Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Congratulations to Paul Krugman, and though it has nothing to do with his Nobel, you might notice also says that Bush administration policies caused the current financial crisis.
Quote:
US economist Paul Krugman, a critic of the Bush administration for policies that he argues led to the current financial crisis, won the 2008 Nobel prize for economics.
The prize committee awarded Professor Krugman the prize for work that helps explain why some countries dominate international trade.
A prominent economist who writes columns for the New York Times, Professor Krugman has long featured among the favourites to win a Nobel.
He is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University in the United States.
Professor Krugman, speaking by telephone to a news conference, was caught on the hop by the news.
"I rushed to take a shower so that I could take part in the press conference. I called my wife and I called my parents. I've not yet managed to get myself a cup of coffee," he said.
Professor Krugman has been heavily critical of US President George W Bush's administration.
It doesn't matter, the Reeps will vilify him anyway, with renewed vigor, just as they did Al Gore. Every rank and file republican in America thinks he knows more about economics than Paul Krugman and the Nobel Comittee put together.
Remember the days when US presidents and their aides used to win global laurels? Now it is our presidents' opponenets and detractors that win world acclaim. Does this mean we have turned some kind of a corner in the international perception of our prestige?
Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize for economics also. So who's views are more credible?
The award is not based on credibility of views, opinions or philosophy. It is based on the overall importance of the person's work in illuminating and furthering the discipline of economic thought. The comittee never implied that Friedman or Krugman were credible, but only that their work was influential and taken seriously by their peers.
It's refreshing that, for a change, the award goes to a person whose name is familiar to the general public.
I was no more perceptive than anyone else; during the bull market years [of the late 1990s] some people did send me letters claiming that major corporations were cooking their books, but - to my great regret - I ignored them. However, when Enron - the most celebrated company of its time, lauded as the very model of a modern business enterprise - blew up, I immediately saw the implications: if such a famous and celebrated company could have been a Ponzi scheme, it was very unlikely that the rest of U.S. business was squeaky clean. In fact, it quickly became clear, the bubble years were both the cause and effect of an epidemic of corporate malfeasance.
and so it goes....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
