That’s how Princeton economist and NY Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman described his day so far today, which began with an early morning phone call informing him that he was this year’s only winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. He’s now $1.4 million richer. If it were any other economist, I’d have added “and a lot more famous,” but with Krugman, I’m not sure that’s true, since he already has about as high a public profile as an academic can have.
Congratulations to Professor Krugman!
Please share widely!
Expect bellyaching from the Republicans about how “politicized” the awards are because this follows up on Carter and Gore by going to a prominent critic of the Bush Administration. Added by explanations that no this isn’t really a Nobel Prize…
<
p>It never occurs to them that Krugman would receive this award because he’s good at economics, and he’s criticizing people who are astoundingly bad at it. Good for Paul!
I think he’s a great economist, but only an OK columnist (except when discussing economics; those articles tend to be very strong).
<
p>I think he should stick to his knitting; his non-economics writings diminish him.
… it offers some analysis from a perspective that doesn’t rely on access. As he has said in the past, the figures he needs to do his reporting are in the public domain, so administration officials can’t play games with tying his access to officials to the tenor of his reporting. I don’t have to worry about him protecting a source or slanting his coverage in order to protect his access.
<
p>Of course, there was a time in this country when the public wouldn’t have stood for an administration that limits access according to a ‘slant’ litmus test and when the collective media would have excoriated any attempt to do so.
Krugman I think is a print-version of Olbermann. The two are kind of in the vanguard of people who’ve decided to step away from the relaxing weasel language that had dominated left-wing punditry for so long. Hence the affection for him.
been reading his blog since day 1 and read some of his old books.
<
p>but I think he’s known more for his NYT columns and criticism of the Bush Admin. than his contribution to new trade theory (which was primarily during the late 70s/80s, I think).
<
p>So it was a political move, I think, but still well deserved and I’ll look forward to the newfound gravitas behind his commentary.
or even willing to separate Krugman the columnist with Krugman the Princeton economics professor. Unless there are a bunch of contributors swinging here in high-level international economics circles, I suspect few know much about Krugman’s contributions or whether he actually deserves his Nobel. Sheesh.
I like his columns too, but where he really shines is in his work explaining the dismal science to the intelligent lay reader.
<
p>I’m thinking in particular of his book, the Accidental Economist, which is at once entertaining, engaging, and informative. Try doing that on any topic, let along the murky, jargon-y, and counterintuitive world of economic theory!
<
p>(Note: Obviously where he really shines is in the place he has won his Nobel laurels, but I’m not an economist and won’t pretend I am familiar with that body of his work.)