.
Toupee
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 09:51 ET by cvgbuckeyeYou got it hanoverfist; the only way that wig could look any worse was if it came with a chin-strap.
Krugman's Nobel Moment
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:07 ET by Dr_LibertyAs someone who has some "inside baseball" knowledge of academia and the economics field, I can say that this was an entirely political pick by the Nobel committee, much the way Gore was picked as an attempt to sway US elections.
First, I want to note that Krugman is a reasonably good academic economist. His writings on trade were solid and even very good, but nothing that changed the course of economic theory. There are "short lists" and "betting" on who will be next up for the Nobel in Econ and Krugman was a long shot at best. (There is probably a short list of two dozen really pissed off economists this morning, many who are getting old and realize that you cannot get this award posthumously.)
Second, what is interesting is that much of Krugman's "pop" (media op-ed) writing is contrary to his own academic work. His early work sees a reduced role for government in the economy while his op-editorializing is quite the contrary. He is much more of a Keynesian in the NYT than in the AER.
This is just a weird pick.
<insert witty signature here>
Dr. L:
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:13 ET by Mark FinkelsteinMany thanks for the very interesting information about the Nobel and Krugman's work.
Update
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:48 ET by Dr_LibertyI saw that Brad DeLong had Krugman high on his short list, but has been betting that Robert Barro would be the guy to get the prize for his work on econ development. Most lefty economists have put Krugman higher on their list than I have.
Here is one other bit of evidence that makes me think that the Krugman pick is more political than merit-based. (Again, I do think that Krugman's early work is very good.) Reading the news on Krugman I was struck by the absence of Avinash Dixit's name. Dixit is also a Princeton economist who studies a broad range of stuff. Dixit's ideas greatly influenced Krugman and vice versa. Indeed, there is something known as the Krugman-Dixit-Stiglitz model in international trade (dealing with a theory about how economic sectors respond to free trade). Stiglitz already has the prize (received 4 or 5 years ago I think). My surprise comes that Dixit wasn't given the prize alongside Krugman. It is very common for such prizes to be given jointly, but I have not seen Dixit's name mentioned yet. (I bet Dixit is irked.) That makes me think that the Nobel committee wanted to isolate Krugman as a political statement.
<insert witty signature here>
More thoughts on Krugman
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:20 ET by Dr_LibertyI have some thoughts below and a list of people who were considered good bets on winning the Nobel this year. Here is an additional thought:
The Nobel Committee is supposed to pick a winner based solely upon academic work. (And the BCS in college football is only supposed to pick teams for the national championship based upon the quality of their program -- sorry Boise, Utah and BYU. that's sarcasm) But being human beings it is difficult to ignore other stuff. It woudl be hard to imagine that the Nobel Committee did not know about Krugman's NYT writings and that picking him would highlight those writings more than his academic work in the 1970s and '80s. Given that there was a fairly decent sized short list to pick from and that most people did not have Krugman on that short list, it would seem to me that the Nobel Committee dipped into the pool a bit deeper to send a signal based upon current economic conditions. (Note: Krugman's trade advice from his early academic work is good; his current NYT advice for socializing the economy is bad.)
I don't know the inner workings of how a Nobel prize winner is picked, most specifically when the votes are submitted and if there are several rounds of voting. But it may well be the case that Krugman's stock rose with the recent problems in the mortgage and banking markets, though that is not what his early work was on.
<insert witty signature here>
Thank you Dr.
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 14:52 ET by cocodrieMy college credits are woefully limited and people like you really help and encourage me to improve my ability to understand things in practical terms.
@Dr. L; wouldn't it have
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 12:32 ET by Gene NEfmMIwatered down the "politisization" of the of the pick and therefor any potential helping of a United Socialists of Barack of America if it were a dual Dixit-Krugman award?
It would have
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 14:36 ET by Dr_LibertyDixit seems eminently qualified for a Nobel -- his range of academic scholarship is much wider than Krugman's and just as "meaty."
<insert witty signature here>
I read the three paragraph
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:24 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltsynopsis of Krugman's theory for which he was awarded the prize, and all I can say is, "well...duh!".
His theory and analysis of the free market is, according to that synopsis, very obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with macroeconomic theory.
I hope that there is more to his theory than coining another term for the previously known "economies of scale", because that's all it appears to be. Follow the link and judge for yourself.
I will defend Krugman on this point
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:27 ET by Dr_LibertyYes, Krugman's work may seem "well duh" to us now, but it was fairly innovative back in the 70s. Nobel prizes are usually given about 15 - 20 years (or more) after a significant innovation, which allows the findings time to work their way into the general lexicon.
