I didn't think people still took Paul "The Bigger the Bubble the Better" Krugman seriously anymore.
"The Bigger the Bubble the Better" ? What is this in reference to?
You know, the kind that say that vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, evolution is just a theory, Covid-19 is a scam by the globalists to better control people, ...
Wake up, sheeple!
/s
The Nobel Prize people seem to think it is:
* https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/
> It wasn't funded by Nobel, and it isn't issued by the same committee.
It is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences:
> Every year, the academy awards the Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, the Crafoord Prize, the Sjöberg Prize and several other awards. The Academy maintains close relations with foreign academies, learned societies and international scientific organizations and also promotes international scientific cooperation. The Academy of Sciences is located within the Stockholm region's Royal National City Park.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Swedish_Academy_of_Scien...
* https://www.nobelprize.org/about/the-economic-sciences-prize...
The same folks who do physics and chemistry.
> Each September the Academy's Economics Prize Committee, which consists of five elected members [...]
> Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economics derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Ludvig Nobel. [...] saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econ...
He is one of the most influential academic economists by number of citations, started a whole new field of Applied Economics (New Economic Geography).
His textbooks (including Econ 101 and International Economics, 12 editions since 1987!) sell very well, which must mean that they are well regarded by the professors that assign them.
In policy debates around the response to the Great Recession he revived the Liquidity Trap idea central to which was admitted as valid by the central banks and formulated a modern theoretic explanation for it (instead and in addition to the old IS-LM).
In his punditry at the New York Times and elsewhere he has represented the mainstream/orthodoxy of economic opinion. The liquidity trap was controversial initially, but it is well accepted now - by central banks, policymakers in governments and economists in the private sector.
If you think he is outlandish, you have to check your assumptions to what other academic economists think, and although it might different in style and presentation it will be the same.
He is hated intensely for his politics (he has a book called a "The Conscience of a liberal" and hasn't held back criticising people like George W. Bush, Trump and Putin) and by followers of heterodox economic schools and crypto-enthusiasts. It is your loss to ignore his insights.
His NYT opinion articles are mainstream/orthodoxy according to what measure?