Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

I'm going to attempt rational discourse. So far you guys don't seem to like it so much.

I'm not an economist. I don't read the guy. I'm sure he's the bees knees and the next best thing to sliced bread.

I simply make the observation that the word is out that the Noble prize is a little myoptic. I've also heard that Krugman has become a reliable shill for the left. So when I heard he got the prize, I laughed. It seemed funny to me.

Maybe I'm completely wrong. Glad to admit it. Let's let history be the judge. Or -- you can accuse me of trolling and downmod the crap out of my comments. I'm not looking for an argument. If you can understand that, we can talk reasonably. If not -- well, you always have that little down arrow to click on, right? That beats saying something intelligent.

Thanks for the reply.

View on HN

Again, you seem to be conflating the Nobel peace prize (awarded in Norway by one committee on the basis of inherently political criteria that you may or may not find "myopic") with the Nobel prize in Economics* , a prize given by a completely separate committee in Sweden on the basis of technical criteria that have been more or less uniformly judged uncontroversial, objective and non-political. While I'm sure there has been the occasional argument about who deserves it more, I'm not aware of anyone anywhere who's made the argument that the economics prize is a "little myopic", nor do I know who might be spreading that "word" either.

Basically: you are making a baldly partisan, political argument where none is appropriate. If you admit to not knowing enough to decide for yourself, the proper judge is not "history", but the experts on the committee who do know this stuff quite well.

* Strictly, not true. The economics prize wasn't endowed by Alfred Nobel, but added more recently using funds from the original trust. Or something to that effect.

How can a comment about a committee in Sweden be partisan? Are they running for some kind of office here? There's nothing partisan here. I'm not recommending a party, and heck, I like the Swedes.

Look -- I'm ignorant. I've admitted as much. Why not have a reasonable conversation about it instead of all the hand-waving and yelling?

As far as I'm concerned, I was making a blanket statement about Noble prizes in soft sciences and the humanities. It's a generalization. Probably wrong. Guess what? I still get to make it, and I still think it's funny. If you'd like to discuss it reasonably, I'm game.

I'm happy with waiting 20 or 30 years and seeing how Krugman's research does. Are you? Or do we have to settle this now for once and all?

Last I checked, economics is a field with a lot of opinions. How can you be so certain Krugman has such great ideas? Geesh. We're still debating Keynes and Smith, you have to admit there is some room for opinion here, right?

"I'm happy with waiting 20 or 30 years and seeing how Krugman's research does. Are you? Or do we have to settle this now for once and all?"

The awards committee cited papers Krugman'd written in 1979, 1981 and 1991 as the basis for their decision.

You can be certain Krugman had such great ideas because his work has been widely cited by other Economists and has been recognized through awards such as the Nobel.

That we're still debating Keynes and Smith only further indicates the far reaching impact of their work.

Yes I am aware how that it is typical for the committee to cite works from decades ago.

That we're still debating Keynes and Smith indicate that economics is not like physics -- it has a long way to go. We certainly didn't debate Newton for a century: it was too obvious he was correct. There is lots of room for opinion. QED

> I'm going to attempt rational discourse. So far you guys don't seem to like it so much.

I don't like it because it's off topic, as is this whole article. You seem like a pretty reasonable and intelligent guy to me, but there's a good reason politics is taboo: it tends to attract people that aren't so reasonable, that come to sites merely to argue and flame.

If you want to put it in terms of Krugman, consider his NYT columns. Instead of working on more insightful and cutting edge economics, we have a very sharp economist wasting his time saying that "Bush is an idiot". It doesn't take a genius to figure that out or write about it.

I'm with you davidw, but I just got tired of over and over again saying "it's off topic". I give up.

Out of curiosity, what exceptions do you take to left-leaning ideology? From an economic, social, or military standpoint do you find major problems with it, and why?(Just trying to drive understanding, not argument.)

Personally I find the left and right very willing to take away my freedoms. The right wants to take away my freedoms to protect me and to keep our nation's religious heritage. The left wants to take away my freedom in the name of the greater good, the environment, redistributing wealth, and being "fair" ("fair" is a word that is used to evoke emotional a response)

I don't listen to talk radio, I don't visit those sites that were mentioned, and I don't subscribe to anything more political that RealClearPolitics.com. So my comments were in no way meant to be controversial. I thought I had a right to share my amusement (and ignorance, for that matter)

In my opinion, we do the best when we get both sides arguing with each other to find solutions in most of the problems we have. As such, I treasure dearly both my conservative and liberal friends -- ideologies are never completely correct, but honestly comparing different opinions kicks ass, whether its politics or startups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com