For instance, Thomas Schelling's work on game theory revealed that people often times did not do things that would seem beneficial to a group because they were disadvantageous to themselves. Duh. (I refer specifically to Schelling's pathbreaking work on hockey helmets. Seriously.)
At the time Krugman's work was relatively innovative given that most economists were focusing on factor endowments and he changed the discussion to sectoral interests. Also note that the media coverage of a Nobel Prize "dumbs down" the winner's theories and ignores some of the more specific, technical innovations in the work. Krugman was in a debate with the Heckscher-Olin model at the time, which makes me wonder why Heckscher and Olin were not on the short list. (I'm not sure if they already won the prize or are dead.) I was schooled under the Heckscher-Olin model and not the Krugman model.
All that said, I still think Krugman is not making good sense in his NYT columns.
<insert witty signature here>
Morning Joe
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:30 ET by BlondeJoe must have had super high test in his cup this a.m., he was on an absolute tear. I really thought he was joking when he started about Krugman & the Nobel. With Gore, Carter, and now Klugman, they ought to rename this the Nobel Clown Prize.
Joe also ranted and ranted on about the lefty press (I believe he used the words running around with their hair on fire) caterwauling over the "angry" audience members at McCain/Palin rallies. How the lefties were hollering "Danger, Will Robinson" at the top of their lungs, all the while totally ignoring the same kind of hateful vitriol from the STAGE of the democrat events. Spot on, Joe.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Has anyone here READ Krugman's theory?
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:37 ET by Remixer96I know Krugman's articles in the Times are certainly liberal, but that doesn't mean he doesn't practice economics like a respectable professor.
I see a lot of criticism here about the "obvious" bias of the Nobel Committee so I ask, has anyone read Krugman's theory on what they're now calling New Economic Geography? Does anyone know of a theory that would better deserve the prize for similarly uniting two economic areas of study?
It seems that people here see that Krugman has been awarded the prize and have subsequently presumed the committee's bias. No one has made any effort (in the show, article, or comments) to justify why this must be so. If the committee had awarded the prize to a conservative, would that show an obvious conservative bias? To the point where one would simply scoff at the reasoning given by the committee?
I think this article is especially weak both in substance and implication.
Yes, I did
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:57 ET by Dr_LibertyAnd as noted above, I think that Krugman's work on trade is very good, though not earth shattering. I'm wondering why Avinash Dixit of the Krugman-Dixit-Stigler model did not receive it as well. The Econ Nobel is often awarded to two scholars (like the natural sciences) working on a similar topic.
And as I noted, Krugman may have been in the general arena of receiving the Nobel, but he wasn't considerd a "short list" candidate. The informal "short list" based upon economists betting and bidding (which they like to do) included folks like
Barro
Alchian
Demsetz
Feldstein
Sargent
Williamson
Tullock
Hirschman
<insert witty signature here>
Hey Mark Finklestein
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:04 ET by cvgbuckeyeThere is one man, probably one of the most Conservative voices of our times, who has been conspicuous by his absence in this entire presidential election and this entire economic mess and that is David Horowitz.
Where in the world has this man been and is anyone aware of any discourse, at all, that he has contributed to all of this? It seems to me that his positions on the influence of liberal education institutions would enjoy considerable play at this time.
Not only that but he would also draw an enormous amount of MSM hate and contempt for what I am sure would be his contemptuous views of El bin Obama.
cvg, I agree that Horowitz
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:08 ET by Mark Finkelsteincvg, I agree that Horowitz hasn't had a very high profile lately, but he's still toiling away. Have you check out his FrontPage lately?
Response
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:18 ET by Remixer96Dr. L,
I saw your response after I submitted mine. I didn't intend to ignore it outright, so I'll respond to it here.
1) That a number of economists were incorrect in their pool on who would win is intriguing and perhaps worth investigating, but not proof of an "entirely political" selection.
2) Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, which isn't determined by the same process or standards as the Nobel Prize for Economics, which is Nobel in name only, having been established by a separate bank, apart from the Nobel Foundation.
3) I agree that most of Krugman's editorializing seems to deviate from his research. However, I don't believe published inconsistancy is merit for disqualification from the Nobel for Economics. I would also hope the committee would make their judgments based on the scholarly work in front of them, not their best guesses of which Economic school he subscribes to.
4) Recent history has awarded the prize in pairs rather than singles, but going far enough back there have been a far greater number of single awards than double awards. So Krugman's choice is eye-brow raising, but far from making me entirely certain of anything.
Also I'd like to say that while I disagree with your conclusion, I do appreciate your explanation. Save for you Dr. L, I see little evidence of reasoning anywhere else in this article.
see my additional comments above
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:31 ET by Dr_LibertyI posted some additional replies to posts above that may add a bit of clarification to my thoughts.
My main point is that while Krugman's 1970s and 80s work was in the range of a possible Nobel Prize, it was a surprise pick and one that seemed to pass up a lot of other people that have been hovering around the top for some time, including some people who may not live long enough to get it (e.g., Tullock -- though I don't know how healthy he is).
Also, I am guessing that the Nobel Committee does know about Krugman's NYT columns and would realize that his pick would likely highlight those ideas more among the general public than his academic work. There just seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that there was some degree of political considerations in this pick. (Academics, even on the Nobel Committee, are not immune from political picking.)
<insert witty signature here>
Response
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:55 ET by Remixer96I'll give you that Nobel Committees aren't immune from politics, but I think it is disgenuine to entirely discount Krugman's prize as political (as the article above implies with its "Right" comment in the update).
It's also entirely unjustified, as is implied in the show and article, that Krugman's pick for the Nobel Prize implies taht the US is becoming socialist. Looking at Krugman's research or columns, the claim is more than a stretch. Whether you have the free market Krugman or Keynesian Krugman, both are a ways away from socialism.
And in other news, the
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:51 ET by fitzfongAnd in other news, the Nobel Committee gave special recognition to the 1962 Mets and the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers as "Greatest Teams Ever". With the litany of losers who have been "honored" recently...Carter, Trimble, Arafat, Gore, Krugman, etc....a smart person would run from this distinction like it was a fatal disease.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
This is a hoax, right? If
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:52 ET by d1carterThis is a hoax, right? If not, the value of the Nobel crashing faster than the stock market. OMG!!
Poor Krugman
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 12:17 ET by deus_ex_machinaI'm certain that he's just DEVASTATED at the thought of being mocked by Joe Scarborough.
Yeah, I don't know which is
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 12:30 ET by fitzfongYeah, I don't know which is more devastating...getting mocked by Joe Scarborough or getting "honored" by that pack of irrelevant Euro-weenies.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
I am largely amused.
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 12:21 ET by NL207I am largely amused. Krugman, whom I have had the opportunity to engage, no, make that 'destroy', in debate, could not argue his way outy of a wet paper sack. The Nobel committee has awarded a prize to this leftist stooge? A sad commentary.
And the Nobile prize, in science goes to this guy
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 12:29 ET by upcountrywaterwill it blend
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
If I got a Nobel Prize
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 13:54 ET by nkviking75If I ever got a Nobel Prize I'd keep the money and throw the award into the nearest fjord before flying home.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Horowitz
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 13:57 ET by cvgbuckeyeIt seems to me that David Horowitz could speak with more authority about William Ayers, than any one in the Conservative camp.
C'mon David. Where are you?
Why is this liberal bias?
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 16:01 ET by respectfulconservativeIf MSNBC is laughing at an outspoken liberal winning the nobel prize, wouldn't this be an example of conservative bias? You always claim MSNBC is a liberal network but this contracticts that claim.
I don't understand what this site is for anymore. Is it about combating liberal media or is just about general conservative reflections on the news?
One "conservative"
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 16:28 ET by Blondetirade does not "conservative bias" make.
Joe S. (as MSNBC's token conservative) is more erratic than Obama's campaign claims about McC.
The editors here just like to give us a little bit of fun occasionally....take that for what it's worth.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
missing a larger point
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 16:31 ET by candanceWhen the MSM does actually come off with a fair report it often gets recorded here in an effort to congradulate them. Sounds like this is one of those cases.
Depends on how they are laughing
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 16:49 ET by TheHistorianTheir laughing is not "that jerk won what?" type of laughing, but more like "look at how the Nobel committee stuck it to Bush again". And the latter IS media liberal bias!
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel
Paul Krugman is now $1.4 million richer
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 16:41 ET by TheHistorianI don't believe the prize is tax exempt http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html#d0e8872, so I wonder how Paul will like paying is taxes to the Feds, NY State, and NY City on this sudden windfall. Guess what, Paul? You are now "rich".
I also wonder if he will pay the additional $42,000 so that he pays the "Clinton rate" on the money instead of the "Bush Rate". Does anyone have the onions to ask him?
Or maybe Paul will claim it to be "capital gains" instead. After all, it is the product of his investment in trashing Bush and the US economy.
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel
One Further Thought
Mon, 10/13/2008 - 16:47 ET by TheHistorianIt would have been a more understandable award if it went to Ben Stein for his pioneering work on the "Ben Stein's Money" show.
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel